Wrightson Limited
The recent target company statement issued by Wrightson
Limited in response to the partial takeover offer from Rural
Portfolio Investments Limited included references to a valuation
report prepared by Cameron & Company.
Wrightson advised shareholders that it had sought from its
advisers, Cameron & Company, a valuation report in addition to
the rule 21 report that was prepared by Grant Samuel (the
independent adviser appointed to prepare the rule 21 report).
The Panel sought comment from Wrightson as to whether the
reference made to Cameron & Company’s valuation report in the
target company statement would require the company to provide
the report to shareholders on request, as part of its obligation
under clause 20 of Schedule 2 of the Code.
Wrightson said that it did not need to comply with clause 20
because Cameron & Company’s valuation was a valuation of
Wrightson as a whole rather than of a specific asset or assets held
by Wrightson.
The Panel considered that clause 20 did not have the narrow
interpretation suggested by Wrightson. The requirements in
clause 20 apply if the target company statement refers to a
valuation of any asset and is not restricted to a specific asset of
the target company.
Subsequently, Wrightson took steps to provide the information
required by clause 20 to shareholders, including a statement that
a copy of the valuation would be available, in full, to any offeree
on request.
Kingsgate International Corporation Limited
– Clause 20 Exemption
The Panel granted an exemption to Kingsgate International
Corporation Limited from clause 20(b) of Schedule 2 of the Code.
The exemption allowed Kingsgate to provide upon request,
copies of the relevant valuation reports, in a form which
excluded information which the Panel had agreed was
commercially sensitive.
Grant Samuel, in its independent adviser’s report, had referred to
valuations of various Australian properties owned by Kingsgate,
which were carried out by CB Richard Ellis. These valuation reports
had not been prepared with a view to public disclosure, and
contained very detailed information about the properties involved.
In considering whether to approve Kingsgate’s request for the
exclusion of certain information from the valuations, the Panel
used the following criteria:
- Is the information sought to be withheld material to a
decision by Kingsgate shareholders to accept or reject the
current takeover offer?
- Is the information sought to be withheld likely to be “value
destroying” information for shareholders of Kingsgate?