Contributed By Drew & Napier LLC
M&A activity in Singapore in the first quarter of 2019 grew 89.2% from the same period last year, reaching USD24.2 billion, according to data from Refinitiv (an arm of Thomson Reuters). Singapore-targeted M&A activity in this quarter was the highest on record, having increased by 240.4% year on year to USD15.8 billion in proceeds. On the whole, cross-border deal activity, inbound M&A activity and outbound M&A activity for this quarter were higher than those for the same period in 2018.
Privatisation trends observed in previous years have continued, with information technology retailer Challenger Technologies being a recent instance of a company seeking to delist from the Singapore Exchange (SGX). Total securities market turnover saw a 13% increase month-on-month in March 2019 to SGD21.6 billion. Initial public offerings (IPOs) by local companies raised USD75.6 million in the first quarter of this year, a 79.5% decrease from the same period in 2018.
M&A deals in the property sector dominated in 2018, accounting for 31% of the total market share at SGD28.14 billion. Major deals included CapitaLand’s venture into the US multi-family asset class, amounting to SGD1.14 billion. Following closely behind were the high technology and materials sectors. Deals targeting the high technology sector accounted for 10.9% of market share, at SGD9.90 billion, while deals targeting the materials sector accounted for 10.8% of market share, at SGD9.84 billion. The latter was driven mainly by Temasek Holding’s pending agreement to increase its stake to 4% in Germany-based Bayer, in a deal valued at SGD4.9 billion.
Asset or Share Acquisition
Generally, the acquisition of a company in Singapore can be effected by way of a share acquisition or the acquisition of the business or assets of the company.
An asset or share acquisition is commonly effected by entering into a sale and purchase agreement. Before executing the agreement, parties may enter into a letter of intent or term sheet, which will typically set out agreed key terms of the transaction. Such a preliminary document may be expressed as non-legally binding, except for certain obligations such as confidentiality. In addition, the parties may enter into exclusivity agreements at this preliminary stage to assure the buyer that the seller will not consider alternative offers from third parties during negotiations.
The primary techniques to acquire a company’s shares in Singapore include:
General offers for shares in a Singapore public company are regulated under the Takeover Code. General offers take the form of mandatory offers, voluntary offers or partial offers.
Under the Takeover Code, a bidder is required to make a mandatory offer for all the shares in a Singapore public company where the acquisition of shares by the bidder results in the shareholdings of the bidder and any parties acting in concert with it exceeding certain thresholds. The mandatory offer rules under the Takeover Code apply when:
Voluntary and Partial Offers
Under the Takeover Code, an offer that does not trigger the mandatory rules under the Takeover Code is called a voluntary offer, and is governed by the rules set out in Rule 15 of the Takeover Code. A voluntary offer must be conditional on the bidder and any parties acting in concert with it acquiring more than 50% of the target company. A higher percentage acceptance threshold may be stipulated, subject to the consent of the Securities Industry Council (SIC).
A bidder is considered as making a partial offer where a voluntary offer is made for a portion of the target company’s shares. All partial offers must be approved by the SIC, and it will generally grant consent for partial offers that do not result in the bidder and any parties acting in concert with it holding more than 30% of the target company’s voting rights.
Scheme of Arrangement
A scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act, Section 210 is a legislative procedure that allows a company to be restructured. A scheme is typically organised as a transfer of shares from the shareholders of the target company to the acquirer, and in consideration of the share transfer the acquirer pays cash or issues new shares in the acquiring company to the shareholders of the target company. An alternative scheme is where the target company cancels its existing shares and issues new shares in the target company to the acquirer.
To pass a scheme of arrangement, the scheme must be approved by the requisite statutorily prescribed majority at the scheme meeting and must be sanctioned by the High Court. A scheme that has been successfully passed will be binding on all shareholders of the target company.
A scheme of amalgamation under the Companies Act, Section 215A-J is a legislative procedure that allows two or more Singapore-incorporated companies to amalgamate and continue as one company. The amalgamated company may be one of the amalgamating companies or a new company, and all property, rights, privileges, liabilities and obligations of each of the amalgamating companies will be transferred to the amalgamated company. The amalgamation may be carried out without a court order, subject to certain conditions being satisfied, including obtaining the requisite shareholder approvals and the provision of insolvency statements by the directors of the amalgamating companies.
