In this series of blog, we will continue to discuss certain considerations for an acquirer of a publicly-listed target when deciding whether to proceed with a take-over bid or a plan of arrangement.

See Chinese version below [中文版参阅下文].

• Threshold for Success. A plan of arrangement typically requires approval by at least two-thirds of the votes cast by shareholders at a shareholders’ meeting. A take-over bid must be conditional on a simple majority of the securities being tendered into the bid. So, the threshold of success for a bid is slightly higher, since it requires support from more than 50% of all of the securities held by persons other than the bidder, whereas approval of an arrangement requires only two-thirds of the votes cast by shareholders at a meeting.  Accordingly, it may be slightly easier to obtain shareholder approval of a plan of arrangement.  Advantage > Plan of Arrangement
• Fiduciary Outs. In a transaction structured as a plan of arrangement, the target board’s fiduciary out typically expires following receipt of shareholder approval of the transaction. For a take-over bid, the target
  board’s fiduciary out typically continues until the bidder takes up and pays for securities under its bid. If there are regulatory approvals that are expected to take a significant amount of time to obtain, the plan of
  arrangement structure provides the bidder with increased deal certainty by eliminating the target board’s fiduciary out in the period following the shareholder meeting prior to closing.  Advantage > Plan of Arrangement (bidder) / Take-over bid (target)
• Squeeze-out Mechanics. If a plan of arrangement is approved by the court, the bidder will be able to acquire 100% of the target’s securities (and squeeze-out any shareholders that did not support the acquisition) in a single step at closing. This may be an important factor in the acquirer’s debt financing. With a take-over bid, the bidder will generally be able to squeeze-out the minority shareholders of the target if at least two-thirds
  of its securities are tendered, but the squeeze-out will need to occur in a second-step transaction after the take-over bid is completed and is dependent on no material change occurring between the date of the original transaction and the date of the squeeze-out. Advantage > Plan of Arrangement 
• Ability to Extend. In a take-over bid the bidder can easily extend the bid in order to continue soliciting tenders if the minimum tender condition is not yet met. In contrast, the adjournment of a shareholders’ meeting can be cumbersome, and approval of a plan of arrangement is all-or-nothing – if the two-thirds shareholder approval is not obtained, the deal with fail. Advantage > Take-over Bid

要约收购还是安排计划: 主要考量因素 - 第二篇

我们将在以下系列博客中，对上市公司的收购方式的考量进行进一步讨论，特别是针对收购方是否采取要约收购还是安排计划的考量。

• 成功的门槛。安排计划通常需要获得股东会议上所行使的表决权总数的三分之二的票数。要约收购以多数证券接受收购为条件。因此，要约收购的成功门槛略高，因为它需要超过50%的收购方以外的证券持有人的支持，而批准一项安排只需要股东在会议上所行使的表决权总数的三分之二。因此，获得股东对安排计划的批准可能稍微容易一些。 优势>安排计划
• 受信义务例外条款。在一个安排计划形式的交易中，目标公司董事会的受信义务例外条款通常在获得股东对交易的批准后截止。在一个要约收购形式的交易中，目标公司董事会的受信义务例外条款通常会继续进行，直到要约人接受并支付其收购的证券。如果预计将需要大量时间获得监管部门的批准，安排计划由于可以在股东大会结束后的过渡期解除受信义务例外条款，从而提高收购方的交易确定性。 优势>安排计划（收购方）/ 要约收购（目标公司）
• “挤出”机制。如果法院批准了一项安排计划，则要约方将能够通过一个步骤收购目标公司100％的证券（并挤出不支持收购的股东）。这可能是收购方债务融资的重要因素。通过要约收购，如果要约的三分之二以上的证券被收购，那么收购方通常可以挤出目标公司的小股东，但是挤出需要在要约收购完成功后进行第二步交易，并且却决于要约收购日期和“挤出”合并日期之间无重大变化。优势>安排计划
• 期限延长。在要约收购中，如果尚未达到最低收购条件，则收购方可以很容易地延长收购时间，以便继续征求股东接受收购。相比之下，股东大会的延期会很麻烦，而对安排计划的批准则是全有或全无-如果未获得三分之二的股东批准，则交易失败。优势>要约收购