Despatch of Offer Document and Target Company Statement
RECOMMENDED
OFFER
6 December 2018
Partial takeover offer by Global Valar,
S.L. (a subsidiary of Finaccess
Capital, S.A. de C.V.) for ordinary
shares in Restaurant Brands
New Zealand Limited
for NZ$9.45 cash
per share.
Financial Adviser:
IMPORTANT
If you are in doubt as to any aspect of this Offer, you should
consult your financial or legal adviser.
If you have sold all your shares in Restaurant Brands New
Zealand Limited, you should immediately hand this Offer
Document and the accompanying acceptance forms to the
purchaser or the agent (e.g. the broker) through whom the
sale was made, to be passed to the purchaser.
Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited’s target company
statement, together with an Independent Adviser’s Report
on the merits of the Offer either accompanies this Offer or
will be sent to you within 10 Working Days and should be
read in conjunction with this Offer.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
1
SECTION PAGE
1. LETTER FROM THE CEO OF FINACCESS CAPITAL
...........................................................................................................................................................................2
2. REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD ACCEPT THE OFFER
...................................................................................................................................................................4
3.
SUMMAR
Y OF THE OFFER
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
4. HOW TO ACCEPT THE OFFER
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
5. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OFFER
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................13
6. SCHEDULE
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................28
CONTENTS
RECOMMENDED OFFER
2
LETTER FROM THE CEO OF FINACCESS CAPITAL
6 December 2018
Dear Shareholder,
PARTIAL TAKEOVER OFFER FOR RESTAURANT BRANDS AT NZ$9.45 CASH PER SHARE
Finaccess Capital, S.A. de C.V. (Finaccess Capital) is pleased to present to you this recommended
1
partial takeover offer in relation to Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited (Restaurant Brands).
Our NZ$9.45 cash per share offer is in respect of 75% of the fully paid ordinary shares in Restaurant
Brands (the Offer). The Offer is being made by our subsidiary, Global Valar, S.L. (the Offeror).
We believe the Offer is a compelling opportunity for shareholders to realise significant value for
their investment in Restaurant Brands, with the offer price of NZ$9.45 cash per share representing
a 24.3% premium to Restaurant Brands’ last close price prior to announcement of our proposal and
a 26.1% premium to the 12 month VWAP
2
at that time.
Each of Restaurant Brands’ independent directors and Stephen Copulos
3
(who is a non-executive
director) recommend that you accept our Offer in the absence of an unmatched superior proposal
and subject to the Independent Adviser’s Report continuing to conclude that our Offer consideration
of NZ$9.45 cash per share is within or above the Independent Adviser’s valuation range of NZ$8.15
to NZ$8.92 per share. Further details of the recommendation is set out in the target company
statement that accompanies this Offer Document (or will be sent to you within 10 Working Days).
Included within the target company statement is the Independent Adviser’s Report, including the
Independent Adviser’s valuation range.
We have entered into a separate agreement with Mr Copulos, Restaurant Brands’ largest shareholder
with a current shareholding of approximately 8.5%. As part of this agreement, Mr Copulos has
agreed to accept our Offer for all of the Restaurant Brands shares he holds or controls, subject to
directors of Restaurant Brands not withdrawing or qualifying their recommendation of our Offer.
Furthermore, all other directors intend to accept our Offer in respect of all of the Restaurant Brands
shares that they hold or control, in the absence of an unmatched superior proposal.
The Offer is subject to a 75% minimum acceptance condition. The 75% minimum acceptance
condition can be waived, in which case the Offer will remain conditional on acceptances being
received that result in us holding or controlling more than 50% of the voting rights in Restaurant
Brands. This may result in the Offeror holding or controlling an interest in Restaurant Brands
between 50% and 75%. We have chosen not to make a full takeover offer because we believe
there are a number of benefits from Restaurant Brands maintaining its current New Zealand Stock
Exchange (NZX) and Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) listings. By remaining a public company,
Restaurant Brands will have access to capital to fund future growth while also providing existing
shareholders an opportunity to continue participating in the business over the long-term.
1 Restaurant Brands directors unanimously recommend that shareholders accept the Offer in the absence of an unmatched superior proposal and subject to the Independent Adviser’s Report
continuing to conclude that the Offer consideration is within or above the Independent Adviser’s valuation range.
2 VWAP means the volume weighted average price at which Restaurant Brands’ shares have traded on the New Zealand Stock Exchange main board for the relevant period. VWAP is calculated
as the total dollar value of shares traded on-market, divided by the total volume (or number) of shares traded on-market during the period referred to. VWAPs have been calculated up to and
including close as of 17 October 2018 (being the last trading day prior to Restaurant Brands’ announcement of Finaccess Capital’s non-binding indicative proposal).
3
Mr Copulos, and certain of his related entities, ha
ve agreed to accept the Offer pursuant to a lock-in deed with the Offeror and Finaccess Capital, which is summarised in clause 8.1 of the
Schedule to the Offer Document.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
3
We believe that we are uniquely placed to help assist Restaurant Brands through its next phase of
growth and deliver value to all shareholders. Finaccess Capital is a growing investment company
focused on supporting strong brands in attractive end-markets, working to maximise their potential
and creating value over a long-term horizon. We are not a typical financial investor or private equity
fund looking to make a short-term profit. Instead, we aim to become long-term operating partners,
leveraging our significant consumer retail experience and helping talented management teams
execute their growth strategies.
Our senior leadership’s extensive consumer retail experience stems from their long-term leadership
roles with Grupo Modelo, S.A.B. de C.V. (one of the largest brewing companies in the world
with iconic brands including Corona and Modelo, now part of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV).
Additionally, our majority investment in AmRest Holdings SE, which operates approximately 2,000
casual dining and quick service restaurants including KFC and Pizza Hut branded restaurants,
provides us with directly relevant experience and knowledge. We believe this makes us a natural
partner for Restaurant Brands.
We recognise Restaurant Brands’ impressive historical growth track record, including through
organic store roll-outs as well as significant bolt-on acquisitions. Throughout our engagement with
Restaurant Brands, we have been highly impressed by the Restaurant Brands management team,
and it is our intention to leverage our significant resources to fully support their future business
development and growth initiatives, both within New Zealand as well as internationally. We believe
that together we can create value for all Restaurant Brands shareholders.
This Offer Document sets out the details of the Offer, including relevant information you will need to
take into account before making a decision to accept the Offer for all or part of your shareholding.
We believe this Offer represents a compelling opportunity, and encourage you to accept.
Yours sincerely,
Finaccess Capital, S.A. de C.V.
José Parés Gutiérrez
Chief Executive Officer
RECOMMENDED OFFER
4
REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD ACCEPT THE OFFER
#1 THE OFFER PRICE REPRESENTS A MATERIAL PREMIUM
TO THE RESTAURANT BRANDS SHARE PRICE
The Offer price of NZ$9.45 cash per share represents an attractive premium of:
• 24.3% to the last closing share price of Restaurant Brands on 17 October 2018, the trading day
prior to the announcement of Finaccess Capital’s initial non-binding indicative proposal;
•
23.2% to the three month VWAP prior to announcement of the proposal;
• 23.1% to the six month VWAP prior to announcement of the proposal; and
•
26.1% to the 12 month VWAP prior to announcement of the proposal.
#2 RESTAURANT BRANDS’ DIRECTORS RECOMMEND
SHAREHOLDERS ACCEPT THE OFFER
Each of Restaurant Brands’ independent directors and Stephen Copulos (who is a non-executive
director) recommend that shareholders accept the Offer in the absence of an unmatched superior
proposal and subject to the Independent Adviser’s Report continuing to conclude that the Offer
consideration is within or above the Independent Adviser’s valuation range.
#3 THE OFFER PRICE IS ABOVE THE INDEPENDENT
ADVISER’S VALUATION RANGE
The Independent Adviser has valued Restaurant Brands shares at NZ$8.15 to NZ$8.92 per share.
Our Offer consideration of NZ$9.45 cash per share is above that valuation range.
NZ$10.00
NZ$8.50
NZ$9.50
NZ$8.00
NZ$7.00
NZ$9.00
NZ$7.50
NZ$0.00
NZ$9.45
NZ$7.60NZ$7.49NZ$7.67NZ$7.68
Last CloseTakeover Offer Price
Source IRESS
Offer Price: NZ$9.45 cash per share
12 Month VWAP 3 Month VWAP 6 Month VWAP
24.3%
Premium
26.1%
Premium
23.2%
Premium
23.1%
Premium
RECOMMENDED OFFER
5
#4 STEPHEN COPULOS HAS AGREED TO SELL ALL
(SUBJECT TO SCALING) OF HIS RESTAURANT BRANDS
SHARES TO THE OFFEROR
Stephen Copulos is Restaurant Brands’ largest shareholder and a non-executive director, with a
current shareholding of approximately 8.5%.
Mr Copulos has agreed to accept our Offer for all of the Restaurant Brands shares he holds
or controls, subject to the directors of Restaurant Brands not withdrawing or qualifying their
recommendation of our Offer.
His support is a significant endorsement of this Offer and contributes meaningfully to the
acceptances required to reach the Offeror’s targeted 75% shareholding.
#5 THE OFFER REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT PREMIUM TO
RESTAURANT BRANDS’ PREVIOUS TRADING RANGE
NZ$10.00
NZ$9.00
NZ$8.00
NZ$7.00
NZ$6.00
NZ$5.00
NZ$4.00
Source FactSet
Offer Price: NZ$9.45 cash per share
18-Oct-18: Finaccess Capital’s non-
binding indicative proposal announced
Feb-17Oct-16Jun-17Oct-17Feb-18Jun-18Oct-18
RECOMMENDED OFFER
6
#6 THE OFFER VALUES RESTAURANT BRANDS AT AN
ATTRACTIVE MULTIPLE
The Offer values Restaurant Brands at an attractive multiple of:
• 14.1x EV/FY2018 EBITDA
4
;
• 13.6x EV/last 12 month EBITDA
5
; and
• 13.1x EV/FY2019 forecast consensus EBITDA
6
.
Source: Company filings, FactSet
#7 FINACCESS CAPITAL IS A LONG-TERM INVESTOR WITH
AN OPERATIONAL FOCUS AND EXTENSIVE TRACK
RECORD IN THE CONSUMER RETAIL SPACE
Finaccess Capital is a growing investment company focused on supporting strong brands in
attractive end-markets, working to maximise their potential and creating value over a long-term
horizon. Our business is part of Grupo Finaccess S.A. de C.V., which includes several other
companies and holds assets in Mexico, the US, Europe and Asia.
With no finite fund life, Finaccess Capital aims to become a long-term operating partner, leveraging
its senior leadership’s extensive consumer retail experience, including from their long-term roles
with Grupo Modelo, S.A.B. de C.V. (one of the largest brewing companies in the world with exports
to more than 180 countries and iconic brands including Corona and Modelo, now part of Anheuser-
Busch InBev SA/NV). Our investment approach is based on the core belief that any business’
success is predicated upon developing, retaining and supporting talented management teams.
Finaccess Capital will also aim to leverage its directly relevant experience gained from its majority
investment in AmRest Holdings SE, which operates approximately 2,000 casual dining and quick
service restaurants in 26 countries (with a focus on Europe, Russia and China) and a portfolio of
brands including KFC, Pizza Hut, Burger King and Starbucks (as well as several owned brands).
4 Refers to enterprise value (EV) divided by underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, amortisation and non-trading items (EBITDA).
5 Based on EBITDA for 12 months to 10 September 2018 (per Restaurant Brands’ half year accounts released 18 October 2018).
6 Based on FY2019 forecast FactSet consensus EBITDA as at 17 October 2018 (the trading day prior to announcement of Finaccess Capital’s non-binding indicative proposal).
RECOMMENDED OFFER
7
#8 FINACCESS CAPITAL WILL SUPPORT RESTAURANT
BRANDS’ GROWTH AGENDA
Restaurant Brands has achieved admirable growth historically, both through organic store roll-outs
as well as significant bolt-on acquisitions. In order to continue growing and creating shareholder
value, Restaurant Brands will need to invest further in the business.
Given its long-term investment horizon, Finaccess Capital is focused on investing in high quality
businesses that can act as platforms for future growth and capital investment.
Finaccess Capital has been highly impressed by Restaurant Brands’ management team and we
intend to leverage our significant resources to fully support their future business development and
growth initiatives, both within New Zealand as well as internationally.
We believe that together we can create value for all Restaurant Brands shareholders.
#9 ACCEPTING SHAREHOLDERS WILL HAVE CERTAINTY OF
CASH, WITH NO BROKERAGE PAYABLE
A successful Offer will provide accepting shareholders with certainty of cash for some or all of their
investment in Restaurant Brands (subject to the level of acceptance and any scaling in accordance
with the Takeovers Code).
Accepting shareholders will also not be charged brokerage under this Offer. Shareholders selling
their Restaurant Brands shares on the NZX or ASX through a share broker may be charged
brokerage.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
8
SUMMARY OF THE OFFER
ConsiderationNZ$9.45 per fully paid ordinary share (Share(s)) in Restaurant
Brands in cash.
Partial Offer
The Offer is for 75.00% of the Shares.
The Offer is subject to receipt by the Offeror of acceptances
which will result in the Offeror becoming the holder of 75.00%
of the Shares. The Offeror is able to waive this condition and, if
it does so, the Offer will be conditional on the Offeror receiving
sufficient acceptances that would result in the Offeror acquiring
at least 50.01%
7
of the Shares (in this case, the Offer will result,
if it becomes unconditional in all respects, in the Offeror holding
between 50.01% and 75.00% (inclusive), of all the Shares in
Restaurant Brands).
As at the date of this Offer Document, neither the Offeror nor
Finaccess Capital holds or controls any Shares.
Opening date
6 December 2018
Closing date
The Offer closes at 11.59 p.m. on 12 March 2019 (unless the
Offer is extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code).
Scaling of acceptancesYou may ACCEPT the Offer in respect of any number of your
Shares. However, if you accept more than 75.00% of your
Shares into the Offer, your acceptance may be subject to
scaling in accordance with the Takeovers Code.
Details of the scaling process are set out in clause 4 of the
Offer Terms. In summary, any Shares you accept into the Offer
in excess of 75.00% will only be taken up by the Offeror in
order to ensure that the Offeror holds 75.00% on completion
of the Offer. This would only occur if some shareholders have
not accepted the Offer (or have accepted in respect of less
than 75.00% of their Shares). Any shareholders who accept in
excess of 75.00% of their Shares will have their acceptance in
respect of that excess scaled on a pro rata basis.
7 Both references to “50.01%” in this paragraph have been rounded up to two decimal places.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
9
Payment date
You will be paid in accordance with clause 2.2 of the Offer
Terms. At this stage, it is anticipated that you will not be paid
until after the Closing Date.
However, if the Offeror declares the Offer unconditional before
the Closing Date you will be paid within five Working Days of the
latest of the date on which your acceptance is received by the
Offeror, the date on which the Offer becomes unconditional or
the first specified closing date.
