Valuation of shares in M&A deals

Published: 11 Mar 2021
Type: Insight

First Published in The Royal Gazette, Legally Speaking, March 2021

The continuing presence of the Covid-19 pandemic may prompt companies to consider making strategic acquisitions through mergers and amalgamations.


These acquisitions can aid in restructuring a group that is experiencing a downturn due to the pandemic, or they can help businesses to capitalise on unique opportunities that only occur in conditions such as those created by the pandemic.

Regardless of the benefits that these deals can provide, careful consideration should be given at a board level to the expectations of shareholders regarding the valuation of their shares.

Where there is a merger or amalgamation involving one or more Bermuda companies, the Companies Act 1981 provides that the directors of each company shall submit the merger or amalgamation agreement to the shareholders of their respective companies in order to get approval.

Notice of the meeting of the shareholders shall be accompanied by a summary of the agreement and state the fair value of the shareholders’ shares as determined by the board of each company, and provide that a dissenting shareholder is entitled to be paid the fair value of his or her shares.

The significance in stating the fair value of the shares as determined by the board of directors is that, those shareholders who do not vote in favour of the merger or amalgamation and feel that they have not been offered fair value may apply to have their shares appraised by the court.

The court typically determines fair value on the basis of expert evidence submitted by the parties; this is why it is important to highlight in the board minutes the factors that were considered by the directors of the company when determining fair value. An application to have fair value appraised by the court must be made within one month of receipt of the notice to hold a shareholder’s meeting.

Where the amalgamation consideration is to be shares in the target company, the courts will only be concerned with expert evidence that aids them in determining the fair value of the shares in the amalgamating company and not the fair value of the shares in the target company.

It is important to note that no appeals shall be made once the court has made its determination of fair value. That will be the final resolution, however grievous the decision may be to either the company or the dissenting shareholder(s).

Once the court appraises the value of the shares, the company has two options. It may pay the dissenting shareholder(s) an amount equal to the fair value as appraised by the court, or it may terminate the amalgamation or merger in accordance with the Act.

This is another reason why the board must be able to clearly illustrate to the court how it arrived at the determination of fair value, as it is possible that an application by a few dissenting shareholders could result in the company having to pay out a greater sum than was originally considered – or ultimately lead to termination of the merger or amalgamation agreement.

Case law on this topic is rare, but Canadian authorities suggest that the appraisal process as determined by the court is to be taken on a case-by-case basis and that there is no one set of rules that answers all of the questions that may arise from clients looking to pursue a merger or amalgamation.

Despite this being the case, the courts have held that there are four commonly recognised approaches in valuing company shares:

  • market value of the shares (their quoted price on a stock exchange);
  • value of the assets of the company (either as a going concern or on liquidation);
  • earnings, which looks at the capitalised value of a projected stream of income; or
  • it could use some combination of the previous three methods.

One final note that was considered by a US court is that the remedy of a dissenting shareholder to seek appraisal is likely to be the exclusive remedy of that shareholder.

Although there is no Bermuda case law on this point, the US court in that particular case determined that if a Bermuda court were to address the issue, it would also find the appraisal remedy exclusive.

Authored by trainee Zantae Dill, a member of the Corporate department at Appleby.

 

For support and advice, contact our Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) team.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
12 Jun 2026

The Cost of Getting Employee Departures Wrong: Five Common Pitfalls for Bermuda Employers

Employee departures are an inevitable part of running a business, but the way they are managed can have significant legal, financial and operational consequences. In Bermuda, employers who approach terminations without adequate preparation may expose themselves to unnecessary disputes, regulatory issues, and reputational harm. Whether an employee is being dismissed for performance reasons, made redundant or departing as part of a negotiated exit, by recognizing the following common mistakes and taking a proactive approach, organizations can manage departures more effectively and reduce risk.

Appleby-Website-Privacy-and-Data-Protection
8 Jun 2026

It’s time to bridge Pipa compliance gap

A review of 200 publicly available privacy notices of companies in Bermuda has revealed that just one in nine are fully compliant with the Personal Information Protection Act 2016.

Appleby-Website-Privacy-and-Data-Protection
26 May 2026

Transparency is a legal requirement under Pipa

Major companies across the European Union have faced substantial fines between 2019 and 2024, estimated at a total of €930 million (about $1.08 billion), not only for cyberattacks or data breaches, but also for issues such as noncompliant privacy notices. A common theme in many cases has been a lack of transparency.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
8 May 2026

Outsourcing considerations for Bermuda insurers

As Bermuda insurers engage with third-party service providers to support their business functions, the Bermuda Monetary Authority has clarified its regulatory expectations surrounding outsourcing arrangements and operational resilience.

Economic Substance
27 Apr 2026

Economic substance regime now falls under Cita

Recent amendments to Bermuda’s economic substance regime have transferred regulatory responsibility from the Registrar of Companies to the Corporate Income Tax Agency.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice-1905px-x-1400px
15 Apr 2026

Purpose trusts: Bermuda’s answer to modern asset structuring

Purpose trusts represent a notable development in modern trust law, particularly within offshore financial jurisdictions such as Bermuda. Unlike traditional private trusts, which are established for the benefit of identifiable beneficiaries, purpose trusts are created to achieve specific objectives or purposes. Historically, common law jurisdictions were reluctant to recognise such arrangements due to the absence of beneficiaries capable of enforcing the trust. However, legislative reforms in Bermuda have significantly expanded the scope of trust law by expressly validating noncharitable purpose trusts. Through the enactment of the Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’), Bermuda introduced a statutory framework that allows trusts to exist for defined purposes, provided certain legal requirements are satisfied. This innovation has made Bermuda a leading jurisdiction for the establishment of purpose trusts, particularly in the fields of international finance, corporate structuring and private wealth management. This article examines the legal foundations of purpose trusts under Bermuda law, focusing on their historical development, statutory framework, requirements for validity, enforcement mechanisms and practical applications.

Website-Code-Bermuda-1
10 Apr 2026

Bermuda Regulatory Update – Economic Substance Amendment Act 2026

On 31 March 2026, the Economic Substance Amendment Act 2026 and the Economic Substance Amendment Regulations 2026 (together, the “2026 Amendments”) came into force, enacting changes to the Economic Substance Act 2018 (“ES Act”) and Economic Substance Regulations 2018.

ICLG Fintech 21 cover
10 Apr 2026

Digital asset developments and Bermuda’s regulatory readiness

While frightening to some, “finance bros” and “tech bros” are now wearing the same gilets as traditional finance products and structures are being infused with digital asset adaptation.