On March 31, 2015, the Canadian Securities Administrators (the
CSA) published proposed amendments to Canada's
take-over bid regime (the Proposed Amendments)
under Multilateral Instrument 62-104 – Take-Over Bids and
Issuer Bids, other related instruments and the Ontario
Securities Act. The Proposed Amendments will be open for
comment until June 29, 2015.
There are three key features of the Proposed Amendments
affecting non-exempt take-over bids:
120 Day Requirement. Take-over bids must
remain open for a minimum deposit period of 120 days (the
120 Day Requirement) (as opposed to the current 35
day timeframe) unless (i) the target board states in a news release
an acceptable shorter deposit period (provided that it is not less
than 35 days); or (ii) the target announces that it has entered
into an "alternative transaction", in which case the
original take-over bid will be subject to a shorter 35-day minimum
Minimum Tender. Bidders must receive tenders
of more than 50 per cent of the outstanding securities that are
subject to the bid (excluding securities owned by the bidder itself
or its joint actors).
Mandatory Extension. The bid period must be
extended by 10 days after a bidder has received tenders of more
than 50% of the outstanding securities. The purpose of this
requirement is to provide target shareholders who did not initially
tender their shares the opportunity to take-up the offer after the
bid crosses the minimum tender threshold.
The purpose of the Proposed Amendments, the CSA states, is to
"provide target boards with sufficient time to respond to
hostile bids, while facilitating the ability of target shareholders
to make voluntary, informed and co-ordinated tender
We expect that if adopted, the 120 Day Requirement will result
in a reduction in hostile take-over bid activity, if for no other
reason than the fact that bidders will be wary of committing
themselves to a fixed acquisition price over a 120 day period. Such
proposition makes less sense in a commodities driven economy where
share prices can fluctuate significantly over short periods of
time. As well, the 120 Day Requirement will increase the likelihood
that a competing bid will be tabled, another risk that a hostile
bidder must consider. As a corollary, we think we would see an
uptick in the number of proxy contests being waged in the markets,
a seemingly safer avenue through which to seek board control and
increase shareholder value. We can also expect to see an increase
in the use of hostile M&A tactics, including closed-door
bullying and bear hug offers (an offer of a price much higher than
fair market value is made in order to restrict the target's
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide
the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions
with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers
based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada,
Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all
the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global
business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to
provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of
our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia,
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South
Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members
('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose
Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein
helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright
members but does not itself provide legal services to
The content of this article is intended to provide a
general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be
sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Ontario Securities Commission v. Tiffin, the Ontario Court of Justice clarified the limits of the definition of "securities" under s.1(1) of the Securities Act, as it relates to promissory notes. The defendant in the case was charged with trading in securities without being registered and while prohibited, and without filing a prospectus.
The OSC has issued a press release advising stakeholders that Ontario securities law may apply to any use of distributed ledger technologies, such as blockchain, as part of financial products or service offerings.
The use of electronic signatures is becoming increasingly commonplace in commercial transactions, as individuals and businesses capitalize on the administrative efficiency afforded by today’s digital world.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).