Contact
News

The rights of a dissenting shareholder in a scheme of arrangement

“I’m a minority shareholder in a company that has been approached by a buyer willing to buy out all the shareholders. Because of Covid-19 the company has suffered financially and I know that the shareholders holding more than 75% of the company will want to accept the offer even though I believe it to be far below the market value of the shares. Is there any remedy at my disposal?”

The current Covid-19 pandemic and economic circumstances have wreaked havoc on many long-standing businesses and their future prospects and it is a general occurrence for companies or individuals with a healthy cash flow to look into buying out companies that have suffered, often below market value. One of the ways that such a takeover typically occurs is through a scheme of arrangement.

A scheme of arrangement usually means that a buyer will contact the company, and make an offer to purchase the shares from its current shareholders. The company, the current shareholders and the buyer will then all enter into a scheme of arrangement and agree as to how this “friendly takeover” will take place. Unfortunately, such transactions do not always mean that shareholders will get fair value for their shares. So, what options does a minority shareholder have who wishes to dissent against the arrangement? Here Section 164 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 comes to the rescue and provides relief for “dissenting shareholders” that do not agree to such arrangements.

In order to enter into a scheme of arrangement, such a scheme must be approved by a special resolution (normally 75% of votes must be in favour of the resolution) of the holders of the relevant class of shares that are being acquired. For the dissenting shareholder to benefit from the relief of Section 164, the following steps, must be taken by the dissenting shareholder:

  • The dissenting shareholder has to give notice of his objection to the company before the vote takes place.
  • When this resolution is put to a vote, the dissenting shareholder has to vote against the proposed transaction.

If the special resolution is passed, the dissenting shareholder can then make use of the right to appraisal contained in Section 164 which allows the dissenting shareholder to demand that the company pay the fair value of such shares to him in exchange for the return of his shares to the company. In effect, the company will buy back the shares from the shareholder at a fair value.

This right of appraisal allows a minority dissenting shareholder that is negatively affected by the decision of the majority, to protect his investment and at least obtain fair value for his shares. But for this remedy to be used the dissenting shareholder must adhere to the strict timeframes and actions as required by Section 164.

Accordingly, we would advise that you contact your attorney without delay to help you comply with the necessary procedures under Section 164.

November 10, 2020
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , , ,

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , ,

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , ,

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest