Submitted by Atrue Freeman


Sir Allan Fields

Sir Neville, thank you for your response of January 17, 2011, to my email of January 8, 2011.  Sir Allan C. Fields, Chairman of Barbados Dairy Industries Limited (BDIL), states in BDIL’s 2010 Annual Report that BDIL is expected to be de-listed during January 2011 (see below extract). I urge that a condition of the delisting be that the minority shareholders be offered a fair price, for their shares, of cash or shares in Banks Holdings Limited, which owns 83.74% of BDIL.

Extract from Chairman’s Report, 2010 Annual Report of Barbados Dairy Industries Limited:

During the year, our shareholders approved the Board’s recommendation to de-list our Company from trading on the Barbados Stock Exchange. This approval was obtained at an extra-ordinary shareholders meeting, held on the 27th May 2010. This was communicated to the Barbados Stock Exchange who approved our request in November 2010 and forwarded their approval to the Securities Commission for ratification. We expect that BDIL will be removed from the list of Companies trading, during January 2011. Our decision to de-list was taken because our Company has not benefited from being listed as borne out by the very low volume of shares traded. When the cost associated with staying listed was taken into consideration, financially it makes sense to de-list. I assure our shareholders that we will continue to manage our Company in keeping with established corporate controls and practices.

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:33 AM, <seccom@caribsurf.com> wrote:

Dear Sir / Madam

The following is in response to your email of January 8, 2011 in which you commented on the matter of de-listing a security from the Barbados Stock Exchange Inc. and in particular on the perceived effect of a de-listing on minority shareholders.
We draw your attention firstly to section 38(1) of the Securities Act, Cap. 318A (“Securities Act”) which provides that where an application is made for an Order from the Commission authorising the de-listing of a security, the Commission may impose such conditions, if any as it thinks fit for the protection of investors.

In responding to a request for an Order authorizing the de-listing of a security therefore the Commission takes into consideration the particular circumstances of a de-listing and proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the Securities Act.

It is important to note that in accordance with section 38(2) of the Securities Act the Commission may only refuse to authorize the de-listing of a security in circumstances where the de-listing is in breach of the rules of the self-regulatory organization; or an agreement entered into by the issuer of the security.

The Commission is not aware of any recent case in which a de-listing was requested by a Company without the minority shareholder first being offered a fair price for their shares.

In the only other recent case of de-listing, it should be noted that the de-listing was requested by the BSE because of the continued failure of the listed Company to comply with the Rules of the BSE and the Listing Agreement entered into by the Company.

Yours sincerely
The Securities Commission
2nd Floor, British American Insurance Building
Magazine Lane, Bridgetown
BARBADOS, BB11080
Tel: (246) 437-3924 | Fax: (246) 437-3931

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 14:15:01 -0500 Atrue Freeman <@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir Neville, the role of the Securities Commission in part is “… the protection of investors by ensuring that they are able to invest in a fair, orderly and transparent market…”.

Under no circumstances can the delisting of a company, which has minority shareholders, be fair to its minority shareholders, especially when the major shareholder controls/holds in excess of two-thirds of the voting shares.  Allowing any such delisting will set a disturbing precedent, with the potential to disadvantage minority shareholders of the companies now listed on the Barbados Stock Exchange, where there is a major shareholder that holds/controls at least two-thirds of a listed company’s shares.

If the major shareholder of a listed company desires to delist that company, the minority shareholders should first be offered a fair price, for their shares, of cash or shares in the major shareholder, if itself a listed company.

5 responses to “Proposed De-listing of Barbados Dairy Industries Limited”


  1. Sir Allan’s legacy will be that he has been at the head of many of our leading companies which have sold out.


  2. David, I hope that minority shareholders in Barbados appreciate the significance of a precedent where a major shareholder, with sufficient control, is able to have a company de-listed. There are other listed companies that are controlled by one or a few major shareholders. Minority shareholders should advise Sir Neville of their concerns via email (seccom@caribsurf.com).


  3. @A Freeman

    BU appreciates what you are doing. It seems Douglas Skeete, no disrespect to him has become politically aligned and so too Malcolm Gibbs-Taitt. Individuals are free to associate with a political party of choice but some positions should always maintain that aura of impartiality.


