15 MAY 2013premiumtimesng.com
ALSCON ownership tussle: Supreme Court commences hearing again
Edited by : AL CIRCLE
3 min read
The Nigerian Supreme Court will determine who has acted contrary to ts judgement.
The Supreme Court will on Monday hear the petition against the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) over its decision to cancel the offer to BFIG to acquire the Aluminium Smelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON).
The BPE, which claimed the March 19, 2013 decision was approved by the National Council on Privatization (NCP), said the cancellation followed BFIG’s “inability to pay the agreed 10 per cent of the offer price within 15 working days of the execution of the Share/Sales Purchase Agreement, SPA, as directed by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”
The Supreme Court in its July 6, 2012 unanimous judgment had issued an order of specific performancee mandating BPE to provide a mutually agreed share purchase agreement (SPA) for BFIG to pay the agreed 10 per cent of the accepted bid price of $410 million within 15 working days from the date of its execution in accordance with agreement of May 20, 2004.
Ostensibly, in pursuit of the Supreme Court order, the Bureau had on October 8, 2012 transmitted a 58-page SPA mutually agreed by all stakeholders during the May 20, 2004 pre-bid technical conference it issued for BFIG to review and execute.
However, in a curious twist, BPE issued another letter on January 29, 2013 entitled: “Offer to Purchase 77.5% shares of the Aluminium Shelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON)” to BFIG.
The letter signed by the Bureau’s Director General, Benjamin Dikki, was accompanied by a 14-page SPA, which it demanded BFIG to execute as the agreement the Supreme Court directed.
But, BFIG said the letter was in violation of the order of the Supreme Court, as an “offer letter and the invitation to acquire the Aluminium Shelter”, instead of the Aluminium Smelter “renders the unilateral share purchase agreement unacceptable.”
BFIG’s Chairman, Rueben Jaja, dismissed the Bureau’s decision as illegal, null, void and of no effect, describing it as another manifestation of the lawlessness by the privatisation agency.
He accused BPE of neglecting to retrieve the aluminium company from UC RUSAL, which is still in possession of the share certificate of the company. He also said the Board of Directors of the aluminium company is yet to be dissolved, and a change of ownership of yet to be filed by the Ministry of Finance Incorporated with the CAC.
After its request for BPE to redress the seeming discrepancy was ignored, BFIG went ahead to review, execute and return the October 8, 2012 SPA on February 13, 2013 with a covering note requesting BPE to sign the appropriate portion(s) of the document and return same within five working days, accompanied by its bank details for the transfer of the initial payment of 10 per cent purchase price for ALSCON as directed by the Supreme Court.
Rather than complete the agreement and return accordingly as requested, the Bureau on March 19 announced the cancellation of the offer, resulting in BFIG returning to the Supreme Court.
The current case at the Supreme Court would determine who amongst the Bureau and the BFIG has acted in violation of the court’s 2012 ruling.
The Supreme Court will on Monday hear the petition against the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) over its decision to cancel the offer to BFIG to acquire the Aluminium Smelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON).
The BPE, which claimed the March 19, 2013 decision was approved by the National Council on Privatization (NCP), said the cancellation followed BFIG’s “inability to pay the agreed 10 per cent of the offer price within 15 working days of the execution of the Share/Sales Purchase Agreement, SPA, as directed by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.”
The Supreme Court in its July 6, 2012 unanimous judgment had issued an order of specific performancee mandating BPE to provide a mutually agreed share purchase agreement (SPA) for BFIG to pay the agreed 10 per cent of the accepted bid price of $410 million within 15 working days from the date of its execution in accordance with agreement of May 20, 2004.
Ostensibly, in pursuit of the Supreme Court order, the Bureau had on October 8, 2012 transmitted a 58-page SPA mutually agreed by all stakeholders during the May 20, 2004 pre-bid technical conference it issued for BFIG to review and execute.
However, in a curious twist, BPE issued another letter on January 29, 2013 entitled: “Offer to Purchase 77.5% shares of the Aluminium Shelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON)” to BFIG.
The letter signed by the Bureau’s Director General, Benjamin Dikki, was accompanied by a 14-page SPA, which it demanded BFIG to execute as the agreement the Supreme Court directed.
But, BFIG said the letter was in violation of the order of the Supreme Court, as an “offer letter and the invitation to acquire the Aluminium Shelter”, instead of the Aluminium Smelter “renders the unilateral share purchase agreement unacceptable.”
BFIG’s Chairman, Rueben Jaja, dismissed the Bureau’s decision as illegal, null, void and of no effect, describing it as another manifestation of the lawlessness by the privatisation agency.
He accused BPE of neglecting to retrieve the aluminium company from UC RUSAL, which is still in possession of the share certificate of the company. He also said the Board of Directors of the aluminium company is yet to be dissolved, and a change of ownership of yet to be filed by the Ministry of Finance Incorporated with the CAC.
After its request for BPE to redress the seeming discrepancy was ignored, BFIG went ahead to review, execute and return the October 8, 2012 SPA on February 13, 2013 with a covering note requesting BPE to sign the appropriate portion(s) of the document and return same within five working days, accompanied by its bank details for the transfer of the initial payment of 10 per cent purchase price for ALSCON as directed by the Supreme Court.
Rather than complete the agreement and return accordingly as requested, the Bureau on March 19 announced the cancellation of the offer, resulting in BFIG returning to the Supreme Court.
The current case at the Supreme Court would determine who amongst the Bureau and the BFIG has acted in violation of the court’s 2012 ruling.
Previous article
Chalco to Sell Stakes at Subsidiaries, Alcoa’s Tennessee Aluminum Rolling Mill Expands
Next articleUAE-developed world-leading aluminium technologies and premium purity products promoted at 18th World Aluminium Conference
Grow with
AL Circle