Directors’ recommendation
Each of Restaurant Brands’ independent directors and Stephen
Copulos
8
(who is a non-executive director) recommend that
you accept the Offer, in the absence of an unmatched superior
proposal and subject to the Independent Adviser’s Report
concluding, and continuing to conclude, that the consideration
under this Offer is within or above the Independent Adviser’s
valuation range for the Shares.
Conditions
The Offer is conditional on the conditions contained in clauses
5.1 to 5.4 of the Offer Terms.
Other than the minimum acceptance conditions referred to in
the summary of the Offer above, the material conditions of the
Offer are summarised below:
(a)
T
he Offeror receives all necessary consents required
under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and the Overseas
Investment Regulations 2005 for the Offeror to complete the
acquisition of Shares in accordance with this Offer.
(b) The consent of Kentucky Fried Chicken International
Holdings LLC, Pizza Hut International LLC and Taco Bell
Corp, to the acquisition of Shares in accordance with this
Offer, becomes unconditional in all respects.
(c) No material adverse change occurs between the Notice
Date and the time that the Offer is declared unconditional by
the Offeror.
(d) Restaurant Brands conducts its business, and each of
its subsidiaries and joint venture entities conducts their
business, in the ordinary course of business, in a manner
materially consistent with the manner in which such business
has been conducted in the 12 months prior to the Notice
Date.
8 Mr Copulos, and certain of his related entities, have agreed to accept the Offer pursuant to a lock-in deed with the Offeror and Finaccess Capital, which is summarised in clause 8.1 of the
Schedule to the Offer Document.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
10
Lock-in deed
Finaccess Capital has entered into a lock-in deed with Stephen
Copulos, a director of Restaurant Brands, and certain interests
associated with Stephen Copulos
9
(the Copulos Interests) who,
in aggregate, own 8.52% of the Shares.
Under the lock-in deed:
(a) each of the Copulos Interests has agreed to accept, and
Stephen Copulos has agreed to procure that each of the
Copulos Interests accept, the Offer in respect of all of their
respective Shares (subject to scaling in accordance with the
terms of the Offer); and
(b)
neither Stephen Copulos nor any of the Copulos Interests
will make any public statement indicating a lack of
support for, or endorsement of, the Offer or supporting,
recommending or endorsing a different transaction to the
Offer.
10
This is a summary of the Offer. The detailed terms of the Offer are set out on pages 13 to
27 of this Offer Document.
9 See the definition of Copulos Interests in clause 9.2 of the Offer Terms for the names of these interests.
10 This does not prevent Stephen Copulos, in his capacity as a director of Restaurant Brands, from recommending a superior proposal in certain circumstances. Details are set out in the summary of
the Pre-Bid Agreement in clause 10.3 of the Schedule to the Offer Document.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
11
HOW TO ACCEPT THE OFFER
How to acceptTo ACCEPT this Offer, you should either:
(a) ACCEPT the Offer online at www.rbdtakeover.co.nz; or
(b) complete the relevant Acceptance Form and,
if applicable, the Specified Holder Certificate
accompanying this Offer, in accordance with the
instructions set out in the applicable form.
If you wish to ACCEPT this Offer, the relevant completed
Acceptance Form and, if applicable, Specified Holder
Certificate must be received, online or by other specified
means, by the Offeror before or post marked no later than
11.59 p.m. on 12 March 2019 (unless the Offer is extended in
accordance with the Takeovers Code).
Which Acceptance Form to
complete
(a)
If you hold your Shares in a CHESS holding (Australian
shareholders), please complete the GREEN Acceptance
Form;
(b)
For all other holders of Shares, please complete the WHITE
Share Acceptance Form.
The Offer Document you receive will be accompanied by the
relevant Acceptance Forms, with your holdings of Shares (as
recorded by Restaurant Brands at 5.00 pm on 4 December
2018) already completed
Specified Holder Certificate
If you hold Shares on behalf of more than one person, then:
(a) you are a “Specified Holder”; and
(b)
y
ou must complete the Specified Holder Certificate for the
Offer and return it with your Acceptance Form as outlined
above.
The Specified Holder Certificate sets out the number of
“Specified Persons” on whose behalf you hold Shares, the
number of Shares you hold on behalf of those Specified
Persons, and the respective number of Shares you accept into
Offer on behalf of those Specified Persons.
If you fail to complete the Specified Holder Certificate, your
acceptance in respect of the Offer is invalid.
ScalingYou may ACCEPT this Offer for all or some of your Shares.
Your acceptance may be subject to scaling in accordance
with clause 4 of the Terms and Conditions of the Offer.
Please refer to the Summary of the Offer for an overview of how
scaling works under this Offer.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
12
Address for acceptance
Return the Acceptance Form to Global Valar, S.L.:
Online:
Complete your relevant Acceptance Form at
www.rbdtakeover.co.nz. You will require your CSN/Holder
Number and relevant Acceptance Number to complete your
online acceptance. The CSN/Holder Number and Acceptance
Number can be found on the Acceptance Form sent to you.
By email:
Email a scanned copy to:
applications@linkmarketservices.co.nz
If you do this, please use “RBD Takeover Acceptance” as the
subject line of the email for easy identification.
By post:
Global Valar, S.L.
C/- Link Market Services Limited
PO Box 91976
Victoria Street West
Auckland 1142
By hand delivery:
Global Valar, S.L.
C/- Link Market Services Limited
Level 11, Deloitte Centre
80 Queen Street
Auckland 1010
By facsimile:
Fax it to Global Valar, S.L.
C/- Link Market Services Limited
+64 9 375 5990
If you have sold all of your
Shares
Please hand or send this Offer Document and all enclosures
(including the Acceptance Form(s) and, if applicable,
Specified Holder Certificate(s)) immediately to the purchaser
of your Shares or the broker through whom you made the sale
requesting that this Offer Document and all enclosures be
forwarded to the new Shareholder.
If you have sold some of
your Shares
Please alter the total holding on the relevant Acceptance Form
and, if applicable, Specified Holder Certificate, and deliver the
amended and completed forms as described above.
If you have lost your
Acceptance Form(s)
or Specified Holder
Certificate(s)
Please contact Link Market Services Limited on +64 9 375
5998 or applications@linkmarketservices.co.nz and they will
send you a new Acceptance Form(s) and/or Specified Holder
Certificate(s).
WebsitePlease go to www.rbdtakeover.co.nz for information about how
to make an online acceptance of this Offer.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
13
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OFFER
1 THE OFFER
1.1 Offer: The Offeror offers to purchase 75.00% of the Shares (the Specified Percentage),
including all rights, benefits and entitlements attached thereto on, after, or by reference to
the Notice Date, subject to the terms and conditions set out in this Offer Document and
to the Takeovers Code. As at 6 December 2018, the Specified Percentage represents
124,758,523 Shares (that number, or any lesser or greater number that may result from an
issue or buyback of Shares, is referred to as the Specified Number in this Offer Document).
The Offeror may end up holding less than the Specified Percentage, but more than 50% of
the Shares, in circumstances where:
(a)
the Offeror does not receive sufficient acceptances that would result in the Offeror
holding the Specified Percentage of the Shares;
(b)
the Of
feror waives the minimum acceptance condition in clause 5.1(a) (which relates to
the Offeror receiving sufficient acceptances such that the Offeror would end up holding
the Specified Percentage of the Shares); and
(c) the Offer becomes unconditional in all other respects, including that the minimum
acceptance condition set out in clause 5.1(b) is satisfied (which relates to the Offeror
receiving sufficient acceptances such that the Offeror would end up holding more than
50% of the Shares).
1.2
Offer Period:
This Offer is dated 6 December 2018 (Offer Date) and will remain open
for acceptance until 11.59 p.m. on 12 March 2019 (the Offer Period), unless the Offer is
withdrawn in accordance with the Takeovers Code and every person is released from every
obligation incurred under the terms of it, or the Offer lapses in accordance with its terms.
The Offeror may extend the Offer Period in accordance with the Takeovers Code. The time
the Offer expires is referred to in this Offer Document as the Closing Date.
1.3
Acceptance Form and Specified Holder Certificate: The enclosed Acceptance Form and
Specified Holder Certificate comprise part of this Offer.
2 OFFER CONSIDERATION
2.1
What you will be pa
id: The consideration offered by the Offeror is NZ$9.45 per Share
payable in cash, subject to any adjustment in accordance with clause 6.
2.2
When you will be paid: The consideration payable to each holder of Shares who accepts
this Offer (each an Acceptor) will be paid within five Working Days after the latest of:
(a) the date on which this Offer becomes unconditional;
(b) the date on which the Acceptor’s acceptance is received by the Offeror; and
(c) 12 March 2019.
As a
t the Offer Date, the Offeror intends that the Offer will only be declared unconditional
following the Closing Date but it reserves its right to declare the Offer unconditional earlier.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
14
2.3 Non-payment of consideration: If the consideration is not sent to an Acceptor within the
period specified in clause 2.2, the Acceptor may withdraw their acceptance of the Offer by:
(a) giving written notice to the Offeror of the Acceptor’s intention to withdraw acceptance of
the Offer; and
(b)
no less than fiv
e Working Days after giving notice under clause 2.3(a), giving written
notice to the Offeror withdrawing the Acceptor’s acceptance of the Offer,
provided that the Acceptor does not receive the consideration for their Shares before
written notice is given under clause 2.3(b).
3
ACCEPT
ANCE OF THIS OFFER
3.1
How to
accept the Offer: To accept this Offer, an Acceptor must do one of the following:
(a)
Online acceptance:
complete the relevant Acceptance Form and, if applicable, the
Specified Holder Certificate online at www.rbdtakeover.co.nz. The Acceptor will be
required to provide its CSN/Holder Number and Acceptance Number (which are set out
in the Acceptance Form sent to each Acceptor);
(b)
CHESS holdings (GR
EEN Acceptance Form): If the Acceptor’s Shares are held in a
CHESS holding, the Acceptor must either:
(i)
instr
uct the Acceptor’s Controlling Participant (as defined in the ASX Settlement
Operating Rules) directly (this is the Acceptor’s share broker). If an Acceptor does
this, the Acceptor will need to sign and return the GREEN Acceptance Form to the
relevant Controlling Participant; or
(ii)
authorise the Of
feror to contact the Acceptor’s Controlling Participant on the
Acceptor’s behalf, which can be done by signing and returning the GREEN
Acceptance Form in the manner specified above. By returning the GREEN
Acceptance Form the Acceptor will be deemed to have authorised the Offeror to
contact the Acceptor’s Controlling Participant directly via CHESS system. Neither
the Offeror nor the Registrar will be responsible for any delay incurred by this
process.
If
an Acceptor is a broker or Controlling Participant, the Acceptor must initiate
acceptance in accordance with the requirements of the ASX Settlement Operating
Rules.
(c)
Other means of acceptance (WHITE
Acceptance Form): complete the acceptance
in accordance with the instructions printed on the WHITE Acceptance Form and, if
applicable, the Specified Holder Certificate and deliver that WHITE Acceptance Form
and, if applicable, Specified Holder Certificate to the Offeror so as to be received not
later than 11.59 p.m. on the Closing Date, to:
(i)
By email:
applications@linkmarketservices.co.nz
(ii)
By post:
PO Box 91976, Victoria Street West, Auckland, 1142
(iii)
By hand:
Level 11, Deloitte Centre, 8 Queen Street, Auckland 1010
pro
vided that any Acceptance Form or, if applicable, Specified Holder Certificate
received after the Closing Date that is post marked on or before the Closing Date will be
deemed for the purposes of this Offer to have been received by the Closing Date. No
acknowledgment of the receipt of acceptances will be given.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
15
3.2 Shares held on behalf of other persons:
(a) If an Acceptor holds Shares on behalf of more than one person, the Acceptor is a
“Specified Holder” and MUST complete the Specified Holder Certificate for the Offer.
The completed Specified Holder Certificate must be returned to the Offeror with the
relevant Acceptance Form (or as soon as practicable thereafter), in accordance with
clause 3.1, so as to be received by the Offeror not later than 11.59 p.m. on the Closing
Date. Failure by a Specified Holder to complete a Specified Holder Certificate means
that the Specified Holder’s acceptance is invalid. All Specified Holder Certificates sent
to the address for acceptance set out in clause 3.1(c) will be deemed to have been
provided to both the Offeror and the Registrar.
(b)
Clause 3.2(a) applies regardless of:
(i) whether the holdings are direct or indirect;
(ii) whether the Specified Holder is a custodian or not; and
(iii) the particular arrangements between the Specified Holder and the person on
whose behalf the Specified Holder holds Shares.
(c) An Acceptor does not need to complete and return a Specified Holder Certificate if the
Acceptor holds Shares for itself or on behalf of only one other person.
3.3
Acceptance Forms and Specified Holder Ce
rtificates: The Offeror may, in its discretion:
(a)
trea
t any Acceptance Form as valid even if it does not comply with clause 3.1, or is
otherwise irregular;
(b)
rectify an
y errors in, or omissions from, any Acceptance Form to enable that form to
constitute a valid acceptance of this Offer and to facilitate registration of the transfer of
the relevant Shares to the Offeror, including inserting or correcting details of the Shares
held by the Acceptor and filling in any blanks; and
(c)
subject to the T
akeovers Code:
(i)
trea
t any Specified Holder Certificate as valid even if that Specified Holder
Certificate does not comply with any instructions on the Specified Holder
Certificate; and
(ii)
rectify an
y errors in, or omissions from, any Specified Holder Certificate to enable
that certificate to comply with rules 14B to 14D of the Takeovers Code and to
facilitate the taking up of Shares in accordance with rule 14E of the Takeovers
Code.
3.4
Persons who may accept:
The Offer is open for acceptance by any person who holds
Shares, whether acquired before, on or after the Offer Date, upon production of satisfactory
evidence of such person’s entitlement to those Shares. A holder of Shares may accept this
Offer in respect of all or any of their Shares. Each acceptance must be free of all conditions
of acceptance of any nature whatsoever.
3.5
Acceptor
’s representations and warranties: Each Acceptor represents and warrants that:
(a)
it is the sole leg
al and beneficial owner of the Shares in respect of which it accepts this
Offer, or it is the legal owner and has the necessary capacity and authority to accept
this Offer in respect of those Shares; and
RECOMMENDED OFFER
16
(b) legal and beneficial title to all those Shares in respect of which it accepts this Offer
will pass to the Offeror free of all liens, charges, mortgages, encumbrances and other
adverse interests or claims of any nature whatsoever; and
(c)
accepting the Of
fer in the manner contemplated by the Acceptance Form and, if
applicable, the Specified Holder Certificate submitted by the Acceptor will not cause
the Offeror to breach any law in delivering the consideration specified in clause 2.1.
