Equal treatment in private placements – New decision by the Stock Exchange Appeals Committee
In a recent resolution, the Stock Exchange Appeals Committee upheld the board of Oslo Børs’ decision to impose a violation charge for a breach of the equal treatment rule in connection with a private placement. The decision follows the announcement by Oslo Børs in Circular no.2/2014 of a stricter practice.
Oslo Børs emphasised that: “[it] has recently observed trends of behaviour that would seem to indicate that there is a need for greater awareness in the market of the equal treatment principle. Oslo Børs now intends to focus its attention on issuers’ compliance with the duty to treat investors equally”.
In a recent resolution, the Stock Exchange Appeals Committee upheld the board of Oslo Børs’ decision to impose a violation charge for a breach of the equal treatment rule in connection with a private placement. The decision follows the announcement by Oslo Børs in Circular no.2/2014 of a stricter practice.
Oslo Børs emphasised that: “[it] has recently observed trends of behaviour that would seem to indicate that there is a need for greater awareness in the market of the equal treatment principle. Oslo Børs now intends to focus its attention on issuers’ compliance with the duty to treat investors equally”.
The basis for the case was a private placement directed towards four equity holders in a Norwegian Savings Bank completed in May 2015. The discount offered was approximately 38% compared to the trading price immediately prior to announcement of the private placement. The two main certificate holders decided to subscribe for an interest which was substantially lower than their respective ownership interest of 84.15% in the bank. As the two holders did not subscribe for their proportionate interest, two other existing holders were able to subscribe for an amount far exceeding their pro rata holding, giving them a share which was 22.8 and 8.9 times higher than their proportionate interest in the private placement. In addition, the bank also conducted a subsequent repair offering which represented gross proceeds of up to NOK 28.76 million. The subsequent repair offering was oversubscribed by 220%.
On 23 September 2015, Oslo Børs passed a resolution imposing a NOK 480,000 violation charge on the bank for violating the equal treatment principle (i.e. three times the admission fee). The Stock Exchange Appeals Committee upheld the resolution passed by Oslo Børs, concluding that the bank had not been in acute financial difficulties at the time and that there were no other significant circumstances to justify a deviation from the equal treatment requirement in this case.
The Stock Exchange Appeals Committee emphasised that the completion of a private placement at a substantial discount without the traditional “book-building” process to secure that the private placement takes place “at a subscription price as close as possible to the trading price at the time” implies a stricter duty of care to ensure that the differential treatment which follows from the elected model is minimised.
The Stock Exchange Appeals Committee determined that the duty of care was not sufficiently met by the issuer due to the fact that the transaction resulted in a situation whereby two of the bank’s owners “gained a disproportionate and grossly unreasonable advantage which was not justified”.