The primary regulators of M&A activity in Singapore are:
There is no general restriction on the amount of shares that a foreign entity may own in a company incorporated in Singapore. However, there may be restrictions that limit or require prior regulatory approval for control or share ownership in companies in certain regulated industries that are perceived to be critical to national interests, such as banking, insurance, broadcasting, defence and newspaper publishing.
Business combinations in Singapore are subject to the Competition Act, which contains, among others, the following provisions:
As the merger notification regime in Singapore under the Competition Act is voluntary, parties to a merger are not obliged to notify the CCCS of their proposed or completed business combinations. However, parties to a merger situation may do so where, following a self-assessment, they have concerns that the merger or anticipated merger has led to or may lead to a substantial lessening of competition in a Singapore market.
Whereas the CCCS can investigate mergers on its own initiative, it is unlikely to intervene in a merger situation that only involves small companies, ie, where the turnover in Singapore in the financial year preceding the transaction of each of the parties is below SGD5 million and the combined worldwide turnover in the financial year preceding the transaction of all of the parties is below SGD50 million.
Generally, the CCCS is also unlikely to investigate in a merger situation, unless the merged entity will have a market share of:
Where the acquisition is structured as a transfer of the business undertaking of the target company, the automatic employment transfer provisions under of the Employment Act (Cap 91), Section 18A may be applicable in respect of employees who are covered under the Employment Act at the time of the business transfer (EA employees). In particular, the Employment Act, Section 18A provides for:
Where the business transfer involves a transfer of foreign employees, the acquirer should consider if new work-pass applications would be required for the incoming foreign employees. In addition, where the acquirer’s business is in a different sector or industry from the target company, the acquirer should also consider if the transfer of foreign employees would be affect work-pass quotas.
Where the acquisition is structured as a transfer of shares, the employees of the target company will continue to be employed by the target company and will be unlikely to be affected by the transfer of shares per se.
There is currently no regulatory body in Singapore that undertakes a national security review of acquisitions. However, regulatory approvals may be required for control or share ownership in companies in certain regulated industries that are perceived to be critical to national interests, eg, banking, insurance, broadcasting, defence and newspaper publishing.
One of the more significant legal developments relating to M&A is the amendment of the SGX Mainboard Listing Rules (Listing Manual) in June 2018 to permit the listing of companies with dual-class share structures on the SGX Mainboard. The Takeover Code was subsequently amended with effect from 25 January 2019 to clarify its application to companies with dual-class share structures.
Two of the key amendments to the Takeover Code are (as amended with effect from 25 January 2019):
It is not uncommon for bidders to build up some shareholding stake in a company prior to launching an offer. A 10% ownership stake in the target company could be used to prevent a rival bidder from a compulsory acquisition of the minority stake in the company. A bidder may also seek to obtain a 25% ownership stake to effectively veto a rival scheme of arrangement or amalgamation.
Bidders seeking to build a significant stake in a target company generally need to comply with the following:
A bidder may concurrently seek to obtain contractual undertakings from existing shareholders to accept its proposed offers or to vote in favour of their scheme. Note that such irrevocable undertakings may potentially be aggregated as part of the bidder’s ownership stake in the target company, which may potentially trigger the mandatory offer rules under the Takeover Code (among other requirements).
Under the Securities and Futures Act, a party who acquires an interest in 5% or more of the voting shares (referred to as a ‘substantial shareholder’) in a company incorporated and listed in Singapore is required to notify the company of its interest within two working days of becoming aware that it is or had been (if it ceased to be one) a substantial shareholder.
In addition, the substantial shareholder is required to notify the company if there are subsequent discrete 1% changes in the substantial shareholder’s interests, and if he or she ceases to be a substantial shareholder. The substantial shareholder disclosure requirements also apply to corporations that are incorporated overseas, but with a primary listing on approved exchanges in Singapore.
From a competition law perspective, merger parties may voluntarily notify CCCS of their merger or anticipated merger if, after conducting a self-assessment, they have concerns that the merger or anticipated merger has led to or may lead to a substantial lessening of competition in a Singapore market.
It is open to a company to introduce more (but not less) stringent reporting thresholds, eg, in its constitution. Apart from the general restrictions that may be applicable to stakebuilding (as discussed previously), the acquirer should be mindful of statutory limits or regulatory approvals required for control or share ownership in companies in certain regulated industries, such as banking, insurance, broadcasting, defence and newspaper publishing.
