Shree Digvijay Cement recently changed hands and investors were offered a poor deal

Investors of Shree Digvijay Cement Company were offered an extremely low valuation as the ownership was transferred from one company to another in a convoluted deal that made it look like an indirect acquisition. As expected, complaints made to the regulator remain unfruitful

A few weeks back Gujarat-based Shree Digvijay Cement Company (SDCCL), a 1.3 million-tonne (MT) capacity cement manufacturer, made a disclosure on the BSE website that its promoters Cimentos de Portugal (Cimpor), a Portuguese cement company, would be transferring its stake to Votorantim Cimentos (Votorantim), an unlisted cement company based in Brazil.  What transpired in the previous few months makes this look like a simple transfer of shares as the promoters are of the view that this is not a direct acquisition but an indirect acquisition through the acquisition of shares of Cimpor. But in fact on looking deep into the events that transpired over the previous year, Votorantim gave up its ≈21% stake in Cimpor to acquire other assets owned by Cimpor around the world which included SDCCL. The worst part is, as brought to our notice by two investors of SDCCL, that in the open offer, shareholders of SDCCL were offered a valuation of just $22 per tonne (Rs10.94 per share) whereas other cement companies in that period with the same capacity were quoting a valuation around $100 per tonne. All this happened under the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) nose and with its approval despite repeated complaints by the investors. We contacted SDCCL for their response, however, no reply was received at the time of publishing this story.

 

Discrepancy in valuation

 

The open offer made by SDCCL was valued by Kotak Mahindra Capital Company. The offer price quoted was Rs10.94 based on some valuation metrics. As per Kotak, the offer price was at a premium of 12.3% to the volume weighted average price for the two weeks prior to the date of the public announcement (PA) and at a premium of 15.2% to the volume weighted average price for 60 days prior to the date of the PA. By the time of the start date of the open offer, the offer price was at a premium of just 2.72%.

 

In terms of a key valuation indicator for cement companies, the enterprise value per tonne, the valuation done by Kotak worked out to just ≈$22 per tonne against a benchmark of $80-$100 per tonne for smaller cement companies around that time. The valuation done by Kotak was extremely low especially for a profitable company with a low debt. Agreeably, the promoters chose an opportune time when the company was highly undervalued and the shares were poorly traded. We have looked at other acquisitions of this size.

 

As per a recent research report, by Avendus, Jaypee Group made a deal to acquire Andhra Cements at an enterprise value of around $85 per tonne in December 2011. In September 2012, Dalmia Bharat Enterprises acquired the 1.5 MT Adhunik Cement’s plant in Meghalaya at an enterprise value of $120 per tonne with a capacity utilisation of 50%. In fact, Cimpor, in December 2007, acquired SDCCL at a valuation of $160 per MT!!

 

A complaint raised to SEBI by one investor in July 2012 on this discrepancy was answered by the banker to the offer who coolly stated that the “Letter of Offer” (LOF) has been approved by SEBI. The LOF also states the transactions that take place which, though convoluted, states that the transaction is an indirect transfer through acquisition. However, on taking a broader view, at the end of the transaction Cimpor transfers its control of SDCCL to Votorantim—seems completely like a direct acquisition.

 

Indirect acquisition or direct acquisition?

 

In March last year, Camargo Corrêa SA (Camargo), which holds ≈33% stake in Cimpor, through a company controlled by it—InterCement Austria Holding (InterCement)—made an open offer for acquiring the remaining shares of Cimpor. Later in May, the Portuguese Securities Commission directed that the tender offer be revised to a mandatory tender offer. Through the mandatory tender offer InterCement came to acquire ≈40% of Cimpor. Therefore, Camargo directly and indirectly held nearly 73% stake in Cimpor. (See chart below)
 

Now comes the interesting part, these companies entered into a restructuring agreement, where certain assets held by Cimpor and InterCement would be swapped. Cimpor transferred some assets (from Morocco, India, Turkey, etc, which included SDCCL) to InterCement and the latter transferred 17 operating plants to Cimpor. This was the first transaction for asset swap. Then, InterCement would then transferred these assets received from Cimpor to Votorantim for Votorantim‘s 21.40% stake in Cimpor. Cimpor’s assets in Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, India, China and Peru, as well as a 21.2% stake in Cimpor’s consolidated net debt were valued at 817 million euros by two independent investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Rothschild. A corporate announcement on Cimpor’s website states that the transfer of its assets from InterCement to Votorantim is outside its corporate sphere. Both InterCement and Votorantim are unlisted companies.
 

