Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
This analysis considers the decision in Re SABmiller plc  EWHC (Ch) 23 involving Anheuser-Busch InBev’s takeover of SABmiller plc (SABMiller), where the High Court considered whether the court had jurisdiction to summon a scheme meeting which did not include two of SABmiller’s major shareholders.
What was the background to the case?
In this case, SABMiller sought an order under Companies Act 2006, s 896 (CA 2006) summoning a single meeting of all of its ordinary shareholders other than Altria Group Inc. (Altria) and BEVCO Ltd. (BEVCO) for the purpose of considering a scheme of arrangement (scheme). The object of the scheme was to effect the acquisition of SABMiller by Newbelco SA/NV (Newbelco).
Altria was SABMiller's largest shareholder, with 26.48% of its ordinary share capital, and BEVCO was the second largest shareholder, with 13.85%. Both Altria and BEVCO had an existing relationship agreement with SABMiller entitling them among other things to appoint directors of SABMiller. Altria also had an agreement relating to tax matters.
What was unusual about the case?
Both Altria and BEVCO had consented to SABMiller's proposal that there should only be one scheme meeting of the 'public shareholders', and that each of Altria and BEVCO would appear by counsel and undertake to the court at the sanction hearing to be bound by the scheme in their capacity as the holder of scheme shares. The commercial rationale for excluding them from the meeting was to avoid the risk of the approval of the scheme be
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234