ESR-Reit, Viva Industrial Trust request lifting of trading halt after merger gets nod
DeeperDive is a beta AI feature. Refer to full articles for the facts.
ESR-REIT requested a lift of its trading halt on Monday morning before trading hours began, days after unitholders approved a merger with Viva Industrial Trust (VIT) that bringsthe sending the real estate investment trust (Reit) closer towards becoming Singapore's fourth-largest industrial property trust.
Viva Industrial Trust also requested a lift of its trading halt on Monday morning.
At the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on Aug 31 for ESR-Reit, holders of 94.2 per cent of non-abstaining units that voted okayed the key resolution to approve the merger.
Under the proposed merger, ESR-Reit will acquire all of Viva's stapled securities in exchange for S$9.60 in cash and 160 new ESR-Reit units for every 100 stapled Viva securities held.
Related resolutions regarding the issue of consideration units and a whitewash resolution also passed with more than 90 per cent approval.
That afternoon at VIT's EGM and scheme meeting, holders of VIT's stapled securities approved all the resolutions, with 96.88 per cent of votes in favour of the resolution on proposed VIT trust scheme amendments and 96.6 per cent of votes in approval for the resolution on proposed VIT Facilitation Fee amendments.
Navigate Asia in
a new global order
Get the insights delivered to your inbox.
The scheme resolution was approved by 88.47 per cent of holders that voted.
VIT managers will submit their application to the court for it to be green-lighted.
VIT units closed on Aug 30 at 91 Singapore cents, while ESR-Reit units closed on Aug 30 at 52 Singapore cents.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
TRENDING NOW
Vietnam formalises new state leadership, redefining ‘four pillars’ power balance
‘Largest Singapore commercial S-Reit proxy’: analysts say buy CICT shares after Paragon acquisition
From 1MDB to ‘corporate mafia’: Is Malaysia facing a new governance test?
Why where you park your joint venture matters: Lessons from a US$689 million shareholder dispute