Dealings in derivatives are allowed, and are generally subject to the same restrictions as dealings in capital markets products (which include shares) under the Securities and Futures Act.
Under the Takeover Code, a person who has acquired or written any option or derivative that causes him or her to have a long economic exposure, whether absolute or conditional, to changes in the price of securities, will normally be treated as having acquired those securities for the purposes of the mandatory offer rules.
Where the acquirer triggers the mandatory offer requirement under the Takeover Code as a result of acquiring such options or derivatives (among others), the acquirer must consult the SIC to determine if a mandatory offer is required, and, if so, the terms of the offer to be made.
Under the Takeover Code, dealings in derivatives in respect of certain securities of the target company during the offer period must be publicly disclosed. Full details of the dealings in derivatives should be provided so that the nature of the dealings can be fully understood. This should include, at the minimum, the number of reference securities to which they relate (where relevant), the maturity date or if applicable, the closing-out date and the reference price.
Separately, under the Securities and Futures Act, a specified person who is a party to a specified derivatives contract (which includes a derivatives contract the value of which is determined by reference to the value of underlying stock or shares, among others) is required to report certain prescribed information to a licensed trade repository or licensed foreign trade repository in respect of the derivatives contract.
There are no specific filing/reporting obligations for derivatives under competition laws in Singapore.
Under the Takeover Code, an offer document, which should be despatched no later than 21 days after the offer announcement, should disclose the bidder’s plans relating to the target company and its employees, including:
Pursuant to the Takeover Code, before the board of the offeree (or target) company is approached, the responsibility for making an announcement will normally rest with the bidder or potential bidder. However, once an approach has been made to the board of the target company, the primary responsibility for making an announcement will typically rest with the board.
The target company’s board is required to make an announcement in any of the following circumstances:
a) the target company is the subject of rumour or speculation about a possible offer, or there is undue movement in its share price or a significant increase in the volume of share turnover; or
b) more than a very restricted number of potential bidders are about to be approached.
As mentioned in 5.1 Requirement to Disclose a Deal, above, for public M&A transactions that are subject to the Takeover Code, the responsibility for making an announcement on the potential deal will normally rest with the bidder or potential bidder, before the board of the target company is approached.
In terms of timing, the bidder or potential bidder must make an announcement:
Where an approach has been made to the board of the target company, the board must make an announcement following the occurrence of any of the circumstances as set out in 5.1 Requirement to Disclose a Deal.
Market practice on the timing of making such announcements generally follows the Takeover Code requirements, as set out above.
There is no standard process on carrying out due diligence under Singapore laws, and the level of information and documents provided will depend on the nature of the transaction and the relevant parties. In general, for public M&A transactions, the scope of the legal due diligence process is likely to be limited due to the following legal restrictions:
In view of the above legal restrictions, the bidder often will have to rely on publicly available information. This includes:
For private M&A transactions, the scope of due diligence tends to be broader as the target company would not be subject to restrictions that apply to public companies. Depending on time or budgetary constraints, the due diligence may include the following relating to the target company:
In general, exclusivity agreements and similar arrangements are often requested, but standstill agreements are not as common. However, in negotiating for exclusivity arrangements, the target company should note its duty under the Takeover Code not to take any action that could frustrate a bona fide offer or deny its shareholders an opportunity to decide on its merits.
The terms and conditions of any public takeover will be contained in the bidder’s offer announcement and offer document or in the target company’s scheme document (where a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation is used). Under the Takeover Code, the offer document must set out clearly:
Assuming there is no competing offer, the acquisition of a public company would typically take around six months from the public announcement of the offer by the bidder to the completion of the acquisition of the target company’s shares under the Takeover Code.
For share acquisitions of a private company, the transaction process may take around three-six months to complete, although the time required would ultimately depend on a multitude of factors, such as whether there are any competing proposals, the size of the target company, the transaction structure, the complexity of the transaction and the extent of due diligence conducted on the target company. For the acquisition of assets, the transaction process could be longer, owing to the need for additional third party consents to be obtained for the assets transfer.
The mandatory offer thresholds under the Takeover Code apply to public companies, and these are triggered when:
For takeovers and mergers involving private companies, consideration more commonly takes the form of cash. Selection of the form of consideration depends on factors such as the availability of financing to the buyer and the tax implications of the payment method.
For public companies, consideration for a general offer can take the form of cash or securities (typically the bidder’s shares) or a combination of the two. However, where the mandatory offer thresholds are triggered, the consideration will generally need to be in cash.
For public takeovers all general offers are subject to a minimum level of acceptance. For mandatory and voluntary offers, the bidder must receive acceptances in respect of voting rights in the target company, which, together with voting rights acquired or agreed to be acquired before or during the offer, will result in the bidder and any party acting in concert with it holding more than 50% of the voting rights. Separate approval thresholds apply for partial offers.
In relation to mandatory offers, bidders generally cannot impose any other condition. In relation to voluntary offers, bidders may impose other conditions, provided that fulfilment of such conditions does not depend on the bidder’s subjective interpretation or judgement, or lie in the bidder’s hands. Normal conditions such as shareholder approval for the issue of new shares and the SGX’s approval for listing may be attached without reference to the SIC. The SIC should be consulted on other conditions to be attached. A condition requiring a level of acceptance higher than 50% needs to be approved by the SIC, and the bidder would need to demonstrate that it is acting in good faith in imposing such higher level of acceptance.
See 6.4 Common Conditions for a Takeover Offer, above. All general offers are subject to a minimum acceptance condition that the bidder receives acceptances in respect of voting rights in the target company, which, together with voting rights acquired or agreed to be acquired before or during the offer, will result in the bidder and any party acting in concert with it holding more than 50% of the voting rights.
Voluntary offers that are conditional on a level of acceptance higher than 50% must be approved by the SIC, and the bidder would need to demonstrate that it is acting in good faith in imposing the higher level of acceptance. Where the bidder is seeking to privatise the target company, a 90% minimum acceptance condition is common, and this allows the bidder to avail himself or herself of the compulsory acquisition procedure under the Companies Act.
In relation to partial offers, the SIC will normally consent to a partial offer that does not result in the bidder and persons acting in concert with it holding shares with 30% or more of the voting rights in the target company, and provided that the bidder complies with the conditions set out under the Takeover Code. The SIC will not consent to any partial offer that results in the bidder and persons acting in concert with the bidder, holding shares with not less than 30% but not more than 50% of the voting rights of the target company.
For private takeovers and mergers, it is common for business combinations to be conditional on the bidder obtaining financing where cash consideration is involved.
For public takeovers and mergers, it is generally not permitted for business combinations to be conditional on the bidder obtaining financing. Rather, where the offer is for cash or involves an element of cash, the offer announcement as well as the offer document should include an unconditional confirmation by the financial adviser or by another appropriate third party that the bidder has sufficient resources available to satisfy full acceptance of the offer.
It is generally open to bidders to propose deal security measures. Where the Takeover Code applies, the target company should note its duty under the Code not to undertake any deal security measures that could frustrate a bona fide offer or deny its shareholders an opportunity to decide on its merits.
Two commonly used measures are exclusivity agreements and break-up fees. Exclusivity agreements hinder the target company’s board from proposing alternative bids to shareholders, by precluding it from actively shopping for or responding to other bidders during a certain period of time.
A bidder may negotiate break-up fees (imposed on the target company) or reverse break-up fees (imposed on a bidder), although these are less commonly used in acquisitions involving private companies. Break-up fees may not be enforceable if they constitute a penalty, as opposed to liquidated damages (ie, a genuine pre-estimate of loss). Further, directors would need to ensure that agreeing to break-up fees would be in line with the fiduciary duties they owe to the company (eg, to act in a bona fide manner in the company’s best interests).
In acquisitions involving a target company to which the Takeover Code applies, the SIC should be consulted at the earliest opportunity in all cases where a break-up fee or any similar arrangement is proposed. Further, the rules under the Takeover Code governing break-up fees must be complied with, eg:
Apart from its shareholding, additional governance rights such as board seats that a bidder may seek in respect of a target company generally need to be set out in the target company’s constitution.
Shareholders are generally allowed to vote by proxy, subject to the restrictions under the Companies Act and the provisions under the company’s constitution.
The Companies Act, Section 215 provides a mechanism for the compulsory acquisition of shares. Where a bidder makes an offer that is approved within four months by shareholders holding not less than 90% of the shares that are the subject of the offer (excluding shares issued after the date of the offer and treasury shares), the bidder may within two months thereafter give notice in the prescribed manner to dissenting shareholders to acquire their shares.
Additionally, where the target company’s constitution provides for drag-along rights, minority shareholders may be required to accept the offer along with the exiting shareholders.
Bidders may request for irrevocable undertakings from principal shareholders of the target company to accept the offer. These undertakings are usually given immediately before the offer is made, and it is common for them to provide an out for shareholders if a better offer is made.
For acquisitions of a target company to which the Takeover Code applies, information about the commitments (including in what circumstances, if any, they will cease to be binding, eg, if a higher offer is made) must be set out in the offer announcement and offer document. Relevant documents evidencing such commitments must also be made available for inspection.
For acquisitions of a target company to which the Takeover Code applies, once an approach has been made to the board, the primary responsibility for making an announcement typically rests with the board.
The target company’s board is required to make an announcement in any of the following circumstances:
a)the target company is the subject of rumour or speculation about a possible offer, or there is undue movement in its share price or a significant increase in the volume of share turnover; or
b) more than a very restricted number of potential bidders are about to be approached.
In some cases, the bidder will be required to make an announcement of his or her intention to make an offer, before approaching the target company’s board, eg, where the target company is the subject of rumour or speculation about a possible offer, or there is undue movement in the target company’s share price or a significant increase in the volume of share turnover.
For transactions to which the Takeover Code applies, the relevant disclosures under the Takeover Code must be made if the mandatory offer thresholds are triggered as a result of the issue of shares. Where the issue of shares is made to a company listed on the SGX, its Listing Rules mandates disclosures to the shareholders.
The offer document must contain financial information about the bidder, including the following:
The offer document should also state whether or not there has been, within the bidder’s knowledge, any material change in the target company’s financial position or prospects since the date of the last balance sheet laid before the target company in a general meeting, and, if so, the particulars of any such change.
For transactions to which the Takeover Code applies, all offer announcements and offer documents must be made available publicly.
The offer document must include information such as:
Directors have certain duties both at common law and under statute. These duties are generally owed to the company, and not to its shareholders or other stakeholders. The duties of directors include the fiduciary duties to act in a bona fide manner in the best interests of the company, to avoid a conflict of interest, to act for proper purposes and to act with care, skill and diligence.
In the case of M&A transactions to which the Takeover Code applies, the board has certain responsibilities under the Code, including:
For companies listed on the SGX, the constitution of the company would provide that directors may not vote on matters in which they have a personal material interest.
It is increasingly common, especially in the case of management buyouts, for boards of directors to establish special or ad-hoc committees of independent directors so as to address issues of potential conflicts of interests and to ensure that the interests of shareholders are addressed fairly.
Whilst the board of directors may delegate the day-to-day conduct of an offer to a committee of directors or individual directors, the board as a whole remains responsible for ensuring that proper arrangements are in place to enable it to monitor the conduct so that each director may fulfil his or her responsibilities under the Takeover Code.
The Singapore courts are generally slow to interfere in commercial decisions taken by directors and generally acknowledge that they should not, with the advantage of hindsight, substitute those decisions with their own, where those decisions were made by directors in the honest and reasonable belief that they were taken in the company’s best interests.
Legal, financial and tax advisers are typically engaged to advise on the transaction structure and valuation, and more generally to manage the transaction.
For takeovers and mergers to which the Takeover Code applies, the target company’s board must obtain competent independent advice on all offers, except partial offers that could not result in the bidder and persons acting in concert with it holding shares carrying 30% or more of the voting rights of the target company.
The substance of the advice must be made known to its shareholders and this is typically done as part of the target company’s board’s circular to shareholders indicating its recommendation for or against acceptance of the offer. Where the offer is a management buy-out or similar transaction, or is being made by or with the co-operation of the existing controlling shareholder or group of shareholders, the target company’s board should appoint an independent adviser as soon as possible after it becomes aware that an offer may be made.
Where the offer being made is a reverse takeover and the bidder is incorporated in Singapore, its board must obtain competent independent advice on the offer, or when it faces a material conflict of interests. Again, the substance of the advice must be made known to its shareholders.
There are reported cases in recent years involving conflicts of interests in the context of takeovers and mergers. For instance, in 2017, the SGX reprimanded Singapore Post Limited (SingPost) for its non-compliance with the SGX Listing Rules, including its failure to accurately disclose that its then director had an interest in SingPost’s subsidiary, which had entered into an agreement to purchase all the shares in FS Mackenzie Limited (FSM Acquisition). The then director was the non-executive chairman and a 34.5% shareholder of the arranger for the FSM Acquisition.
