|
Home
Articles
Get our Free
Newsletter!
Vote in our Opinion Polls
Tell a Friend!
Contact us
| |
When is a controlling
shareholder not a related party? When it is the Shenzhen Government. At
midnight two nights ago, the government took over the toll roads operated
by their HK-listed issuer Shenzhen Expressway without prior announcement
or minority shareholders' approval. We look at the double standards
employed by HKEx in their treatment of PRC government-controlled
companies. |
The Shenzhen Connection
20th March 2003
H-Share issuer Shenzhen Expressway Company Limited (SEC, 0548) today announced
that it has sold its franchise on two toll roads back to its ultimate
controlling shareholder, the Shenzhen Municipal Government (SMG) for
RMB1,930m, mostly payable later. In fact, SMG took over the toll operations on
Tuesday night, 18-Mar-03. Nice of them to tell us.
We are not going to dig deeply into the merits or demerits of the deal, but
the key travesty here is that the deal has been classified by the Stock Exchange
of Hong Kong (SEHK, a subsidiary of HKEx)
as only a "Discloseable Transaction" (due to its size) but not as a
"Connected Transaction". As such, the deal is not subject to minority
shareholders' approval or veto. Put simply, SEHK does not think that the SMG is
related or "connected" to SEC, a fact which should be obvious to any
reader.
SEC is 30.03% controlled by Shenzhen International Holdings Limited (0152)
which in turn is 44.26% controlled by the SMG. That means that SEC is dealing
with its ultimate controlling shareholder. "Control" is defined in the
Listing Rules and Takeover Code to be a shareholding of 30% or more.
In addition, SMG has a 20.99% holding in SEC, so SMG is a "substantial
shareholder" (one who owns more than 10%) of SEC in its own right. This
takes its total voting interest to 51.02%. In a hair-splitting exercise, the
announcement contains a chart which purports to show that the 20.99% stake is
under 3 layers of "supervision" - a holding company under the Roads
Bureau, under the Communications Bureau, under the SMG. This makes no difference
- the stake is clearly a government asset.
We first objected to the SEHK's treatment of relations between listed
companies and their governmental shareholders in 1998 when we complained that
the Beijing government had siphoned IPO cash out of Beijing Enterprises Holdings
Ltd (BEH) for use in the government's water company, again without
minority shareholders' approval. After that, on 26-Apr-99 the SEHK changed its
rules and inserted the following giant loophole in Rule 19A.21:
"the Exchange will normally not treat a PRC Governmental Body... as a
connected person of a PRC issuer"
Investors take note, because this strips you of all protections you might
expect when a government starts to interfere with the operations of a listed
company which it in reality controls. This disgraceful episode is documented in
our article the The Beijing Siphon
and is another example of how the SEHK has put the wishes of controlling
shareholders above those of investors, and why it must be stripped of its
regulatory role. It was true 5 years ago, and it is true today.
Because of an obscure clause in the Articles of SEC, the sale of more than
33% of its fixed assets does require shareholders' approval in general meeting,
but the SMG has control over 51.02% of the votes so the outcome is not in doubt.
You may or may not think that SEC is getting a good deal, but if you are a
minority shareholder, you will have no say in the matter. For the record,
though, the terms look uncommercial to Webb-site.com, because:
-
The price of RMB1,930m is payable in instalments
over almost 3 years. Only 25% is payable within 10 days of signing, 25% by
31-Dec-03, 30% by 31-Dec-04 and 20% by 31-Dec-05.
-
The transfer of title to the roads will take
place 10 days after signing, even before the shareholders' meeting (even
though we know that SMG will approve it). SEC is not granted any security
over the roads to ensure payment of the remaining 75%. SEC says that SMG has
"certain credit standing" - but if that is the case, then
why doesn't SMG pay the whole amount up front and borrow from the banks?
-
The SMG took over operation of the toll roads
(including employees) at midnight on 18-Mar-03, the date the deal was
signed, before any payment had changed hands, before the title had been
transferred, and before the deal had even been announced. Done deal.
Imagine the outcry if the Hong Kong Government (or one of its bureaux)
announced that it had taken back the MTR rail operations last Tuesday at a price
of its choosing and without minority shareholders' approval. Clearly this would
break the Listing Rules, and someone might even be held accountable. So why does
HKEx think that the Shenzhen Government should be treated any differently?
Copyright Webb-site.com, 2003
Sign up for our free newsletter
Recommend Webb-site.com to a friend
Important notice: All material on this site, except
where otherwise accredited, is copyright to Webb-site.com.
Media and researchers are welcome to quote from articles on this site, provided that such
quotation is attributed to Webb-site.com. The
information in this site should not be relied upon by any person in making any investment
decision. No responsibility or liability is accepted by Webb-site.com or any person
related to it for any loss arising from or in reliance upon the whole or any part of the
contents of this site. Persons who are in any doubt about an investment or potential
investment should take professional investment advice. From time to time parties associated with Webb-site.com may
own long or short positions in securities issued by or related to companies or governments
on which we comment.
Back to top
|