Acceptance of this Offer constitutes a representation and warranty by the Acceptor to
the Offeror that title to the Shares to which the applicable acceptance relates will pass
to the Offeror on the basis described in this clause 3.5 and that the Acceptor has full
power, capacity and authority to sell and transfer all Shares in respect of which they
accept this Offer.
3.6
Specified
Holder’s representation and warranty: Each person who completes and returns
a Specified Holder Certificate represents and warrants to the Offeror that the Specified
Holder Certificate is true and correct and has been duly completed and executed. Any
person who does not complete and return a Specified Holder Certificate represents and
warrants that that person does not hold Shares on behalf of more than one person.
3.7
Joint Holders:
Despite anything to the contrary in an Acceptance Form or Specified Holder
Certificate, if an Acceptor is a joint holder of Shares (whether or not as trustee of a trust)
and the Acceptance Form and/or Specified Holder Certificate is signed by one or some, but
not all, joint holders, then the Acceptor represents and warrants to the Offeror that:
(a)
the holder(s) w
ho has/have signed the Acceptance Form and/or Specified Holder
Certificate do(es) so on behalf of and as duly authorised agent(s) for the joint holder(s)
who has/have not signed, that such authority has not been revoked, and that the
acceptance and/or certificate is binding on the joint holder(s) who has/have not signed
the Acceptance Form and/or Specified Holder Certificate; and
(b)
if the Acceptor holds the relevant Shares as a trustee of a trust, the instrument
constituting the trust permits the execution of the Acceptance Form and/or Specified
Holder Certificate in the manner in which it was executed.
3.8 Procurement by brokers: The Offeror may choose to engage the services of one or more
Primary Market Participants (as defined in the NZX Participant Rules) or other financial
advisory firms (Brokers) to contact holders of Shares. If the Offeror chooses to do this, the
key terms of engagement will be as follows:
(a)
f
or each completed and valid Acceptance Form procured by a Broker, the Offeror may
pay to the Broker a handling or procurement fee in respect of the Shares that are the
subject of the Acceptance Form (Procurement Fee). The amount of the Procurement
Fee will be 0.75% of the consideration payable by the Offeror under this Offer to the
relevant Acceptor in respect of the Acceptance Form received. The Procurement Fee
will be subject to a minimum amount of $25 and a maximum amount of $500 for a single
Acceptance Form inclusive of GST, if any;
(b)
the Brok
er will be paid, and will receive, the Procurement Fee solely in connection with
its services to the Offeror and must not, directly or indirectly, pass any or all of the
Procurement Fee on to any Acceptor, or share the Procurement Fee with any Acceptor;
RECOMMENDED OFFER
17
(c) the payment of a Procurement Fee to a Broker in respect of an Acceptance Form
procured by that Broker is in all respects conditional on the Shares, that are the subject
of that Acceptance Form, being validly transferred to the Offeror. No Procurement Fees
will be payable if this Offer is not declared unconditional by the Offeror. In addition, the
Acceptance Form must be delivered to the Offeror in accordance with clause 3.1 and,
unless the Offeror in its sole discretion determines otherwise, must be stamped by the
Broker (and only that Broker);
(d)
Brokers are precluded from receipt of any Procurement Fee in respect of Shares in
which they or their associates have relevant interests;
(e)
the Of
feror may, in determining the Procurement Fee payable to a Broker, aggregate
and/or disregard any acceptance of this Offer procured by that Broker if the Offeror
believes that a party has structured holdings of the Shares for the purpose or with the
effect of enabling parties to take advantage of the arrangements summarised in this
clause 3.8; and
(f)
the Offeror will determine, in its sole discretion, any disputes relating to the payment
of a Procurement Fee. The determination of the Offeror will be final and binding on all
parties, to the extent permitted by law.
4
SCALING
OF ACCEPTANCES
4.1
How th
e Offeror treats acceptances: The Offeror will purchase:
(a)
all of
the Shares of each Acceptor who accepts the Offer for the Specified Percentage
of their Shares;
(b)
w
here an Acceptor accepts the Offer in respect of a lesser number of Shares, such
lesser number of Shares; and
(c)
w
here an Acceptor has accepted the Offer for more than the Specified Percentage
of their Shares, such number of Shares as results from scaling the acceptance in
accordance with clause 4.2,
pro
vided that, in each case, the Offer becomes unconditional.
4.2
What happens to su
rplus acceptances: Where the Offeror has received acceptances
from certain Acceptors (each a Surplus Acceptor) for more than the Specified Percentage
of those Acceptors’ Shares (those Shares in excess being Surplus Shares), then in
accordance with the Takeovers Code:
(a)
the Offeror must take up from each Acceptor the lesser of:
(i) the number of that Acceptor’s Shares that represents the Specified Percentage of
the Shares held by that Acceptor; and
(ii)
the n
umber of Shares in respect of which the Acceptor has accepted the Offer;
and
(b)
if
the number of Shares that the Offeror takes up under clause 4.2(a) is less than the
Specified Number, then the Offeror must take up, from each Surplus Acceptor, Shares
which bear the same proportion to that Acceptor’s Surplus Shares, as the balance of
the Shares required by the Offeror to acquire the Specified Number bears to the total of
all the Surplus Shares.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
18
4.3 What happens if there are no surplus acceptances: If the Offer is accepted in respect of
the Specified Percentage of Shares or less, then the Offeror must take up all of the Shares
of each Acceptor who accepts the Offer.
4.4 Specified Holders: Where the Offeror receives one or more Specified Holder Certificates,
the Offeror will take up Shares in accordance with rule 14E of the Takeovers Code and
clauses 4.2 and 4.3 will apply accordingly.
11
4.5 Appointment of attorney: If the Offer is accepted in respect of more Shares than the
Specified Percentage, each Acceptor irrevocably appoints the Offeror its attorney to amend
the number of Shares specified in that Acceptor’s Acceptance Form and, where applicable,
the Specified Holder Certificate so as to reflect any scaling and apportionment undertaken
in accordance with this clause 4. This may reduce the number of Shares taken up from the
relevant Acceptor.
5
CONDITIONS OF TH
IS OFFER
5.1 Minimum acceptance condition: This Offer, and any contract arising from acceptance of
it, is conditional on:
(a) the Offeror receiving acceptances by no later than the Closing Date in respect of such
number of Shares that would, upon this Offer becoming unconditional and the Shares
being transferred to the Offeror, result in the Offeror holding or controlling 75.00% of the
voting rights in Restaurant Brands; and
(b)
if the condition in clause 5.1(a) is waived by the Offeror, then (in accordance with
rule 23 of the Takeovers Code) the Offeror receives acceptances by no later than the
Closing Date in respect of such number of Shares that would, upon this Offer becoming
unconditional and the Shares being transferred to the Offeror, result in the Offeror
holding or controlling more than 50% of the voting rights in Restaurant Brands.
5.2
Overse
as Investment Act: The Offer, and any contract arising from acceptance of it, is
conditional on the Offeror obtaining all consents required under the Overseas Investment
Act 2005 and the Overseas Investment Regulations 2005 for the Offeror to complete the
acquisition of Shares in accordance with this Offer on terms that are usual for the granting
of such consents.
5.3
Y
um! consent: The Offer, and any contract arising from acceptance of it, is conditional on
the consent of Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC, Pizza Hut International
LLC and Taco Bell Corp, to the acquisition by the Offeror of up to 75.00% of the Shares,
becoming unconditional in all respects.
11 In broad terms, rule 14E provides that where a Specified Holder holds Shares on behalf of more than one person (each person being a Specified Person), in certain circumstances the Offeror
must treat the Specified Person (and not the Specified Holder) as the Surplus Acceptor for the purposes of scaling calculations. For example, a Specified Person will be treated as a Surplus
Acceptor where that Specified Person accepts the Offer (through the Specified Holder) for more than the Specified Percentage of the Shares held by the Specified Holder on behalf of the
Specified Person. The Takeovers Code provides that an acceptance under the Offer by a Specified Holder who has not provided a Specified Holder Certificate in accordance with rule 14B of the
Takeovers Code is invalid.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
19
5.4 Further conditions of the Offer: This Offer, and any contract arising from acceptance of
it, are subject to the conditions that, except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Offeror,
during the period from the Notice Date until the time that the Offer is declared unconditional
by the Offeror:
(a)
no Material Adverse Change occurs;
(b) no dividends, bonuses or other payments or distributions (within the meaning of the
Companies Act 1993) of any nature whatsoever (including, for the avoidance of doubt,
by way of share buyback, redemption or cancellation or any other form of capital
reduction) are authorised, declared, paid or made upon or in respect of any of the
Shares;
(c)
no shares
, performance rights, convertible securities or other equity securities of any
nature (including options, rights or interest in any ordinary shares) of Restaurant Brands
or any of its subsidiaries or joint venture entities (together the RBD Group), are issued,
agreed to be issued or made the subject of any option or right to subscribe except:
(i)
f
or the issue of Shares to Russel Creedy and Grant Ellis, respectively, on vesting of
their performance rights in accordance with vesting arrangements fairly disclosed
to Finaccess Capital prior to the Notice Date; or
(ii)
pur
suant to a transaction between Restaurant Brands and wholly owned
subsidiaries of Restaurant Brands, or between wholly owned subsidiaries of
Restaurant Brands (Intra-Group Transaction);
(d)
there is no altera
tion of the rights, benefits, entitlements and restrictions attaching to any
of the Shares;
(e)
there is no altera
tion to the constitutional documents of any member of the RBD Group,
other than amendments that are of a formal or technical, and not of a substantive,
nature;
(f)
no member of the RBD Group disposes, or agrees to dispose, or grants any person any
option to acquire, right to acquire, first right of refusal or pre-emptive rights in respect of,
or, except as permitted by clause 5.4(g), grants any person any other adverse interests
in respect of, the whole or a substantial part of the RBD Group’s business or property;
(g)
no member of
the RBD Group grants a security interest, or agrees to grant a security
interest, in respect of the whole or a substantial part, of the RBD Group’s business or
property, except for the granting of a security interest over property acquired in the
ordinary course of business;
(h)
R
estaurant Brands remains listed on the NZX, the Shares remain quoted on the NZX
and ASX, and the Shares are not suspended from trading on the NZX or ASX for more
than five trading days;
(i)
no liquidator, receiver, receiver and manager, statutory manager or similar official is
appointed in respect of any member of the RBD Group or any of their respective
assets, and no resolution is passed for any amalgamation (other than pursuant to
an Intra-Group Transaction) of any member of the RBD Group, and none of them is
involved in any merger, share buyback or scheme of arrangement;
(j)
no member of
the RBD Group seeks orders in respect of, or becomes the subject of,
any scheme of arrangement under Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993;
RECOMMENDED OFFER
20
(k) Restaurant Brands conducts its business, and each member of the RBD Group
conducts its business, in the ordinary course of business, in a manner materially
consistent with the manner in which such business has been conducted in the 12
months prior to the Notice Date;
(l)
no member of the RBD Group acquires an interest in “sensitive land” (including
“residential land”) for the purposes of the Overseas Investment Act 2005;
(m) no member of the RBD Group changes, or agrees to change, the remuneration or
any other material terms of employment of any existing director, officer, employee, or
consultant where the aggregate impact of all such changes would result in a cost to the
RBD Group in excess of $1,000,000;
(n)
no member of
the RBD Group settles or offers to settle any action, dispute, issue, claim,
litigation, prosecution, or other form of proceeding, where:
(i) the aggregate settlement amount exceeds $5,000,000; or
(ii) the settlement involves the imposition of an injunction against, or restriction on, any
member of the RBD Group undertaking any business activity, where that injunction
or restriction will have a material impact on the business of the RBD Group;
(o)
no member of
the RBD Group guarantees, provides an indemnity for, provides security
in respect of, or otherwise accepts liability in respect of, the obligations or liabilities
of any person who is not a member of the RBD Group except for the provision of
indemnities to directors and employees of the RBD Group (to the extent permitted by
the Companies Act 1993);
(p)
R
estaurant Brands does not enter into a “major transaction” for the purposes of the
Companies Act 1993 or any agreement or arrangement to which NZX Listing Rules 9.1
or 9.2 apply (or would apply but for the granting of any waiver or ruling by NZX);
(q)
there is no temporar
y restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or other
order issued by any regulatory authority or any court of competent jurisdiction in New
Zealand or elsewhere or other legal restraint or prohibition making implementation of
this Offer, or any aspect of it, void, unenforceable or illegal; and
(r)
no board resolution or shareholder
s’ resolution of any member of the RBD Group is
passed to do or authorise the doing of any act or matter referred to in any of sub-
clauses (a) to (q) (inclusive).
5.5
Eac
h of the conditions in clauses 5.1 to 5.4 is a separate condition, and acceptance of this
Offer by each Acceptor shall constitute a contract between that Acceptor and the Offeror
subject to each such condition. This Offer will only proceed if all conditions in clauses 5.1 to
5.4 are satisfied or, to the extent permissible, waived.
5.6
Eac
h of the conditions set out in clauses 5.1 to 5.4 is for the benefit of the Offeror and, other
than the conditions in clauses 5.1(b) and 5.2, may be waived, in whole or in part, by the
Offeror and on such terms as it decides, in its sole discretion. Any waiver or consent given
by the Offeror in respect of any matter or thing shall apply only in accordance with its terms
and shall not constitute a waiver or consent in respect of any similar matter or thing. The
conditions in clause 5.1(b) and 5.2 cannot be waived.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
21
5.7 To the extent required by the Takeovers Code, where any condition set out in clauses 5.1
to 5.4 requires a determination as to whether a matter is or could reasonably be expected
to be material or not, is adverse or not, is onerous or not, is long-term or not, is normal or
not, is in the ordinary course of business or not, is consistent with past practices or not, or
is of a formal or technical (and not substantive) nature or not, before the condition may be
invoked, such determination must be made by a suitably qualified expert nominated by the
Offeror who is independent of, and not an associate of the Offeror.
5.8
T
he latest date on which the Offeror can declare this Offer unconditional is 20 Working Days
after the Closing Date. The latest date by which the Offer is to become unconditional based
on the Closing Date as at the Offer Date is 5.00 p.m. on 9 April 2019 (Unconditional Date).
If the Offer does not become unconditional by the Unconditional Date, it will lapse and all
Acceptance Forms and, where applicable, Specified Holder Certificates will be destroyed.
5.9
Without limiting clause 5.10, the Offeror may not allow the Offer to lapse or invoke a
condition in clause 5.4(a), 5.4(k), 5.4(m) or 5.4(n) or clause 5.4(r) (to the extent that clause
5.4(r) relates to clause 5.4(a), 5.4(k), 5.4(m) or 5.4(n)) in respect of, or in reliance on, any
matter or circumstance:
(a)
fairly disclosed in the Disclosure Materials; or
(b)
fair
ly disclosed by Restaurant Brands to NZX in the 24 months prior to the Notice Date;
or
(c)
actuall
y known by José Parés Gutiérrez or George Lyall of Finaccess Capital on the
Notice Date.
