The definition of reverse takeover ("RTO") in the Listing Rules gives the Exchange a very wide discretion to determine that a transaction is designed to circumvent the listing requirements and should be treated as an RTO.
Even transactions which are in substance backdoor listings, but do not fall strictly within the RTO description above, may still be considered RTOs subject to the Listing Rules.
An example of the Exchange's application of its discretion can be seen in Listing Decision 75-1 of October 2009 . The case concerned a company ("Company A") which had long been suspended from trading. At the time of suspension, Company A and its subsidiaries (the "Group") were principally engaged in the business of nurturing, selling and trading tree seedlings and seeds. Company A agreed with a third party to dispose of its entire interest in a subsidiary, which at the time conducted the principal business of the Group (the "Disposal"). The Disposal constituted a very substantial disposal ('VSD") for Company A.
As part of the proposal to resume trading, Company A would enter other transactions and arrangements including:
Following the Disposal, the Group had ceased to operate its original principal business. Company A intended to focus on the New Businesses.
The Company argued that notwithstanding that based on the percentage ratio calculations, the Acquisitions would be a VSA, the transaction did not constitute an RTO since the Acquisitions and other transactions did not involve a change in control.
The Exchange disagreed. It ruled that transactions that are in substance backdoor listings but do not fall within the tests outlined above may still be considered as reverse takeovers. It determined that:
Note that the Listing Rules no longer include a "listed asset" exception to the RTO rules which allowed a transaction under which assets were injected into a listed issuer and which amounted to a VSA to be reduced to a major transaction if the assets or a large part of them were listed. Crucially, this meant that the transaction would be subject to shareholder approval, but would not be treated as a new listing even where the asset injection caused a change in majority control.
The removal of the listed asset carve out had significant consequences for restructurings of distressed companies. In the context of a change of control and rescue of the business, one of the principal routes had been an injection of a listed asset. With the exception gone, almost any asset injection resulting in a change of control would be treated as an RTO.