  4. http://news.barbadostoday.bb/barticle.php?ptitle=Banks shareholders threaten court action &article=2112

    Banks shareholders threaten court action

    2011-02-01

    by Shawn Cumberbatch

    Banks Holdings Limited could be facing legal action from disgruntled shareholders. A number of them, upset with last week’s controversial passage of a resolution giving foreign financiers Latin Capital Fund/SLU Beverages Limited a 20 per cent shareholding and the power to determine whether or not that company can issue new shares, have been getting legal advice and are threatening to take the matter to court. But BHL’s management has again defended the move to borrow $56 million from the El Salvador enterprise and convert $53 million into 13.2 million of its shares and the right to determine if and how many new shares can be issued. Managing Director/CEO Richard Cozier said everything had been down within the law. Some shareholders brought their concerns to Barbados TODAY and raised several questions about whether the transaction was fully within the rules of the Companies Act, among other issues. Among those willing to take BHL to court was chartered accountant Douglas Skeete, who said today: “We will need a lawyer to file the application, but whoever is willing to go forward I will give them the support.” “What happens from here now is critical. They, BHL, have gone ahead, but some of the shareholders have suggested if this is taken to litigation it would succeed. So I think there are a number of people who feel it should be tested in court to see whether it could go forward because there are number of concerns.” Skeete, referring to last week Monday’s special meeting of Banks shareholders where the resolution was passed, said “every single person in that room, except the members of the board, were not happy with the resolution and did not support it because it came as a fait accompli, they basically had taken the money, issued the shares and agreed to this party saying that no further shares should be issued, so that their 20 per cent would not be diluted”. “So quite a number of people got up and even those who didn’t get up expressed their opposition to the resolution,” the president of the Barbados Association of Corporate Shareholders stated. He and others were upset with several things, including the way the vote was taken, the dilution of shares, and the power Latin Capital Fund/SLU Beverages Limited would now have. He believed there were at least four or five reasons “which form the basis on which someone can go to court and challenge what happened at that meeting”. Another long-standing shareholder said it should be left to the law courts to determine whether what BHL had done was lawful under the Companies Act. “Shareholders should not approve something that might be illegal. They can approve it but it can be reversed in the law courts,” he said. Yet another said there were grounds for court action and that there was already a legal matter concerning questions about the “watering down of shares”. “Remember WIBISCO has taken Sagicor to court for issuing shares to National Insurance Board so this has similarly happened. Now you are diluting my shares 20 per cent. Suppose I had 50 per cent of these shares in Banks,” he asked? “By the action they took my shares could now be only 30 per cent holding although I still have the same number of shares. You could stop me from having a controlling interest by diluting my shares and you would have done it without my concurrence.” BHL Managing Director/CEO Richard Cozier told Barbados TODAY the company was confident it had acted lawfully. “I can tell you that the meeting was legal and what transpired at it was legal and the shares have been issued registered and listed and therefore as far as certainly the regulatory bodies are concerned in Barbados there is nothing illegal,” he said. “I cannot issue shares unless I have the consent or assent or I followed the procedure as laid down by the Stock Exchange and the Securities Commission. So the fact that the shares are issued, they are registered and they are listed indicates that we followed the requirements that they requested.” Cozier also maintained the finance option pursued was the best one in the circumstances. “We could not continue with the old brewery, we needed to build a new brewery and this option is the best option. We went and looked at debt from the local banks, we looked at debt from regional banks, we even looked at debt from the German banks who are supplying the equipment,” he said. “None of that worked; we could not make it work because we would always be in a position where we would get the money, but we would spend half of our profits in servicing it and then shareholders would be upset. So it was always a case of you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t, but the reality is that this option allowed us to free our books and even if it was debt, the debt was less than three per cent so it was very serviceable.” shawncumberbatch@barbadostoday.bb


  5. Did I read somewhere that the shareholders wanted their objection to be noted in a vote by “show of hands”? Typically it is the number of shares that are counted towards major decisions like this one not a majority vote at a special meeting. I don’t think the Directors could make this choice unless they were authorized to do this through the Company’s by laws.

    What BHL has done is exchange debt for equity which is not unheard of, of course they could have tried to raise funds through a special share offering and hope that it is subscribed but that would have the same effect on the present shareholders that is the dilution of their shares in effect a “zero sum game”.

    As for the reasons advanced i.e. replacement of the brewery, well it is a 60 year old plant and I don’t know what technological improvements have been made but the world of beer has undergone a host of changes over the past few years but Banks offers the same product perhaps there is a market for a “lite” beer or filtered beer and possibly these cannot be brewed at the Wildey plant.

    I think “Banks” has a significant market share in Barbados but it would be interesting to know what share it has in the other Caribbean islands.

    For what its worth many people in North America or Europe who are familiar with Banks associate it with Barbados but the beer is a Guyanese brand so when I buy a Banks in North America there is information on the bottle which states that it is bottled under license from the Brewery in Guyana.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading