(1) Subsection (2) applies in a case where a takeover offer does not relate to shares of different classes.
(2) If the offeror has, by virtue of acceptances of the offer, acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire—
(a) not less than 90% in value of the shares to which the offer relates, and
(b) in a case where the shares to which the offer relates are voting shares, not less than 90% of the voting rights carried by those shares,
he may give notice to the holder of any shares to which the offer relates which the offeror has not acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire that he desires to acquire those shares.
(3) Subsection (4) applies in a case where a takeover offer relates to shares of different classes.
(4) If the offeror has, by virtue of acceptances of the offer, acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire—
(a) not less than 90% in value of the shares of any class to which the offer relates, and
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Enforcing a warrant of controlThis Practice Note has been produced by enforcement specialists, The Sheriffs Office. It guides users through the process of enforcing a warrant of control obtained from the County Court as a method of enforcing a money judgment; whereby the judgment creditor takes
Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 allows a claimant to claim damages for non-fraudulent misrepresentation, unless the representor can prove they had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true. If the representor had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be
Indirect effect of EU lawWhat is indirect effect of EU law?The doctrine of indirect effect, or consistent interpretation, is a duty that national courts have, as part of the Member State responsible for fulfilment of EU obligations, to interpret national law in light of EU law, especially with
Negligence—when is the duty of care breached?Having established that a duty of care exists (see Practice Note: Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?), it is then necessary to consider whether or not there has been a breach of that duty. This will depend on a number of factors outlined below and
0330 161 1234