5.10
Notwithstanding an
y other term of the Offer, the Offeror may not allow the Offer to lapse:
(a)
in unreasonab
le reliance on a condition of the Offer; or
(b)
in reliance on a condition tha
t restricts Restaurant Brands’ activities in the ordinary
course of Restaurant Brands’ business during the period that begins on the Notice Date
and ends on the Unconditional Date.
6
CHANGE IN CIRCUMST
ANCES
6.1
Dividends and distributions: If, on or after the Notice Date:
(a) Restaurant Brands declares or pays any dividend or makes any other distribution to its
shareholders; and
(b)
the Of
feror waives the condition contained in clause 5.4(b),
then, at the Offeror’s election, either:
(a)
the Acceptor
s will be bound to pay to the Offeror an amount equivalent to that dividend
or the value of that other distribution paid or payable to them or received or receivable
by them in respect of the Shares taken up from them under the Offer; or
(b)
the cash considera
tion which would otherwise have been paid to such Acceptors will be
reduced by an amount equivalent to that dividend or the value of the other distribution
paid or payable to them or received or receivable by them in respect of the Shares
taken up from them under the Offer.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
22
6.2 Issues of securities: If, on or after the Notice Date:
(a) any shares, convertible securities or other securities of any nature of Restaurant
Brands or any member of the RBD Group by way of bonus issue, are issued, agreed
to be issued or made the subject of any option or right to subscribe (except in the
circumstances referred to in clause 5.4(c)(i) and (ii); and
(b)
the Offeror waives the condition contained in clause 5.4(c),
the Acceptor
s will be bound to transfer any such securities or other rights and interests
to the Offeror and the consideration per relevant Share provided for under clause 2.1 will
be reduced to take account of such issue. This clause 6.2 does not apply to the issue of
Shares to Russel Creedy and Grant Ellis, respectively, on vesting of their performance rights
in accordance with vesting arrangements fairly disclosed to the Offeror prior to the Notice
Date.
6.3
Consolidation or subdivision of Shares: If, on or after the Notice Date, all or any of the
Shares are consolidated or subdivided, then:
(a) this Offer will be interpreted to take into account that consolidation or subdivision and
will be deemed to be for the Shares resulting from that consolidation or subdivision;
(b)
the considera
tion per Share provided for under clause 2.1 will be increased or reduced,
as the case may require, in proportion to that consolidation or subdivision; and
(c)
the Acceptor
s will be bound to transfer those consolidated or subdivided Shares to the
Offeror on the basis of the consideration so increased or reduced.
6.4
Issues of new Shares: If Restaurant Brands makes any issue of shares to any person on or
after the Offer Date other than by way of bonus issue and the condition contained in clause
5.4(c) is waived by the Offeror, then this Offer will be deemed to extend to and include those
shares and the consideration payable for them will be as provided in clause 2.1.
7
METHOD OF SETTL
EMENT
7.1
Nominated method payment: If:
(a) this Offer is declared unconditional; and
(b) an Acceptor’s relevant Acceptance Form is in order (or the Offeror rectifies any errors
or omissions in or from the relevant Acceptance Form or otherwise accepts the relevant
Acceptance Form as valid under clause 3.3); and
(c)
where applicable, the Specified Holder Certificate is received and is in order (or the
Offeror rectifies any errors or omissions in or from the Specified Holder Certificate or
otherwise accepts the Specified Holder Certificate as valid under clause 3.3),
depending on the method of
payment elected by the Acceptor, either a cheque for the
cash amount payable to the Acceptor will be posted to the Acceptor by ordinary mail to
the address contained in the Acceptor’s Acceptance Form or the cash amount will be
electronically transferred to the bank account identified in the Acceptor’s Acceptance Form,
by the date specified in clause 2.2.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
23
7.2 No nominated method of payment: If:
(a) an Acceptor does not nominate a method of payment; or
(b) an Acceptor, having nominated an Australian bank account, does not complete the
GREEN Acceptance Form (which relates to CHESS holdings); or
(c) an Acceptor does not provide sufficient details to the Offeror for the Offeror to make an
electronic funds transfer to the Acceptor’s nominated bank account,
the Offeror will pay the amount payable to the Acceptor by electronic funds transfer to any
bank account that the relevant Acceptor has advised to Restaurant Brand’s share registrar
(such as for dividend payments), or failing that, by cheque. An Acceptor who has received a
cheque as a result of the operation of this clause 7.2 may subsequently provide the Offeror
with sufficient details to make an electronic transfer to that Acceptor’s nominated bank
account (whereupon any cheque payable to that Acceptor will be cancelled).
7.3
Interest: In no circumstances will the Offeror be liable to pay interest on any payment due
to an Acceptor.
8 NOTICES
8.1
Notices giv
en to Restaurant Brands, the Takeovers Panel and NZX:
(a)
dec
laring this Offer unconditional;
(b)
ad
vising that this Offer is withdrawn in accordance with the Takeovers Code;
(c)
ad
vising that a term or condition of this Offer has been waived; or
(d)
ad
vising that this Offer has lapsed in accordance with its terms or the Takeovers Code,
will, in eac
h case, be deemed to be notice to all Restaurant Brands shareholders when so
given.
8.2
Notice of
any variation of this Offer will be sent to Restaurant Brands, the Takeovers Panel,
NZX and, except where not required in accordance with the Takeovers Code, to each of
Restaurant Brands’ shareholders under this Offer.
9
FURTHER INFORMA
TION AND MISCELLANEOUS
9.1
Schedule:
Further information relating to this Offer, as required by Schedule 1 of the
Takeovers Code, is set out in the Schedule to this Offer and forms part of this Offer
Document.
9.2
Definitions: In this Of
fer Document, unless the context indicates otherwise:
Acceptance Form
means:
(a)
the w
hite acceptance and transfer form relating to the Shares that is enclosed with, and
forms part of, this Offer Document; and
(b)
the green acceptance and transfer form relating to the Shares in a CHESS holding that
is enclosed with, and forms part of, this Offer Document;
RECOMMENDED OFFER
24
Acceptor means a holder of Shares who has accepted this Offer in accordance with its
terms;
Closing Date means 11.59 p.m. on 12 March 2019 or on such other date to which the Offer
Period is extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code;
Copulos Interests means Eyeon QSR Pty Limited, Eyeon No 2 Pty Limited, Copulos
Superannuation Pty Limited, PC Nab Pty Limited, Eyeon Investments Pty Limited and
Copulos Foundation Pty Limited;
Disclosure Materials means:
(a) the Disclosure Letter dated 25 November 2018 between Restaurant Brands and the
Offeror; and
(b)
the written inf
ormation, documents and responses listed in the Disclosure Letter
and made available to the Offeror or its representatives by Restaurant Brands or its
representatives before 25 November 2018 in the virtual data room established by
Restaurant Brands.
Finaccess Capital means Finaccess Capital, S.A. de C.V.;
Independent
Adviser means Grant Samuel & Associates Limited;
Independent
Adviser’s Report means the independent adviser’s report prepared by the
Independent Adviser in relation to the Offer (as amended or updated from time-to-time and
including any supplementary or replacement report);
Material Adverse
Change means a matter, event or circumstance that occurs or becomes
known to the Offeror after the Notice Date (each a Specified Event) which has, has had, or
is reasonably likely to have the effect of:
(a)
diminishing the consolidated net tangible assets of Restaurant Brands and each
of its Related Companies (together, the RBNZ Group) taken as a whole by at least
$30,000,000 against what it would reasonably have been expected to have been but for
such Specified Event (either individually or when aggregated with other matters, events
or circumstances of a similar kind or category); or
(b)
diminishing the consolidated earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and
amortisation of the RBD Group for the then current 52-week period (that is, if the matter,
event or circumstance occurs on or before 25 February 2019, the 52 week period
ending 25 February 2019 (FY2019) or, if the matter, event or circumstance occurs
after 25 February 2019 but prior to 25 February 2020, the 52 week period ending 25
February 2020 (FY2020)) by at least $10,000,000 against what they would reasonably
have been expected to have been but for such Specified Event (either individually
or when aggregated with other matters, events or circumstances of a similar kind or
category) but disregarding matters, events or circumstances which have a one-off or
non-recurring impact and the results of which are felt by the RBD Group only in FY2019
or FY2020 (as applicable),
RECOMMENDED OFFER
25
in each case, determined after disregarding matters, events or circumstances:
(a) resulting from changes in general economic or political conditions (including changes
in foreign exchange rates, interest rates or commodity prices), the securities market in
general or law;
(b)
fairly disclosed to NZX or to Finaccess Capital prior to the Notice Date;
(c) done or not done at the written request or with the written acknowledgement and written
approval of the Offeror, including any consequences reasonably foreseeable as a result
of such matters;
(d)
resulting solel
y from the actual or anticipated change of control of Restaurant Brands
contemplated by this Offer;
(e)
resulting from changes in generally accepted accounting principles; or
(f) resulting from the implementation of IFRS 16;
Notice Date
means 26 November 2018, being the date on which the Offeror served or
caused to be served on Restaurant Brands a notice in writing pursuant to rule 41 of the
Takeovers Code;
NZX
means NZX Limited and, where the context requires, the main board financial market
that it operates;
NZX Listing Rules means the main board listing rules of NZX;
Offer means the offer for the Specified Percentage of Shares as set out in this Offer
Document;
Offer Date
means 6 December 2018, being the date of this Offer Document specified in
clause 1.2;
Offer Document means this offer document dated 6 December 2018;
Offer Period means the period beginning on the Offer Date and ending at the Closing Date;
Offer T
erms means the Terms and Conditions of the Offer set out on pages 13 to 27 of the
Offer Document;
Offeror
means Global Valar, S.L.;
Record Date
means 4 December 2018, being the record date for the purposes of the Offer;
Registrar means Link Market Services Limited, the registrar for the Offer;
Related Company
has the meaning, in relation to a company, given to that expression
in section 2(3) of the Companies Act 1993, provided that, for this purpose, references
to “company” in that section will extend to any body corporate wherever incorporated or
registered;
Restaurant Brands means R
estaurant Brands New Zealand Limited;
RECOMMENDED OFFER
26
Share(s) means a fully paid ordinary share in Restaurant Brands;
Specified Holder Certificate means the certificate, that is enclosed with, and forms part of,
this Offer Document, that must be signed by a person that holds equity securities on behalf
of more than one person;
Specified Percentage means 75.00%, subject to any adjustment in accordance with rule
9(7) of the Takeovers Code (if applicable);
Takeover Notice means the Offeror’s notice, under rule 41 of the Takeovers Code of its
intention to make a partial takeover offer for Restaurant Brands;
Takeovers Panel means the takeovers panel established by the Takeovers Act 1993;
Unconditional Date means 9 April 2019, but this may change (as permitted by the
Takeovers Code) if the Closing Date is extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code;
and
Working Day has the meaning given in section 2(1) of the Companies Act 1993.
9.3 Interpretation: In this Offer Document:
(a) any reference to the Takeovers Code means the takeovers code approved in the
Takeovers Regulations 2000, as amended by any applicable exemption granted by the
Takeovers Panel under the Takeovers Act 1993;
(b) except as expressly defined in this Offer Document, or where the context requires
otherwise, terms defined in the Takeovers Code have the same meaning in this Offer
Document;
(c)
references to amounts of dollars, NZD and $ are to New Zealand currency and to times
are to New Zealand time;
(d) headings are for ease of reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Offer
Document or any Acceptance Form or Specified Holder Certificate;
(e)
ref
erences to any statutory provision are to statutory provisions in force in New Zealand
and include any statutory provision which amends or replaces it, and any by-law,
regulation, order, statutory instrument, determination or subordinate legislation made
under it;
(f) the singular includes the plural and vice versa;
(g) all percentages in the Offer (including the Specified Percentage and in the Schedule)
are rounded to two decimal places; and
(h)
a ref
erence to “fairly disclosed” means a disclosure in writing to Finaccess Capital or
NZX (as applicable) in a manner, and in sufficient detail, so as to enable a reasonable
bidder to identify and reasonably assess the nature, scope and significant implications
of the relevant matter, event or circumstances.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
27
9.4 Takeovers Act and Code prevail: If there is any inconsistency between the terms and
conditions of this Offer and the provisions of the Takeovers Act 1993 (including any
exemption granted under it) or the Takeovers Code, the provisions of the Takeovers
Act 1993 or the Takeovers Code (as the case may be) will prevail to the extent of that
inconsistency.
9.5
Cheques, documents and transfers: All cheques, electronic funds transfers, Acceptance
Forms, Specified Holder Certificates and other documents to be delivered, sent or
transferred by or to any person will be delivered, sent or transferred at that person’s own
risk.
9.6
Variation: This Offer may be varied by the Offeror in accordance with the Takeovers Code
or any exemption granted by the Takeovers Panel under section 45 of the Takeovers Act
1993.
9.7 Governing law and jurisdiction: This Offer and any contract arising from it shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of New Zealand, and the parties to
any such contract submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of New Zealand.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
28
SCHEDULE
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SCHEDULE 1 OF THE TAKEOVERS CODE
The information required by Schedule 1 of the Takeovers Code and not stated elsewhere in this
Offer Document, is set out below. Where any information required by Schedule 1 is not applicable,
no statement is made regarding that information. The following matters are stated as at the Offer
Date.
1
DATE OF OFFER
The date of the Offer is 6 December 2018.
2
OFFEROR
AND ITS DIRECTORS
2.1
T
he Offeror is Global Valar, S.L.
2.2 The registered office of the Offeror is situated at:
Plaza P
ablo Ruiz Picasso 1,
Planta 43
Madrid 28020
Spain
Email: jpares@finaccess
.mx
2.3
T
he names of the directors of the Offeror are:
(a)
Rafael Gordon Arce;
(b)
Eduardo Zamar
ripa Escamilla; and
(c)
J
osé Parés Gutiérrez.
2.4
The following persons will become controllers of an increased percentage of voting
securities in Restaurant Brands as a result of the acquisition under this Offer:
(a)
Gr
upo RBNZ S.A. de C.V. (Grupo RBNZ) (a company incorporated in Mexico), which
holds 99.86% of the voting rights in Global Valar;
(b)
Finaccess Capital (a compan
y incorporated in Mexico), which holds 100% of the voting
rights in Grupo RBNZ;
(c)
Gr
upo Finaccess S.A. de C.V. (Grupo Finaccess) (a company incorporated in Mexico),
which holds 100% of the voting rights in Finaccess Capital;
(d)
Grupo Far-Luca S.A. de C.V. (Grupo Far-Luca) (a company incorporated in Mexico),
which holds 64% of the voting rights in Grupo Finaccess
12
; and
(e) Carlos Fernández González (a Mexican citizen), who holds 100% of the voting rights in
Grupo Far-Luca and who ultimately controls Finaccess Capital and the Offeror.
12 No person, other than Grupo Far-Luca, holds more than a 5% voting interest in Grupo Finaccess.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
29
3 TARGET COMPANY
The target company is Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited.
4 OFFER TERMS
All of the terms and conditions of the Offer are set out in the Offer Document to which this
schedule is attached.
5 PARTICULARS OF VOTING SECURITIES SOUGHT
5.1 The table below sets out particulars of the Shares sought by the Offeror under this Offer:
Number of
Shares
Percentage of
Total Shares
13
The total number of Shares on issue in Restaurant Brands as
at the Offer Date (Total Shares).
14
124,758,523100%
The number of Shares that the Offeror already holds or
controls in Restaurant Brands as at the Offer Date.
00.00%
The number of Shares that the Offeror would hold or control
in Restaurant Brands after successful completion of the Offer,
provided that the 75% minimum acceptance condition in
clause 5.1(a) of the Offer Terms is satisfied.
15
93,568,892
(i.e., the
Specified
Number)
75.00%
(i.e., the
Specified
Percentage)
The number of Shares that the Offeror would hold or control
in Restaurant Brands after successful completion of the Offer
where the 75% minimum acceptance condition in clause 5.1(a)
of the Offer Terms is waived by the Offeror but the Offeror
satisfies the non-waivable minimum acceptance condition set
out in clause 5.1(b) of the Offer Terms.
16
62,379,26250.01%
17
The number of Shares that is the aggregate of the number
of Shares that the Offeror would hold or control in Restaurant
Brands after successful completion of the Offer together
with the number of Shares held or controlled by the Offeror’s
associates.
18
93,568,89275.00%
5.2
T
he information in the table above assumes that:
(a)
the Shares are the onl
y class of voting security in Restaurant Brands;
(b)
252,000 Shares are issued to Russel Creedy and 126,000 are issued to Grant Ellis upon
the conversion of their respective performance rights (which is expected to occur on or
before the Record Date, as contemplated by the Pre-Bid Agreement and described in
further detail in clause 10.3(g) of this Schedule); and
(c)
other than the conversion of performance rights referred to in (b) above, there is no
change to the number of Shares on issue in the period between the Offer Date and
successful completion of the Offer.
13 All percentages are calculated based on the relevant number of Shares being divided by the number of Total Shares (multiplied by 100 and rounded to two decimal places).
14 The calculation of the Total Shares has been calculated as at the Offer Date and as noted in paragraph 5.2(b) of the Schedule. This assumes that Shares have been issued to Russel Creedy and
Grant Ellis, respectively, on vesting of their performance rights, as referred to in clause 5.4(c)(i) of the Offer Terms and contemplated by the Pre-Bid Agreement.
15
Because
the Offeror does not hold or control any Shares, this number and percentage is also the number and percentage of Shares sought by the Offeror under the Offer.
16
It should be noted that the Of
feror could end up holding between 50.01% (rounded up to two decimal places) and 75.00% of the Shares.
17
This percentage has been rounded up to two decimal places.
18
The Of
feror does not have any associates (as that term is defined in the Takeovers Code) who hold or control any Shares. It is also assumed that the 75% minimum acceptance condition is
satisfied.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
30
6 OWNERSHIP OF EQUITY SECURITIES OF RESTAURANT BRANDS
6.1 The table below sets out a statement of the number, designation and percentages of equity
securities of any class of Restaurant Brands held or controlled by:
(a)
the Of
feror;
(b)
an
y related company of the Offeror;
(c)
an
y person acting jointly or in concert with the Offeror;
(d)
an
y director of any of the persons described in paragraphs (a) to (c); and
(e)
any other person holding or controlling 5% or more of the Class, to the knowledge of
the Offeror.
NameCategory
description
Number
of Equity
Securities held
or controlled
Type of Equity
Security
Percentage of
class of Equity
Securities
Stephen Copulos
19
Person holding or
controlling 5% or
more of Shares
10,630,819Shares8.52%
6.2
Except for those persons who are specified in the statement made above as holding or
controlling equity securities of Restaurant Brands, no person referred to in paragraphs (a)
to (d) above holds or controls equity securities of Restaurant Brands.
7 TRADING IN RESTAURANT BRANDS EQUITY SECURITIES
None of the persons referred to in sections paragraph 6.1(a) to (d) above have acquired or
disposed of any equity securities in Restaurant Brands in the six month period ending on
the date of this Offer Document.
8 AGREEMENTS TO ACCEPT OFFER
8.1
The Offeror, Finaccess Capital, Stephen Copulos (who is a director of Restaurant Brands),
and the Copulos Interests have entered into a lock-in deed dated 25 November 2018 (the
Lock-In Deed). Under the Lock-In Deed, each of the Copulos Interests has irrevocably
agreed to accept, and Stephen Copulos has irrevocably agreed to procure that each of the
Copulos Interests accept, the Offer in respect of:
(a)
the Shares held (directl
y or indirectly) by each of the Copulos Interests as at the date of
the Lock-In Deed (being, in aggregate, 10,630,819 Shares, which represent 8.52% of
the Shares on issue); and
(b)
any other Shares acquired by Stephen Copulos and/or any of the Copulos Interests on
or after the date of the Lock-In Deed, (together, the Copulos Shares).
19 HSBC Custody Nominees Australia Limited holds Shares as custodian on behalf of Eyeon No 2 Pty Limited (1,585,482 Shares) and PC Nab Pty Limited (2,117,853 Shares). Citibank N.A.,
New Zealand Branch (Citibank NZ) holds Shares as custodian on behalf of Eyeon QSR Pty Limited (5,198,817 Shares), Copulos Superannuation Pty Limited (862,937 Shares) and Eyeon
Investments Limited (662,686 Shares). For all of these entities, Stephen Copulos is either the sole director or whose only other director is accustomed to act in accordance with Stephen
Copulos’ directions, instructions or wishes. In addition, 203,044 Shares are held by Citibank NZ as custodian for Copulos Foundation Pty Limited. Stephen Copulos has the power to exercise, or
to control the exercise of, the right to vote attached to those Shares held by Copulos Foundation Pty Limited.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
31
The material terms of the Lock-In Deed are as follows:
(a) Subject to the Offer being made by the Offeror on the terms attached to the Lock-
In Deed, the Copulos Interests will accept the Offer in respect of all of the Copulos
Shares.
(b)
The Copulos Interests must accept the Offer by the later of the date which is two
Working Days after date of despatch of the Offer and the date on which the Offer is
received by the Copulos Interests. The Copulos Interests may delay their acceptance
of the Offer for up to seven Working Days if Restaurant Brands announces that it has
received a superior proposal and has provided the Offeror with an opportunity to match
it.
(c)
Acceptance of the Offer by the Copulos Interests is subject to the condition that the
directors of Restaurant Brands do not withdraw or qualify their recommendation that all
Restaurant Brands shareholders accept the Offer or the directors of Restaurant Brands
otherwise indicate that Restaurant Brands shareholders should not accept the Offer.
(d)
None of Stephen Copulos or the Copulos Interests will dispose of, encumber or deal in
any way with any of the Copulos Shares (or any interest in them), except to accept this
Offer.
(e)
None of Stephen Copulos or the Copulos Interests will:
(i)
enter into any discussions or negotiations relating to the possible disposal of the
Copulos Shares or provide any information of any nature to a third party for the
purposes of encouraging or facilitating a competing transaction;
(ii)
mak
e any public statement indicating a lack of support for, or endorsement of,
the Offer or supporting, recommending or endorsing a different transaction to the
Offer; or
(iii) directly or indirectly, engage in, initiate, solicit, continue or encourage any
proposals or approaches or offers from, or discussions or negotiations with, any
person in relation to a competing transaction.
(f)
T
he restrictions summarised in paragraph (e) do not prevent Stephen Copulos from
taking certain actions in his capacity as a director of Restaurant Brands, provided that
such actions do not breach the Pre-Bid Agreement (see clause 10.3(h) and (i) of this
Schedule for more detail).
(g) The Lock-In Deed will automatically terminate if:
(i) the Offer lapses; or
(ii) the Offer is withdrawn in accordance with the Takeovers Code.
(h) Each of the Copulos Interests may exercise and/or control the exercise of all voting
rights (as defined in the Takeovers Code) attached to their respective Copulos Shares in
whatever manner it sees fit until such time as the Offer is declared unconditional.
(i)
Eac
h of the Copulos Interests and Stephen Copulos will be entitled to terminate the
Lock-In Deed if the Offeror has not made the Offer on or before 31 December 2018 or if
there is a change in recommendation as contemplated in paragraph (c) above.
8.2
Other than as disclosed in paragraph 8.1, no person has agreed conditional or
unconditionally to accept the Offer as at the Offer Date.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
32
9 ARRANGEMENTS TO PAY CONSIDERATION
9.1 The Offeror has arrangements in place to pay the consideration to be provided on full
acceptance of the Offer and to pay any debts incurred in connection with the Offer
(including debts arising under rule 49 of the Takeovers Code).
9.2
A sta
tement setting out the rights of each holder of Shares under rule 34 of the Takeovers
Code is set out in clause 2.3 of the Terms and Conditions of the Offer.
10 ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN OFFEROR AND RESTAURANT BRANDS
10.1 Finaccess Capital and Restaurant Brands entered into a confidentiality agreement dated 16
July 2018 under which Finaccess Capital agreed to keep confidential information disclosed
to it by Restaurant Brands in connection with its evaluation of a potential transaction
involving the acquisition of the Shares.
10.2
Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC, Pizza Hut International LLC and Taco
Bell Corp. (together, Yum! Brands), Finaccess Capital and Restaurant Brands entered into
an agreement dated 19 November 2018 under which the relevant Yum! Brands’ subsidiaries
have conditionally granted consent to the acquisition by the Offeror of up to 75.00% of the
Shares under this Offer (the Yum! Consent). The Yum! Consent is conditional upon:
(a)
the sa
tisfaction of Yum!’s franchisee due diligence requirements in respect of the
Offeror and Finaccess Capital; and
(b)
Finaccess Capital and R
estaurant Brands entering into formal agreements relating to
the ownership of Restaurant Brands, and the operation and development of Restaurant
Brands’ KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell businesses after completion of this Offer.
10.3
Finaccess Capital, the Offeror and Restaurant Brands entered a pre-bid agreement dated
25 November 2018 relating to the Offer (the Pre-Bid Agreement). The material terms of the
Pre-Bid Agreement are as follows:
(a)
T
he Offeror will:
(i)
send the T
akeover Notice not later than 8.00am New Zealand time one Working Day
after the date of the Pre-Bid Agreement; and
(ii)
make the Offer as soon as reasonably practicable and, in any event, not later than
20 Working Days after sending the Takeover Notice.
(b)
T
he Offeror’s obligations referred to in (a)(i) above are conditional on the Independent
Adviser’s Report concluding that the consideration under this Offer is within or above
the Independent Adviser’s valuation range for the Shares, none of the conditions in
clause 5.4 of the Offer Terms being triggered and there being no unremedied breach
by Restaurant Brands of its obligations under the Pre-Bid Agreement or the Takeovers
Code.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
33
(c) Restaurant Brands will:
(i) make an agreed public statement on signing of the Pre-Bid Agreement;
(ii) prepare a target company statement within an agreed timeframe; and
(iii) procure that its board of directors unanimously recommend that shareholders
accept the Offer, in the absence of an unmatched superior proposal and subject to
the consideration under the Offer being within or above the Independent Adviser’s
valuation range for the Shares.
(d)
Restaurant Brands must procure that each director of Restaurant Brands (other than
Stephen Copulos) accepts the Offer in respect of any Shares which they own or control,
except where there is an unmatched superior competing proposal for Restaurant
Brands.
(e)
If, after the Offer is made, a matter or circumstance arises which will, or is likely to, result
in a breach or non-satisfaction of a condition in clauses 5.4(a) to (q) of the Offer Terms,
the Offeror must not invoke the condition until it has remained in breach or unsatisfied
for a period of five Working Days.
(f)
In relation to the condition in clause 5.2 of the Offer Terms (Overseas Investment Office
consent):
(i)
the Offeror and Restaurant Brands will co-operate with one another in relation to
obtaining the consent under the Overseas Investment Act 2005; and
(ii)
the Of
feror will not withhold its approval to the terms of any consent or conditions
of consent granted by the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) if the terms and
conditions imposed are the standard terms or conditions of consent available on
the OIO website as at the date of the Pre-Bid Agreement.
(g)
Restaurant Brands will ensure that performance rights (each of which entitles the holder
to receive one Share) held by Russel Creedy and Grant Ellis will vest on the Record
Date.
(h)
R
estaurant Brands will not:
(i)
solicit, or eng
age in talks in relation to, a competing transaction to acquire control,
or a material part of the business, of Restaurant Brands; or
(ii)
mak
e available non-public information about the business of Restaurant Brands to
any third party in relation to such a competing transaction,
e
xcept in relation to an unsolicited competing transaction where the board of
Restaurant Brands determines that a failure to engage in such talks or provide non-
public information would be likely to constitute a breach of the fiduciary or statutory
duties owed by the directors of Restaurant Brands. This obligation applies from the date
of the Pre-Bid Agreement until that agreement is terminated or the Offeror fails to match
a competing superior proposal.
(i)
Restaurant Brands will notify the Offeror if Restaurant Brands receives a competing
transaction (including any inquiries to initiate negotiations or requests for non-public
information that could lead to a competing transaction).
(j)
If
Restaurant Brands receives a competing transaction that the board of Restaurant
Brands considers is a superior proposal to the Offer, the Offeror will have the
opportunity to match any such competing transaction. The board of Restaurant Brands
must consider any such counter proposal made by the Offeror. If the board considers
RECOMMENDED OFFER
34
that the Offeror’s counter proposal is no less favourable to the Restaurant Brands
shareholders than the relevant competing transaction, then the Offeror and Restaurant
Brands will implement the Offeror’s counter proposal and the board of Restaurant
Brands will recommend that proposal to shareholders (in the absence of any new
superior proposal).
(k)
R
estaurant Brands has agreed to waive all of its rights, and not make any claim against,
any director, shareholder, officer, employee or representative of Finaccess Capital and
each of its Related Companies, in connection with any breach of any representations,
covenants, and warranties of Finaccess Capital (and any member of the Finaccess
Capital group) in the Pre-Bid Agreement, or any other act or omission in connection with
the Pre-Bid Agreement or the Offer, except in the case of wilful misconduct or fraud.
(l)
R
estaurant Brands must pay the Offeror a reimbursement sum of NZ$7,000,000 (plus
GST, if any) where:
(i)
Restaurant Brands fails to issue the public statement referred to in paragraph (c)(i)
above;
(ii) any director of Restaurant Brands fails to recommend the Offer, makes other
adverse comments in relation to the Offer or (other than Stephen Copulos) fails to
accept this Offer, other than as a result of:
(A)
the Independent Adviser concluding that the consideration under this Offer
does not fall within or above its valuation range for the Shares;
(B)
a failure of
any of the conditions set out in clauses 5.2 (Overseas Investment
Act), 5.3 (Yum! Consent) or 5.4(q) (no restraining orders) of the Offer Terms; or
(C) the Offeror breaching the Pre-Bid Agreement;
(iii) a competing transaction is announced prior to the Closing Date and is successfully
implemented within 12 months of that announcement;
(iv) Restaurant Brands, with the intention of frustrating this Offer, solicits or encourages
a person to acquire 10% or more of the Shares and that person does not accept
the Offer;
(v)
the Pre-Bid Agreement is ter
minated after the Offeror fails to match a competing
superior proposal for Restaurant Brands; or
(vi) any of the Copulos Interests fails to accept the Offer in accordance with the Lock-
In Deed.
(m)
T
he Offeror must pay Restaurant Brands a reimbursement sum of NZ$7,000,000 (plus
GST, if any) where:
(i)
the Of
feror fails to give the Takeover Notice or make the Offer; or
(ii)
the Of
feror fails to meet its payment obligations to shareholders under the Offer.
(n)
T
he Offeror will not delist Restaurant Brands from the NZX or ASX within 12 months after
completion of this Offer, except where the Offeror becomes entitled to compulsorily
acquire the remaining Shares under Part 7 of the Takeovers Code as a result of a
takeover offer that complies with the requirements summarised in paragraph (o).
RECOMMENDED OFFER
35
(o) If the Offeror makes a further takeover offer for Restaurant Brands within 12 months after
completion of this Offer (Follow-On Offer), the Offer of the Follow-On Offer must be
at least NZ$9.45 per Share, subject to an adjustment on a pro-rata basis to reflect any
increase or decline (if any) in the S&P/ NZX 50 index between the date of completion
of this Offer and the date that the Offeror gives the notice of intention for the Follow-On
Offer.
(p)
Finaccess Capital will guarantee the ob
ligations of the Offeror under the Pre-Bid
Agreement.
10.4
R
estaurant Brands and the Offeror executed a disclosure letter dated 25 November 2018
relating to the ability of Restaurant Brands to make fair disclosures to the Offeror in relation
to certain conditions set out in clause 5.4 of the Offer Terms and for the purposes of
relevant corresponding provisions of the Pre-Bid Agreement.
10.5 Other than as disclosed in paragraphs 10.1 to 10.4, no agreement or arrangement (whether
legally enforceable or not) has been made, or is proposed to be made, between the
Offeror or any associates of the Offeror, and Restaurant Brands or any related company of
Restaurant Brands, in connection with, in anticipation of, or in response to, this Offer.
11
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN OFFEROR,
AND DIRECTORS AND SENIOR MANAGERS
OF RESTAURANT BRANDS
11.1
Under the Pre-Bid Agreement:
(a) Each of Finaccess Capital and the Offeror has agreed to waive all of its rights, and not
make any claim against, the directors and employees (which would include the senior
managers) of Restaurant Brands, or any Related Company of Restaurant Brands in
connection with any breach of the Pre-Bid Agreement or any other act or omission
in connection with the Pre-Bid Agreement or the Offer, except in the case of wilful
misconduct or fraud.
(b)
Finaccess Capital and the Offeror have each undertaken to ensure that, for seven years
after completion of the Offer, the constitutions of Restaurant Brands and its subsidiaries
provide for each company to indemnify each of its current and former directors and
officers against any liability incurred by that person in his or her capacity as a director
or officer of that company.
(c)
Prior to the Closing Date, Restaurant Brands may, with Finaccess Capital’s prior consent
(not to be unreasonably withheld), enter into arrangements to secure directors’ and
officers’ insurance for a period of up to seven years from completion of the Offer and
pay all premiums required.
11.2
T
he directors and senior managers of Restaurant Brands are not parties to the Pre-Bid
Agreement. However, they are able to personally enforce the provisions summarised in
paragraph 11.1 under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
11.3
T
he Yum! Consent contemplates that the Offeror will use commercially reasonable
endeavours to ensure that Russel Creedy is retained as chief executive officer of the
Restaurant Brands group for at least three years following completion of the Offer.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
36
11.4 Other than as disclosed in paragraphs 11.1 to 11.3, no agreement or arrangement (whether
legally enforceable or not) has been made, or is proposed to be made, between the Offeror
or any associates of the Offeror, and any of the directors or senior managers of Restaurant
Brands or of any related company of Restaurant Brands, in connection with, in anticipation
of, or in response to, the Offer.
12
FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE
No agreement or arrangement has been made, or is proposed to be made under which
Restaurant Brands or any related company of Restaurant Brands will give (directly or indirectly)
financial assistance for the purpose of, or in connection with, the Offer.
13
INTENTIONS
ABOUT MATERIAL CHANGES IN RESTAURANT BRANDS
13.1
If
the Offer is declared unconditional, the Offeror intends:
(a)
to suppor
t the management of Restaurant Brands to implement their existing strategy;
20
and
(b) to support the continued assessment of the dividend policy of Restaurant Brands
against the other capital requirements in the business on an ongoing basis, subject to
circumstances at the time and maintaining future flexibility to preserve and maximize
shareholder value. The Offeror does not currently intend to ask the board of directors
of Restaurant Brands to promote a change in Restaurant Brands’ dividend policy in the
near term.
21
13.2 The Offeror has advised Restaurant Brands that, while it currently does not envisage
any future equity capital raising being required in the near to medium term, any larger-
scale initiatives unable to be funded from existing business cash flows will require an
assessment of capital sources at the relevant time. The Offeror considers that would include
consideration of both debt and equity capital, noting that the Offeror does not currently
intend to significantly lever Restaurant Brands.
13.3
As set out in the summary of the terms of the Pre-Bid Agreement in paragraph 10.3:
(a) the Offeror has agreed that the Offeror take steps to not delist Restaurant Brands from
the NZX or the ASX within 12 months of completion of this Offer, other than where the
Offeror acquires all of the Shares; and
(b)
in the e
vent the Offeror makes a Follow-On Offer within 12 months of completion of this
Offer, the Offeror has agreed that any Follow-On Offer would not offer consideration
less than the consideration under this Offer, subject to a reduction on a pro-rata basis
to reflect any increase or decline (if any) in the S&P NZX 50 index between the date of
completion of this Offer and the date that the Offeror gives the notice of intention for the
Follow-On Offer.
20 The most recent summary of Restaurant Brands’ strategy is set out in the May 2018 Investor Presentation: http://nzx-prod-s7fsd7f98s.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/attachments/
RBD/317419/278497.pdf
21
The Restaurant Brands dividend policy is set out on page 6 of the Restaurant Brands Dividend Reinvestment Plan Offer Document: http://www.restaurantbrands.co.nz/files/documents/dividend-
reinvestment-plan-offer/.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
37
13.4 Except as set out above, the Offeror does not currently intend to make material change
to:
(a) the business activities of Restaurant Brands or any member of the RBD Group;
(b) the material assets of Restaurant Brands or any member of the RBD Group; or
(c) the capital structure of Restaurant Brands (including its dividend policy, equity or debt).
13.5 Although the Offeror reserves the right to make changes to the intentions expressed
above, there is no other information known to the Offeror about the likelihood of changes to
Restaurant Brands or any member of the RBD Group that could reasonably be expected to
be material to the making of a decision by an offeree to accept or reject the Offer.
13.6
T
he statements made in this paragraph 13 are consistent with any information that has been
given by the Offeror to any regulatory body (in New Zealand or in an overseas jurisdiction)
in relation to the Offer.
14
PRE-EMPTION CLAUSES IN REST
AURANT BRANDS’ CONSTITUTION
T
here is no restriction, in the constitution of Restaurant Brands, on the right to transfer any
Shares that would have the effect of requiring the holders of Shares to offer the Shares for
purchase to members of Restaurant Brands or to any other person before transferring those
securities.
15
ESCALATION CLAUSES
No agreement or ar
rangement (whether legally enforceable or not) has been made, or is
proposed to be made, under which:
(a)
an
y existing holder of Shares will or may receive in relation to, or as a consequence of,
the Offer any additional consideration or other benefit over and above the consideration
set out in the Offer; or
(b)
an
y prior holder of Shares will or may receive any consideration or other benefit as a
consequence of the Offer.
16
CLASSES OF SECURITIES
No repor
t is required under rule 22 of the Takeovers Code (which, if the offer is for more
than one class of financial products, requires a report by an independent adviser on
the fairness and reasonableness of the consideration and terms of the offer as between
different classes of financial products).
RECOMMENDED OFFER
38
17 CERTIFICATE
To the best of our knowledge and belief, after making proper enquiry, the information
contained in this Offer Document is, in all material respects, true and correct and not
misleading, whether by omission of any information or otherwise, and includes all the
information required to be disclosed by the Offeror under the Takeovers Code.
Signed by the persons named below or their respective agents authorised in writing.
Rafael Gordon Arce Eduardo Zamarripa Escamilla José Parés Gutiérrez
Director Director and Chief Financial Officer Director and Chief Executive Officer
Global Valar, S.L Global Valar, S.L. Global Valar, S.L.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
39
RECOMMENDED OFFER
40
NOTES
RECOMMENDED
OFFER
6 December 2018
Partial takeover offer by Global Valar,
S.L. (a subsidiary of Finaccess
Capital, S.A. de C.V.) for ordinary
shares in Restaurant Brands
New Zealand Limited
for NZ$9.45 cash
per share.
Financial Adviser:
IMPORTANT
If you are in doubt as to any aspect of this Offer, you should
consult your financial or legal adviser.
If you have sold all your shares in Restaurant Brands New
Zealand Limited, you should immediately hand this Offer
Document and the accompanying acceptance forms to the
purchaser or the agent (e.g. the broker) through whom the
sale was made, to be passed to the purchaser.
Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited’s target company
statement, together with an Independent Adviser’s Report
on the merits of the Offer either accompanies this Offer or
will be sent to you within 10 Working Days and should be
read in conjunction with this Offer.
RECOMMENDED OFFER
1
(Please specify number)
(Please specify number)
OFFER BY GLOBAL VALAR, S.L. FOR SHARES IN
RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
SHARE ACCEPTANCE FORM
SHAREHOLDER (TRANSFEROR)
CSN / HOLDER NUMBER: XXXXXXXXX
ACCEPTANCE NUMBER: XXXXXXXXX
NUMBER OF SHARES
HELD AS AT [XX/XX/XXXX]: XXXXXXXXX
ACCEPT ONLINE AT WWW.RBDTAKEOVER.CO.NZ
Please select the applicable option below to confirm the number of ordinary shares in Restaurant
Brands New Zealand Limited (Restaurant Brands Shares) in respect of which you accept the
partial takeover offer by Global Valar, S.L. (Offeror) (Transferee) dated 6 December 2018 (Offer).
I, AS HOLDER OF THE ABOVE SHARES
ACCEPT the Offer in respect of ALL of the Restaurant Brand Shares I hold,
subject to scaling.
ACCEPT the Offer in respect of the FOLLOWING NUMBER of Restaurant
Brand Shares, subject to scaling:
Note:
1 You may accept the Offer in respect of all or any of the Restaurant Brands Shares held by
you. Your acceptance may be subject to scaling, as set out in clause 4 of the Terms and
Conditions of the Offer Document.
2 If you do not tick an option above, or the number of Restaurant Brands Shares to which this
Acceptance Form relates is otherwise unclear for any reason, you will be deemed to have
accepted the Offer in respect of all the Restaurant Brands Shares held by you and to
have ticked the first box above.
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW FOR DIRECTIONS ON COMPLETING THIS
ACCEPTANCE FORM.
IF YOU HOLD YOUR SHARES IN A CHESS HOLDING, YOU MUST COMPLETE THE GREEN
ACCEPTANCE FORM.
BY SIGNING THIS ACCEPTANCE FORM THE TRANSFEROR HEREBY:
(a) irrevocably accepts the Offer for the Restaurant Brands Shares described above held by the
Transferor on the terms and conditions of the Offer;
(b) subject to the terms and conditions of the Offer, transfers such Restaurant Brands Shares to
the Transferee and gives the warranties contemplated by the Offer; and
(c) as set out in this form, appoints the Transferee the attorney of the Transferor.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
2
SIGNATURES
For an INDIVIDUAL HOLDER, JOINT
HOLDERS, or ATTORNEY
For a COMPANY / BODY CORPORATE
Signed by the Transferor(s):Signed by the Transferor(s):
SignatureSignature
SignatureSignature
Dated and executed the
.......................................................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................................20...................
ALL JOINT HOLDERS MUST SIGN
--
METHOD OF PAYMENTS (please tick one)
Payment will be made in New Zealand dollars (NZD) either by cheque or by electronic transfer
directly into the Transferor’s bank account. Please select a Method of Payment by ticking the
appropriate box below.
CHEQUE (NZD ONLY) ELECTRONIC TRANSFER
Note: If you do not select a Method of Payment, or the details that you provide are not sufficient
to effect an electronic transfer you will be paid to the account that you have previously provided to
Restaurant Brand’s share register or by cheque.
Electronic Transfer Details: Please complete the details below if you wish to be paid by
electronic transfer.
New Zealand Bank Account
Name:
............................................................................................................................................................................Bank: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
- - -
Bank/Branch Account Number Suffix
Australian Bank Account
Name:
............................................................................................................................................................................Bank: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
BSB Number Account Number
Overseas Bank Account (Not New Zealand or Australia):
Country:
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Account Name: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Bank Name: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Bank Address: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Swift Code: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sort Code/ BSB Code: ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Account Number: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Other Information: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(Overseas Transferors to provide any other information required to effect an electronic transfer to them)
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
3
NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION
1 TO ACCEPT THE OFFER: Complete and sign this form where marked “Signed by the Transferor(s)”.
Companies must sign in accordance with the Companies Act 1993.
2 RESTAURANT BRAND SHARES HELD BY SPECIFIED HOLDERS: If your Restaurant Brands Shares are
held through a nominee or another person who holds Restaurant Brands Shares on your behalf, advise that
person that you wish to sell your Restaurant Brands Shares and instruct that person to complete, sign and
return this Acceptance Form and the Specified Holder Certificate to the Transferee in accordance with the
instructions set out below.
3 METHOD OF PAYMENT: You should select a Method of Payment. You should take particular care to provide
all information that is required to make an electronic transfer to you or to send a cheque to you, as the case
may be. If you elect to be paid by electronic transfer you will need to make your own arrangements with your
bank to ensure that your designated account is capable of receiving a funds transfer in New Zealand dollars.
If you do not select a Method of Payment or you do not provide sufficient details so that an electronic funds
transfer can be made to your bank account, payment will be made by electronic funds transfer to the NZ
dollar account that you have previously provided to Restaurant Brand’s share register (such as for dividend
payments) or, failing that, by cheque. Neither the Transferee nor Link Market Services Limited has any
responsibility to verify any such details.
4 JOINT HOLDERS: If the Restaurant Brands Shares are registered in the names of joint holders, every one of
the joint holders must sign the form.
