The legal issues around the sale of 9mobile

The legal battle surrounding the sale of 9mobile, formerly known as Etisalat, continues to unfold as the Federal High Court in Abuja makes a decision regarding the transfer of ownership from EMTS to Teleology Nigeria. Lami Adekola, Co-founder and Director of Hamilton and George, sheds light on the complex legal issues at play in this controversial transaction. The court ruling has sparked debates over investment perspectives, minority shareholder rights, and the transfer of licenses. Let's delve into the key points of this contentious case. Adekola explains that while Teleology now owns EMTS and operates under the 9mobile name, the license remains with EMTS. This distinction raises questions about the legality of the ownership transfer and the implications for the telecom company's operations. The crux of the matter lies in the claims made by minority shareholders, Abdeen and Durba Investments, who allege that they were not adequately involved in the sale process. These shareholders argue that they have a right of first refusal and tag-along rights, which may have been violated. The dispute underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to corporate governance principles in such transactions. Adekola emphasizes that equity investments come with inherent risks, and minority shareholders must accept the potential for losses. However, the legal nuances of the sale process have prompted a closer examination of the shareholders' rights and entitlements. The involvement of banks in seizing and selling shares adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Adekola acknowledges the challenges faced by minority shareholders in asserting their rights during a default scenario. The shareholders' agreement and the specific circumstances of the default determine the extent of their recourse in such cases. The legal framework governing the transfer of ownership in a limited liability company requires careful consideration of minority shareholders' interests and rights. Adekola stresses the need for clarity and transparency in addressing the grievances of minority shareholders and upholding corporate governance standards. The SPV structure through which shareholders invested in EMTS adds a layer of complexity to the case, as it raises questions about the nature of their indirect interests in the company. The ongoing legal battle between the parties highlights the importance of legal clarity and due process in corporate transactions. The conflicting information presented by EMTS and premium telecommunications regarding the court ruling further complicates the situation. While EMTS claims that the sale process was not affected by the court's decision, premium telecommunications contests this assertion. The uncertainty surrounding the transfer of the license and the maintenance of the status quo adds to the complexity of the case. As the legal proceedings continue, the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, and stakeholders await further developments in this ongoing saga. The intricacies of corporate law and shareholder rights are at the forefront of this legal battle, underscoring the need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to legal standards in business transactions.