The clarification announcement released by SingPost attributing the inaccuracy to an administrative oversight led to public commentaries questioning its corporate governance, including regarding the then director’s independence, as well as whether the then director should have disclosed his interest to SingPost’s board, abstained from voting and recused himself from the discussions on the FSM Acquisition.
Hostile tender offers are permitted in Singapore. However, they are relatively uncommon due to the concentrated shareholding structure of many Singapore-listed companies.
Directors are prohibited under the Takeover Code from taking any action on the affairs of the offeree company that could effectively result in any bona fide offer being frustrated or the shareholders being denied an opportunity to decide on its merits. This is unless they have shareholder approval to do so, or they do so pursuant to a contract entered into earlier during the negotiation process.
Some of the actions that may constitute frustration are:
However, soliciting a competing offer and running a sale process for the company are not considered to be frustrating actions.
As frustrating actions are not permitted (see 9.2 Directors' Use of Defensive Mechanisms, above), the defensive measures that the board of an offeree company may take are generally limited to soliciting competing offers or running a sale process for the company. The board may also choose to attempt to convince the shareholders not to agree to the offer in its circular(s) to the shareholders.
Directors continue to owe fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders as a whole, pursuant to the Companies Act. As such, they should have regard to what is best for the interests of the company or its shareholders, and not their own monetary, personal, familial, or other interests.
The board of an offeree company is also usually obliged under the Takeover Code to obtain competent independent advice on any offer and the substance of the advice must be made known to its shareholders. This is especially so if the offer is a management buyout or other similar transaction being made with the co-operation of the existing controlling shareholder(s), due to the very real risk of a divergence of interests within the company.
While directors may recommend, strongly even, that shareholders reject a takeover offer, and while they are permitted to take defensive measures, they are not permitted to frustrate a bona fide offer outright. See 9.2 Directors' Use of Defensive Mechanisms, above.
Litigation in connection with M&A deals is not common in Singapore. One notable case involved the Noble Group, where Goldilocks Investment, an 8% minority investor, engaged in legal action as part of its strategy to obtain a better deal for investors.
In connection with the protection of minority rights, the Securities Investors’ Association (Singapore) (SIAS), an advocacy charity for investors and active since 1999, has expressly stated that its preferred approach to resolving investors’ rights issues is in the boardroom and not in the courtroom. This is compounded by the fact that many minority investors tend to be ‘persons-in-the-street’ without the resources necessary to finance litigation against relatively well-funded companies. They may also lack access to means such as class action lawsuits or litigation funding.
As litigation concerning M&A transactions is not common in Singapore, there is no established pattern as to the stage of a transaction at which a lawsuit is commonly brought. See 10.1 Frequency of Litigation, above.
In Singapore, the focus of shareholder activists tends to be on improving corporate governance and the protection of minority investors’ rights. The SIAS is also involved in this field by conducting investor education workshops and helping to monitor the corporate governance of companies.
Some recent notable instances of shareholder activism include:
There are also activist funds active in Singapore that seek to unlock greater value in target companies via shareholder activism. Judah Value Activist Fund, based in Singapore, announced in August 2018 that it was in the process of building a position in a local bank before crafting an open letter suggesting operational improvements.
Another activist fund, Quarz Capital Management, has made open requests to several firms, such as CSE Global and Sunningdale Tech, requesting a range of actions from cash discipline to dividend distribution.
There have been reported instances of shareholder activists seeking to encourage companies to enter into M&A transactions as a means to unlocking shareholder value. Eg, in May 2017, activist fund Quarz Capital Management requested HG Metal Manufacturing to divest its stake in a competitor, BRC Asia. While HG Metal did not acquiesce on that occasion, it did subsequently divest its stake later that year.
Activists may be more likely to act when they think that there will be positive effects on the company's bottom-line. Retail shareholder activists seem to be more interested in encouraging better corporate governance to protect their investments.
It is fairly uncommon for activists to seek to interfere with the completion of announced transactions in Singapore. However, there has been at least one reported instance of activist intervention in an announced deal, when Goldilocks Investment sought injunctions to prevent the Noble Group AGM from approving a deal (see 10.1 Frequency of Litigation, above).
In other cases, activists have sought board explanations for transactions that they believe to be questionable, eg, the board of Datapulse Technology was strongly challenged by shareholders on the company’s acquisitions of other firms at a recent AGM.