5 RESTAURANT BRAND SHARES HELD BY NOMINEES: If your Restaurant Brands Shares are held through
a nominee, advise your nominee that you wish to sell all or a part of your Restaurant Brands Shares and
instruct your nominee to complete accordingly, sign and return the form to the Transferee in accordance with
the instructions set out in this form. The Specified Holder Certificate attached to this Acceptance Form will
also need to be signed and returned.
6 POWER OF ATTORNEY: If this form is signed under a power of attorney, the relevant power of attorney must
be submitted with the form for noting and return, and the certificate printed below must be completed. Where
such power of attorney has already been noted by Link Market Services then this fact must be stated under
the signature of the attorney.
7 ON COMPLETION: Either email, mail or hand deliver this Form as provided for below as soon as possible, but
in any event so as to be received not later than 11:59pm on the closing date for the Offer (which, at the date of
the Offer, is 12 March 2019, but which may be extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code).
Global Valar, S.L. c/- Link Market Services Limited
Mail: PO Box 91976, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142
Delivery: Level 11, Deloitte Centre, 80 Queen Street, Auckland 1010
Scan & Email: applications@linkmarketservices.co.nz
Online: www.rbdtakeover.co.nz
8 PREVIOUS SALE: If you have sold all your Restaurant Brands Shares, please pass this Acceptance Form
together with the Offer documents to your share broker or the purchaser(s) of those Restaurant Brands
Shares. If you have sold part of your shareholding, record that fact on this Acceptance Form by amending the
number of Restaurant Brands Shares noted as being held by you on the fact of this Acceptance Form.
9 SALE OF PART HOLDING ONLY: If you want to accept the Offer for part of your holding only, please specify
the number of shares you wish to sell in the space provided.
10 INTERPRETATION: In this form references to the Transferor in the singular shall include the plural.
IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTANCES, PLEASE CALL
LINK MARKET SERVICES.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
4
BY THE TRANSFEROR’S EXECUTION OF THIS FORM, THE TRANSFEROR HEREBY enters into a Power of
Attorney in favour of the Transferee as follows:
As from the date of beneficial ownership, and title, to my/our Restaurant Brands Shares passing to the Transferee
in accordance with the terms of the Offer, I/we hereby irrevocably authorise and appoint the Transferee (with
power of substitution by the Transferee in favour of such person(s) as the Transferee may appoint to act on its
behalf) as my/our attorney and agent to act for me/us and do all matters of any kind of nature whatsoever in
respect of or pertaining to the Restaurant Brands Shares and all rights and benefits attaching to them as the
Transferee may think proper and expedient and which I/we could lawfully do or cause to be done if personally
acting as a legal or beneficial owner of the applicable Restaurant Brands Shares.
POWER OF ATTORNEY: If this Acceptance Form is signed under a power of attorney, the certificate of non-
revocation printed on this Acceptance Form must be completed by the party holding the Power of Attorney
and signing this Acceptance Form. If you are an individual fill out the certificate of non-revocation of power of
attorney for individual. If you are a body corporate fill out the certificate of non-revocation of power of attorney for
body corporate. In either case, the relevant instrument appointing the attorney must be submitted for noting and
return.
ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION IF THE ACCEPTANCE FORM
IS SIGNED UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND
YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL:
CERTIFICATE OF NON-REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR INDIVIDUAL
I
(full name of attorney) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OF (place and country of residence), ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(occupation), .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................certify:
1 That by deed dated
............................................................................................................(date of instrument creating the power of attorney)
(full name of donor (individual or corporate)), of
.............................................................................................................................(place and country of
residence/registered office) appointed me his / her / its attorney.
2 That I have not received notice of any event revoking the power of attorney.
SIGNED at
.......................................................................................this ..........................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................20 ................................
Signature and Name of Attorney
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
5
ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION IF THE ACCEPTANCE
FORM IS SIGNED UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY
AND YOU ARE A BODY CORPORATE:
CERTIFICATE OF NON-REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR BODY CORPORATE
I
(full name of attorney) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OF (place and country of residence), ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(occupation), ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................certify:
1 That by deed dated ..............................................................................................................(date of instrument creating the power of attorney)
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................(full name of donor (individual or corporate)), of
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................(place and country of residence/registered office)
appointed as attorney
..................................................................................................................................(full name of body corporate holding power of
attorney), a body corporate having its registered office/principal place of business at
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(address of registered office or principal place of business), and I am authorised to give this
certificate on its behalf. The capacity in which I give this certificate for the attorney is as director/
officer/other.
2 That I have not received notice of any event revoking the power of attorney and to the best of
my knowledge and belief no such notice has been received by
.........................................................................................................................................................
(full name of body corporate holding power of attorney), or by any employee or agent of that
body corporate.
SIGNED at
.......................................................................................this ..........................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................20 ................................
Signature and Name of Attorney
SIGNATURES: Sign this certificate where marked. Companies must sign in accordance with the Companies Act
1993 or other applicable law. If you hold Restaurant Brand Shares jointly with others all joint holders must sign
this Certificate.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
6
OFFER BY GLOBAL, VALAR, S.L. FOR SHARES IN
RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
SPECIFIED HOLDER CERTIFICATE
You MUST complete this Specified Holder Certificate (Certificate) if you intend to accept the
Offer and you hold shares (Restaurant Brands Shares) in Restaurant Brands New Zealand
Limited (Restaurant Brands), on behalf of more than one person.
If you hold Restaurant Brands Shares on behalf of more than one person and do not complete
and return this Certificate to Global Valar, S.L. (the Offeror) so that it is received no later than
11:59pm on 12 March 2019, unless extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code (Closing
Date), any Acceptance Form that you return in respect of your Restaurant Brands Shares will
be invalid and you will be deemed not to have accepted the Offer in respect of any of your
Restaurant Brands Shares.
For the purposes of this Certificate and the Takeovers Code:
• you are a Specified Holder if you hold Restaurant Brands Shares on behalf of more
than one person (regardless of whether the holdings are direct or indirect, whether you
are a custodian or not, and regardless of the particular arrangements between you and
those you hold Restaurant Brands Shares on behalf of);
• each person on whose behalf you hold Restaurant Brands Shares is a Specified
Person; and
• the Specified Percentage is 75.00% of the Restaurant Brands Shares (subject to
adjustment in accordance with rule 9(7) of the Takeovers Code, if applicable).
Capitalised terms that are not otherwise defined in this Certificate have the meaning given to them
in the Document that accompanies this Certificate.
Further information regarding this Certificate is provided under the ‘Questions and
Answers’ heading below.
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:
Name of Specified Holder: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Your CSN / Holder number (as stated on the enclosed Acceptance Form:
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Enter the total number of Restaurant Brands
Shares that you hold on behalf of Specified Persons
Enter the total number of Specified Persons on
whose behalf you hold those Restaurant Brands Shares
If you hold Restaurant Brands Shares on behalf of more than 10 Specified Persons, please attach to this
Certificate a schedule containing the required Pool A Table and Pool B Table information in respect of those
additional Specified Persons.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
7
POOL A TABLE – Complete the below Pool A Table only for the Specified Persons on whose
behalf you either:
(a) are not accepting the Offer in respect of any of the Restaurant Brands Shares that you hold
on that Specified Person’s behalf; or
(b) are accepting the Offer for less than or equal to the Specified Percentage (75%) of the
total number of Restaurant Brands Shares that you hold on behalf of that Specified Person.
Specified
Person
Total number of Restaurant
Brands Shares that you
hold on behalf of the
Specified Person (A)
Number of the Restaurant
Brands Restaurant Brands
Shares that you hold on
behalf of the Specified
Person in respect of which
you are accepting the
Offer (B)**
Percentage that the
number of the Restaurant
Brands Shares in
respect of which you
are accepting the Offer
is of the total number of
Restaurant Brands Shares
you hold on behalf of the
Specified Person*** ((B ÷
A) x 100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTAL
* You do not need to name the Specified Person.
** If you are not accepting the Offer in respect of these Restaurant Brands Shares, write ‘nil’.
*** If this percentage is greater than the Specified Percentage (75%) then the Specified Person should not be
included in this Pool A Table, but should instead be included in the Pool B Table.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
8
POOL B TABLE – Complete this Pool B Table only for the Specified Persons on whose behalf
you are accepting the Offer for more than the Specified Percentage (75%) of the total number of
Restaurant Brands Shares that you hold on that Specified Person’s behalf.
Specified
Person
Total number of Restaurant
Brands Shares that you
hold on behalf of the
Specified Person (A)
Number of the Restaurant
Brands Shares that you
hold on behalf of the
Specified Person in
respect of which you are
accepting the Offer (B)
Percentage that the
number of the Restaurant
Brands Shares in
respect of which you
are accepting the Offer
is of the total number of
Restaurant Brands Shares
you hold on behalf of the
Specified Person** ((B ÷
A) x 100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTAL
* You do not need to name the Specified Person.
** If this percentage is less than or equal to the Specified Percentage (75%) then the Specified Person should not
be included in this Pool B Table, but should instead be included in the Pool A Table.
SIGN HERE
By signing this Certificate you represent, warrant, and certify that you hold Restaurant Brand
Shares as a Specified Holder on behalf of Specified Persons, that the information in this
Certificate (including any schedule attached to this Certificate) is true and correct, and that this
Certificate has been duly completed and executed.
DATED AND SIGNED
....................................................................................this ................................................................................day of ..................................................................................20 ................................
Daytime phone number should Link Market Services need to contact you in relation to this
Certificate:
....................................................................................................................................................................................
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
9
POWER OF ATTORNEY: If this Certificate is signed under a power of attorney, the certificate
of non-revocation printed on this Certificate must be completed by the party holding the Power
of Attorney and signing this Certificate. If you are an individual fill out the certificate of non-
revocation of power of attorney for individual. If you are a body corporate fill out the certificate
of non-revocation of power of attorney for body corporate. In either case, the relevant instrument
appointing the attorney must be submitted for noting and return.
ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION IF THE SPECIFIED HOLDER
CERTIFICATE IS SIGNED UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND
YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL:
CERTIFICATE OF NON-REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
I
(full name of attorney) .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OF (place and country of residence), ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(occupation), ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................certify:
1 That by deed dated ............................................................................................................(date of instrument creating the power of attorney)
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(full name of donor (individual or corporate)), of
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(place and country of residence/registered office)
office) appointed me his / her / its attorney.
2 That I have not received notice of any event revoking the power of attorney.
SIGNED at
.......................................................................................this ..........................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................20 ................................
Signature and Name of Attorney
SIGNATURE(S) FOR AN INDIVIDUAL/
ATTORNEY/TRUSTEE
SIGNATURE(S) FOR A COMPANY
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
10
ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION IF THE SPECIFIED HOLDER
CERTIFICATE IS SIGNED UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND
YOU ARE A BODY CORPORATE:
CERTIFICATE OF NON-REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR BODY CORPORATE
I
(full name of attorney) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OF (place and country of residence), .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(occupation), ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................certify:
1 That by deed dated ..........................................................................................................(date of instrument creating the power of attorney)
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(full name of donor (individual or corporate)), of
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(place and country of residence/registered office)
office) appointed as attorney.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(full name of body corporate holding power of
attorney), a body corporate having its registered office/principal place of business at
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(address of registered office or principal place of business), and I am authorised to give this
certificate on its behalf. The capacity in which I give this certificate for the attorney is as director/
officer/other.
2 That I have not received notice of any event revoking the power of attorney and to the best of
my knowledge and belief no such notice has been received by
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(full name of body corporate holding power of attorney), or by any employee or agent of that
body corporate.
SIGNED at
.......................................................................................this ..........................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................20 ................................
Signature and Name of Attorney
SIGNATURES: Sign this certificate where marked. Companies must sign in accordance with the Companies Act
1993 or other applicable law. If you hold Restaurant Brand Shares jointly with others all joint holders must sign
this certificate.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
11
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Do I need to complete this Certificate?
If you hold your Restaurant Brand Shares on behalf of more than one person (e.g. as a trustee
corporation, nominee company, or bare trustee) then you are a Specified Holder for the purposes
of the Takeovers Code and each person on whose behalf you hold Restaurant Brand Shares is a
Specified Person.
If you are a Specified Holder, you MUST complete this Certificate and return it to Global Valar S.L.
(Offeror) with your Acceptance Form so that it is received by the Offeror by no later than 11:59pm
on the Closing Date (12 March 2019, unless extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code).
You must complete this Certificate regardless of:
• whether the holdings are direct or indirect;
• whether you are a custodian or not; or
• the particular arrangements between you and the Specified Person.
You do NOT need to complete and return this Certificate if you hold Restaurant Brand Shares:
• for yourself or in a joint holding (unless you jointly hold Restaurant Brand Shares on
behalf of more than one person);
• on behalf of only one other person; or
• if you are the trustee of a discretionary family trust (see below).
Do I need to complete this Certificate if I am a trustee of a family trust?
If you are a trustee of a discretionary family trust and the trust deed or governing document for
the trust does not provide the beneficiaries of the family trust with any beneficial interest in the
Restaurant Brand Shares held by the trustee or trustees of the trust (other than as discretionary
beneficiaries), then you do NOT need to complete and return this Certificate. If the trust
arrangements are such that separate beneficiaries of the trust can direct the trustees as to
whether to accept the Offer for that beneficiary’s portion of the Restaurant Brand Shares, then this
Certificate must be completed and returned to the Offeror if the Offer is accepted.
What happens if I fail to complete and return this Certificate by 11:59pm on the Closing
Date?
If, as a Specified Holder, you fail to complete this Certificate and return it to Global Valar with your
Acceptance Form so that it is received by the Offeror by no later than 11:59pm on the Closing
Date (12 March 2019, unless extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code), any Acceptance
Form that you return in respect of the Restaurant Brand Shares you hold will be invalid and you
will be deemed not to have accepted the Offer in respect of any of those shares, and you will be
in breach of Rule 14B of the Takeovers Code.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
12
Why is this Certificate required?
This Certificate is required under Rules 14A to 14D of the Takeovers Code.
The Offer is an offer for 75% (Specified Percentage) of the Restaurant Brand Shares. If the Offer
is accepted in respect of more Restaurant Brand Shares than are sought by the Offeror, the
scaling provisions in Rules 12 and 13 of the Takeovers Code determine the number of Restaurant
Brand Shares that the Offeror must take up from each shareholder of Restaurant Brands who has
accepted the Offer in excess of the Specified Percentage of their Restaurant Brand Shares.
In order to ensure that persons who have their Restaurant Brand Shares held for them by another
person are not unfairly prejudiced by those scaling provisions, Rule 14E of the Takeovers Code
requires the Offeror to ‘look through’ the holding of a Specified Holder and treat Specified
Persons as if those Specified Persons held the Restaurant Brand Shares directly, based on the
information that is required to be disclosed in this Certificate.
How/where do I deliver this Certificate?
