Business and Economic Commentary by Christopher Ram
Court setback
Banks DIH Limited and its newly minted holding company Banks DIH Holdings Inc. (BDIHHI) had a setback of some significance in the courts in an action brought against the Guyana Securities Council. (See Stabroek News of Wednesday 9 July). Dissatisfied with the failure by the Securities Council to give speedy blessing to their efforts to restructure Banks business, the two companies, through a strong legal team, approached the court for judicial review. It was over the Council’s delay in endorsing a plan which would see the iconic company ceasing to be a public company and now to be owned by a newly created holding company. That plan involves shareholders in the long-established company exchanging their shares for the uncertainty of a newly minted, ill-defined holding company.
The decision by the court must have come as a total surprise to the companies which enjoyed a rather easy ride, obtaining a stage one approval without even notifying, let alone engaging, the Council. It was even easier at the level of the shareholders who offered overwhelming support for a scantily defined and hardly understood and communicated plan. A booklet circulated to shareholders selling the idea offered information that was at best unclear and imprecise, and worse, inadequate and troubling. As I think about it now, that document was as important as a prospectus but was subject to none of the stringent conditions of a prospectus.
The essence of the assurance to shareholders was that the move was part of a broader strategy to streamline the company’s corporate structure and meet evolving financial regulations. To achieve this objective, the directors of Banks DIH Limited would make the company into a private company, shielding its tons of retained earnings from shareholders. To do this, the directors needed the approval of the Securities Council to deregister the much-loved company. And that is when the problem started.
Ruling on favour of the regulator
The GSC’s position it seems was “not so fast”, asking the company for more information. It seems that this displeased the directors who approached the courts, arguing that the GSC’s actions were unreasonable, an abuse of power, and contrary to law. The court ruled that the Securities Council was indeed subject to judicial review, a process which involves an examination of the legality of the decision-making process, but not the merits of the decision itself. Except for that small mercy, the court rejected the arguments of the companies and refused to grant the several orders sought. Accordingly, the court found that the GSC’s request for additional documentary evidence was both lawful and necessary, and found no evidence that the GSC failed to consider the applications or acted in bad faith.
The companies are now required to provide the Council with the information it needs after seven days’ notice after which the Council has a further fourteen days to decide on the application. I have deep concerns about the adventurous move by the directors and hope that the company will reconsider its decision. This is a poorly conceived plan and there is no doubt that quite a few shareholders are hoping that the directors are courageous enough to walk away from this extravagant idea.
Running out of ideas
Readers will recall that the very Council which the directors have vigorously challenged in court, was recently requested by the same directors to investigate the poor performance of the company’s shares on the Stock Exchange. Maybe the price fall is less about manipulation or small shareholders and more about matters which cause more than a little concern among shareholders. Maybe there is a link between the share price and the serious questions about the composition of the company’s board of directors – many of whom are not independent of the Chairman -, the routing of transactions with Europe via Florida at great cost to the company, the expensive share buyback in 2016, and the appearance that the company has run out of ideas.
With respect to the great plan, it would be useful for the directors to share their understanding and impact of the following provisions of the Companies Act dealing with dividends and retained earnings. .
52 (5) “Where a particular company becomes the subsidiary of another company, any dividend paid to the other company out of profits of the particular company, acquired before it became a subsidiary of the other company, shall be treated as capital, and not as profits of the other company.”
53 “Where a company acquires all or enough of the shares of another company to control all of the other company’s activities, the pre-acquisition profits of the acquired company shall be treated as capital of the acquiring company.”
Conclusion
Banks DIH Limited, once respected for its civility and decent conversation, seems no longer interested in open and respectful exchanges. Indeed, the decision by the Court included what it referred to as a postscript in which the tone of the exchanges, particularly by the company, was harshly criticised. But hubris is no substitute for good corporate practices. Banks as a company needs some serious reflection and retreats (pun intended). It needs a more enlightened and informed approach to management in the third decade of the twenty-first century. The structure has served the company well. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Business is far more about business than it is about structures.
This project will have far more unintended consequences than the directors can imagine. This is no time for such risks.