 
Therefore, Votorantim has direct control of SDCCL through this restructuring even though it did not make an initial acquisition offer for Cimpor. Now as the first acquisition offer was made in March, the open offer in SDCCL was triggered as per SEBI’s Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers (SAST) Regulations, 2011. However, the open offer was announced much later in June and soon after the restructuring agreement. This avoided two open offers being triggered, the first being the acquisition by InterCement and then the transfer to Votorantim. The regulator didn’t seem to mind.

Comments
V K JAIN
1 decade ago
This is purely Unfair trade practice. Considering its consistent track record-SEBI has not protected investors interests in this matter also- should not come as a surprise to those who know. Depending upon the facts in the instant matter (which we have not studied)the only option to fight this, we clearly feel is: An Appeal in SAT and/or a Writ petition in High Court/Supreme Court expeditiously.

Virendra Jain
Midas Touch Investors Association
Mahesh Dua
1 decade ago
Full credit to moneylife and the active investors. Hope SEBI wakes up from sleep. Let Justice prevail.
Santhana Krishnan
1 decade ago
Good work by Moneylife. At least SEBI should wake up now and annul the farce of an open offer. Kotak needs a rap on its knuckle for being a party to this scam. When that good day would come?
RAJESH IYER
1 decade ago
SEBI i m sure will act ..I am enthused with hope after reading a recent article in Business Standard dated 24th Feb http://www.business-standard.com/article....
This shows that SEBI is concerned about increasing golmaals of various kinds in "open offers"..We shouldnt give up
Ramesh Poapt
1 decade ago
Great ML! Pl continue to expose such matters.
RAJESH IYER
Replied to Ramesh Poapt comment 1 decade ago
yes indeed!
sudip sheth
1 decade ago
recently, Mahamaya Investment Ltd,(BSE code 511187) of Yogindra Mafatlal group(Atulya ); promoter transfered all shares to a Surat Party. No offer is made to public share holders. Shares were transfered at Rs.20 much below market price which was Rs.40 2 months ago, was brought down to rs.28.

Co. shall give offer to shareholders at rs.40 around.
SANKARAN
1 decade ago
The Truth of unsurping hard earned small investor money by SDCCL (needless to mention the greedy banker) has been graphically unearthed in well researched detail by the research team of Moneylife..I was just about to take up the issue with investment grievance forums and this damning evidence of Shree Digvijay had been exposed timely by you..it would not be out of place if i suggest that not only SEBI but the MCA should also take note of this as a serious compliance issue begs attention..Also since the matter involves two foreign entities , even the tax authorities may have a right to know exact financial details and at least rule out the other possibilities of violations..As for we as small investors there is no doubt that this makes a clear cut case of being taken for a ride using terms like "restructuring agreement" and simply concealing a Direct Acquisition to avoid giving small investors their dues.
RAJESH IYER
Replied to SANKARAN comment 1 decade ago
very true
anil garg
1 decade ago
Sebi is in fact an useless organisation as far as taking care of small investor interest are concerned.This case study clearly tells that Manager to offer is taking protection under SEBI clearance where as SEBI tells Manager to reply.It appears corruption too is there in SEBI.For approval they may be taking money.
RAJESH IYER
Replied to anil garg comment 1 decade ago
the evidence of wrongdoings is quite clear..SEBI i m sure shall take this case to its logical conclusion
sachchidanand
1 decade ago
SEBI appears to be not only deaf but also blind ! What this article brought out , should have been discovered by SEBI. I some one suspects some palms being greased in this transaction, the ultimate loser is the Investor, who has been taken for a grand ride..Kotak is also hand in glove with Company.
RAJESH IYER
Replied to sachchidanand comment 1 decade ago
I fully agree with your observation that KOTAK needs to be investigated immediately
Vaibhav Dhoka
1 decade ago
Regulator is generally hand in glove with such unscrupulous entities.Indian investor is always in NO MAN land.
RAJESH IYER
1 decade ago
kudos to MONEYLIFE for bringing out this fact of Shree Digvijay Cement Company Limited therby bringing to light the massively unjust offering to minority "INDIAN" shareholders..I am sure this is the first step towards ensuring justice to shareholders..
Rajhans
Replied to RAJESH IYER comment 1 decade ago
Justice & that too in india ?
RAJESH IYER
Replied to Rajhans comment 1 decade ago
You may have a point but we shouldn't give up..Recent events involving Sahara group proved that SEBI had to crack the whip after the massive wrongdoings of Sahara Group got exposed..We should persist and I am sure SEBI would have to take cognizance of all facts. That's what a "watchdog" is supposed to do..its a question of our collective restoring of faith in institutions and not allow these scrupulous company officials and the banker go scot free..in this era of technological system of redressal, information access and , deft , nimble footed media like MONEYLIFE, there is a beacon of hope....
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback