The First Right of Refusal is a potent weapon in shareholding deals. And it is dead
Do you remember the news headlines in India in July 2008? Anil Ambani was pursuing a multi-billion dollar amalgamation deal with South African telecom giant MTN. But hovering above the possibility of creating a 70-billion-dollar entity was a peculiar shadow. The fractious relationship between India’s richest brothers was threatening to scuttle the entire deal (ultimately it did): The elder Ambani pulled a common device used in the corporate world. He claimed his unit had right of first refusal (RoFR) for any deal that would change the control structure of Reliance Communications; to go ahead would be a breach, with severe legal repercussions. Was it posturing or real ammunition? MTN was unsure: The deal died.
Infographics: Malay karmakar
If only the deal was proposed today. The potential legal and regulatory hurdles that proved insurmountable at the time might disappear. In February this year, the Bombay High Court passed a judgment invalidating the right of first refusal, in the case of Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Limited (WMDCL) versus Bajaj Auto Limited, who between them control at least 51 percent of the equity capital of Maharashtra Scooters Limited (MSL). RoFR gives a shareholder or joint venture partner the first right to buy the other shareholder or partner’s stake if it’s up for sale. But he must match the best available price. This in effect restricts a partner’s ability to transfer or sell his stake without the other partner’s consent. So now there is no compulsion on one large shareholder to offer his shares to his partner first. He is free to sell it to anyone he wants.
This legal googly has implications for joint ventures with foreign companies. “The parties to the joint venture agreements should not be permitted to wriggle out of their respective contractual obligations, which would, inter alia, include certain mutually agreed restrictions on the transfer of shares of the joint venture company using the technicality of free transferability of shares and to that extent the principles laid down in the Bombay High Court judgment can be misused by an unscrupulous party,” says Bharat Vasani, group counsel, Tata Sons.
It is particularly worrisome if one of the partners owes the other money. “If the agreement is contrary to law and you don’t want to honour what you sign, off you go! And there’s not a thing anyone can do about it,” says Somasekhar Sundaresan, partner, JSA, Advocates & Solicitors. “People have not really understood the seriousness of what this means. You ought to be very, very worried.”
(This story appears in the 30 April, 2010 issue of Forbes India. To visit our Archives, click here.)