tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post1445000325249971872..comments2023-09-15T16:21:31.980+05:30Comments on INDIAN CORPORATE LAW: Indirect Acquisitions and Determination of Open Offer PriceUmakanth Varottilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438677982004444359noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-42395085055019514362009-11-11T15:27:47.016+05:302009-11-11T15:27:47.016+05:30Hi Avinash
It is an interesting interpretation of...Hi Avinash<br /><br />It is an interesting interpretation of an experienced lawyer. Unfortunately what most of seem to miss is the purpose behind framing such norms i.e. the intent. According to Barons business directory acting in concert refers to two or more investors working together to achieve the same investment goal-for example, all buying stock in a company they want to take over. What one needs to specifically understand here is that there is no mention about the timeline when the two or more were acting concert. This effectively means that the timeline is not critical and the goal or the end result is critical in the interpretation. Applying this meaning to the present context, you would be able to see that Ranbaxy has acted in concert and this has resulted in Daiichi’s acquisition of Zenotech.sridharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-30397703750233499592009-10-17T13:57:25.657+05:302009-10-17T13:57:25.657+05:30hi all, it was really a gud post.! i have a query....hi all, it was really a gud post.! i have a query. Mr. Avinash, you said "anterior in time",! how much anterior, just 26 weaks prior to announcement. keeping in the mind the objective of the regultion, can't we say that the both parts of the definition of "PAC" are independent. and for second part there is no need to prove common object!<br /><br />(I am facing the problem of indirect aquisition, where there is gap of just fifteen days between the date of acquisition and the date of the Public announcement to sh. holders of indirectly acquired company! with no other fact, dont you think its wise to keep in mind the interest of the shareholders.?)Robin Bhakhanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09133862102524881192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-33982740813586746822009-10-14T15:18:55.865+05:302009-10-14T15:18:55.865+05:30@ Lawman:
Thank you for your feedback. Will the S...@ Lawman:<br /><br />Thank you for your feedback. Will the SAT order become a rule? I shall hazard to predict that it will be set aside by the Supreme Court, assuming ofcourse the matter is agitated there.<br /><br />For now, we really cannot say for sure whether there was or wasn't any concert between Ranbaxy and Daichi with respect of Ranbaxy's acquisition of Zenotech Shares because SAT did not examine the matter. It assumed what ought have been established.Avinash Balasubramaniamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16079397960304873662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3202774368551476669.post-81648671345779290092009-10-14T12:58:25.082+05:302009-10-14T12:58:25.082+05:30Dear Avinash,
Many thanks for your post. It was a...Dear Avinash,<br /><br />Many thanks for your post. It was a very interesting read!<br /><br />If SAT order is made into a rule, it would undemine the whole rationale behind the 'person acting in concert' concept, and take it into an unintended trajectory altogether. <br /><br />Surely one cannot be deemed to be a person acting in concert with someone he was not associated with at the relevant time (i.e. when the transactio/acquisition happened). <br /><br />Keep up the good work, Avinash!<br /><br />Warm Regards,<br />LawmanLawmannoreply@blogger.com