Either mail, deliver or email this Certificate attached to the Acceptance Form (as provided for
below) so that it is received by the Offeror on or before 11:59pm on the Closing Date (12 March
2019 unless extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code).
MAIL: Place the completed and signed Certificate and Acceptance Form in the enclosed prepaid
envelope and send by post to the following address:
Global Valar, S.L.
C/- Link Market Services Limited
PO Box 91976
Victoria Street West
Auckland, 1142
DELIVER: Deliver the completed and signed Certificate and Acceptance Form to Global Valar, at
the following address:
Global Valar, S.L.
C/- Link Market Services Limited
Level 11, Deloitte Centre
80 Queen Street
Auckland, 1010
NOTE: These offices are only open on weekdays during normal business hours (8.30 am to 5.00
pm).
EMAIL: Email the completed and signed Certificate and Acceptance Form to Global Valar at
applications@linkmarketservices.co.nz. (Please use ‘Global Valar Acceptance’ in the subject line
for easy identification).
IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT ABOUT HOW TO COMPLETE THIS CERTIFICATE OR THE
PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTANCE, PLEASE CALL LINK MARKET SERVICES.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
1
OFFER BY GLOBAL VALAR, S.L. FOR SHARES IN
RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
GREEN ACCEPTANCE FORM
(ONLY USE FOR CHESS HOLDINGS)
SHAREHOLDER (TRANSFEROR)
CSN / HOLDER NUMBER: XXXXXXXXX
ACCEPTANCE NUMBER: XXXXXXXXX
[CONTROLLING PARTICIPANT]
NUMBER OF SHARES
HELD AS AT [XX/XX/XXXX]: XXXXXXXXX
ACCEPT ONLINE AT WWW.RBDTAKEOVER.CO.NZ
Please select the applicable option below to confirm the number of ordinary shares in Restaurant
Brands New Zealand Limited (Restaurant Brands Shares) in respect of which you accept the
partial takeover offer by Global Valar, S.L. (Offeror) (Transferee) dated 6 December 2018 (Offer).
I, AS HOLDER OF THE ABOVE SHARES
ACCEPT the Offer in respect of ALL of the Restaurant Brand Shares I hold,
subject to scaling.
ACCEPT the Offer in respect of the FOLLOWING NUMBER of Restaurant
Brand Shares, subject to scaling:
Note:
1 You may accept the Offer in respect of all or any of the Restaurant Brands Shares held by
you. Your acceptance may be subject to scaling, as set out in clause 4 of the Terms and
Conditions of the Offer Document.
2 If you do not tick an option above, or the number of Restaurant Brands Shares to which this
Acceptance Form relates is otherwise unclear for any reason, you will be deemed to have
accepted the Offer in respect of all the Restaurant Brands Shares held by you and to
have ticked the first box above.
To accept the Offer you may either:
(a) directly instruct your Controlling Participant to accept the Offer on your behalf; or
(b) sign and return this Acceptance Form to the address shown overleaf so the Offeror, or
Link Market Services Limited, can contact your Controlling Participant on your behalf
and relay your instructions.
If your Controlling Participant acts on your instruction CHESS will send you a confirmation
notice
PLEASE REFER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW FOR DIRECTIONS ON COMPLETING THIS
ACCEPTANCE FORM.
(Please specify number)
(Please specify number)
BY SIGNING THIS ACCEPTANCE FORM THE TRANSFEROR HEREBY:
(a) irrevocably accepts the Offer for the Restaurant Brands Shares described above held by the
Transferor on the terms and conditions of the Offer;
(b) subject to the terms and conditions of the Offer, transfers such Restaurant Brands Shares to
the Transferee and gives the warranties contemplated by the Offer; and
(c) as set out in this form, appoints the Transferee the attorney of the Transferor.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
METHOD OF PAYMENTS (please tick one)
Payment will be made in New Zealand dollars (NZD) either by cheque or by electronic transfer
directly into the Transferor’s bank account. Please select a Method of Payment by ticking the
appropriate box below.
CHEQUE (NZD ONLY) ELECTRONIC TRANSFER
Note: If you do not select a Method of Payment, or the details that you provide are not sufficient
to effect an electronic transfer you will be paid to the account that you have previously provided to
Restaurant Brand’s share register or by cheque.
Electronic Transfer Details: Please complete the details below if you wish to be paid by
electronic transfer.
New Zealand Bank Account
Name:
............................................................................................................................................................................Bank: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
- - -
Bank/Branch Account Number Suffix
Australian Bank Account
Name:
............................................................................................................................................................................Bank: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
BSB Number Account Number
Overseas Bank Account (Not New Zealand or Australia):
Country:
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Account Name: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Bank Name: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Bank Address: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Swift Code: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sort Code/ BSB Code: ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Account Number: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Other Information: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(Overseas Transferors to provide any other information required to effect an electronic transfer to them)
RECOMMENDED OFFER
2
SIGNATURES
For an INDIVIDUAL HOLDER, JOINT
HOLDERS, or ATTORNEY
For a COMPANY / BODY CORPORATE
Signed by the Transferor(s):Signed by the Transferor(s):
SignatureSignature
SignatureSignature
Dated and executed the
.......................................................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................................20...................
ALL JOINT HOLDERS MUST SIGN
--
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
3
NOTES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION
1 TO ACCEPT THE OFFER: Complete and sign this form where marked “Signed by the
Transferor(s)”. Companies must sign in accordance with the Companies Act 1993.
2 RESTAURANT BRAND SHARES HELD BY SPECIFIED HOLDERS: If your Restaurant
Brands Shares are held through a nominee or another person who holds Restaurant Brands
Shares on your behalf, advise that person that you wish to sell your Restaurant Brands
Shares and instruct that person to complete, sign and return this Acceptance Form and the
Specified Holder Certificate to the Transferee in accordance with the instructions set out
below.
3 METHOD OF PAYMENT: You should select a Method of Payment. You should take
particular care to provide all information that is required to make an electronic transfer to
you or to send a cheque to you, as the case may be. If you elect to be paid by electronic
transfer you will need to make your own arrangements with your bank to ensure that your
designated account is capable of receiving a funds transfer in your chosen currency. If
you do not select a Method of Payment or you do not provide sufficient details so that an
electronic funds transfer can be made to your bank account, payment will be made by
electronic funds transfer to the NZ$ account that you have previously provided to Restaurant
Brand’s share register (such as for dividend payments) or, failing that, by cheque. Neither
the Transferee nor Link Market Services Limited has any responsibility to verify any such
details.
4 JOINT HOLDERS: If the Restaurant Brands Shares are registered in the names of joint
holders, every one of the joint holders must sign the form.
5 RESTAURANT BRAND SHARES HELD BY NOMINEES: If your Restaurant Brands Shares
are held through a nominee, advise your nominee that you wish to sell all or a part of your
Restaurant Brands Shares and instruct your nominee to complete accordingly, sign and
return the form to the Transferee in accordance with the instructions set out in this form. The
Specified Holder Certificate attached to this Acceptance Form will also need to be signed
and returned.
6 POWER OF ATTORNEY: If this form is signed under a power of attorney, the relevant
power of attorney must be submitted with the form for noting and return, and the certificate
printed below must be completed. Where such power of attorney has already been noted
by Link Market Services then this fact must be stated under the signature of the attorney.
7 CHESS HOLDINGS: If you hold your Restaurant Brands Shares in a CHESS Holding, to
accept the offer you can either:
(a) Instruct your Controlling Participant (as defined in the ASX Settlement Operating Rules)
directly – normally your share broker. If you do this, you will need to return this GREEN
Acceptance Form to your Controlling Participant.
(b) Authorise the Offeror to contact your Controlling Participant on your behalf, which
you can do by signing and returning this GREEN Acceptance Form. By signing and
returning this Form you will be deemed to have authorised the Offeror to contact your
Controlling Participant. Neither the Offeror nor Link Market Services will be responsible
for any delays incurred in this process.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
4
8 ON COMPLETION: Either email, mail or hand deliver this Form as provided for below
as soon as possible, but in any event so as to be received not later than 11:59pm on the
closing date for the Offer (which, at the date of the Offer, is 12 March 2019, but which may
be extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code).
Global Valar, S.L. c/- Link Market Services Limited
Mail: PO Box 91976, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142
Delivery: Level 11, Deloitte Centre, 80 Queen Street, Auckland 1010
Scan & Email: applications@linkmarketservices.co.nz
Online: www.rbdtakeover.co.nz
9 PREVIOUS SALE: If you have sold all your Restaurant Brands Shares, please pass
this Acceptance Form together with the Offer documents to your share broker or the
purchaser(s) of those Restaurant Brands Shares. If you have sold part of your shareholding,
record that fact on this Acceptance Form by amending the number of Restaurant Brands
Shares noted as being held by you on the fact of this Acceptance Form.
10 SALE OF PART HOLDING ONLY: If you want to accept the Offer for part of your holding
only, please specify the number of shares you wish to sell in the space provided.
11 INTERPRETATION: In this form references to the Transferor in the singular shall include the
plural.
IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTANCES, PLEASE CALL
LINK MARKET SERVICES.
BY THE TRANSFEROR’S EXECUTION OF THIS FORM, THE TRANSFEROR HEREBY enters
into a Power of Attorney in favour of the Transferee as follows:
As from the date of beneficial ownership, and title, to my/our Restaurant Brands Shares passing
to the Transferee in accordance with the terms of the Offer, I/we hereby irrevocably authorise and
appoint the Transferee (with power of substitution by the Transferee in favour of such person(s)
as the Transferee may appoint to act on its behalf) as my/our attorney and agent to act for me/us
and do all matters of any kind of nature whatsoever in respect of or pertaining to the Restaurant
Brands Shares and all rights and benefits attaching to them as the Transferee may think proper
and expedient and which I/we could lawfully do or cause to be done if personally acting as a
legal or beneficial owner of the applicable Restaurant Brands Shares.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
5
POWER OF ATTORNEY: If this Acceptance Form is signed under a power of attorney, the
certificate of non-revocation printed on this Acceptance Form must be completed by the party
holding the Power of Attorney and signing this Acceptance Form. If you are an individual fill out
the certificate of non-revocation of power of attorney for individual. If you are a body corporate
fill out the certificate of non-revocation of power of attorney for body corporate. In either case, the
relevant instrument appointing the attorney must be submitted for noting and return.
ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION IF THE ACCEPTANCE FORM
IS SIGNED UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND
YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL:
CERTIFICATE OF NON-REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR INDIVIDUAL
I
(full name of attorney) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OF (place and country of residence), ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(occupation), .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................certify:
1 That by deed dated
............................................................................................................(date of instrument creating the power of attorney)
(full name of donor (individual or corporate)), of
.............................................................................................................................(place and country of
residence/registered office) appointed me his / her / its attorney.
2 That I have not received notice of any event revoking the power of attorney.
SIGNED at
.......................................................................................this ..........................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................20 ................................
Signature and Name of Attorney
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
6
ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION IF THE ACCEPTANCE
FORM IS SIGNED UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY
AND YOU ARE A BODY CORPORATE:
CERTIFICATE OF NON-REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR BODY CORPORATE
I
(full name of attorney) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OF (place and country of residence), ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(occupation), ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................certify:
1 That by deed dated ..............................................................................................................(date of instrument creating the power of attorney)
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................(full name of donor (individual or corporate)), of
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................(place and country of residence/registered office)
appointed as attorney
..................................................................................................................................(full name of body corporate holding power of
attorney), a body corporate having its registered office/principal place of business at
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(address of registered office or principal place of business), and I am authorised to give this
certificate on its behalf. The capacity in which I give this certificate for the attorney is as director/
officer/other.
2 That I have not received notice of any event revoking the power of attorney and to the best of
my knowledge and belief no such notice has been received by
.........................................................................................................................................................
(full name of body corporate holding power of attorney), or by any employee or agent of that
body corporate.
SIGNED at
.......................................................................................this ..........................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................20 ................................
Signature and Name of Attorney
SIGNATURES: Sign this certificate where marked. Companies must sign in accordance with the Companies Act
1993 or other applicable law. If you hold Restaurant Brand Shares jointly with others all joint holders must sign
this Certificate.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
7
OFFER BY GLOBAL VALAR, S.L. FOR SHARES IN
RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
SPECIFIED HOLDER CERTIFICATE
You MUST complete this Specified Holder Certificate (Certificate) if you intend to accept the
Offer and you hold shares (Restaurant Brands Shares) in Restaurant Brands New Zealand
Limited (Restaurant Brands), on behalf of more than one person.
If you hold Restaurant Brands Shares on behalf of more than one person and do not complete
and return this Certificate to Global Valar, S.L. (the Offeror) so that it is received no later than
11:59pm on 12 March 2019, unless extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code (Closing
Date), any Acceptance Form that you return in respect of your Restaurant Brands Shares will
be invalid and you will be deemed not to have accepted the Offer in respect of any of your
Restaurant Brands Shares.
For the purposes of this Certificate and the Takeovers Code:
• You are a Specified Holder if you hold Restaurant Brands Shares on behalf of more than
one person (regardless of whether the holdings are direct or indirect, whether you are a
custodian or not, and regardless of the particular arrangements between you and those you
hold Restaurant Brands Shares on behalf of);
• each person on whose behalf you hold Restaurant Brands Shares is a Specified Person;
and
• the Specified Percentage is 75.00% of the Restaurant Brands Shares (subject to
adjustment in accordance with rule 9(7) of the Takeovers Code, if applicable).
Capitalised terms that are not otherwise defined in this Certificate have the meaning given to them
in the Document that accompanies this Certificate.
Further information regarding this Certificate is provided under the ‘Questions and
Answers’ heading below.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
8
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:
Name of Specified Holder: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Your CSN / Holder number (as stated on the enclosed Acceptance Form):
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Enter the total number of Restaurant Brands
Shares that you hold on behalf of Specified Persons
Enter the total number of Specified Persons on
whose behalf you hold those Restaurant Brands Shares
If you hold Restaurant Brands Shares on behalf of more than 10 Specified Persons, please attach to this
Certificate a schedule containing the required Pool A Table and Pool B Table information in respect of those
additional Specified Persons.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
9
POOL A TABLE – Complete the below Pool A Table only for the Specified Persons on whose
behalf you either:
(a) are not accepting the Offer in respect of any of the Restaurant Brands Shares that you hold
on that Specified Person’s behalf; or
(b) are accepting the Offer for less than or equal to the Specified Percentage (75%) of the
total number of Restaurant Brands Shares that you hold on behalf of that Specified Person.
Specified
Person
Total number of Restaurant
Brands Shares that you
hold on behalf of the
Specified Person (A)
Number of the Restaurant
Brands Restaurant Brands
Shares that you hold on
behalf of the Specified
Person in respect of which
you are accepting the
Offer (B)**
Percentage that the
number of the Restaurant
Brands Shares in
respect of which you
are accepting the Offer
is of the total number of
Restaurant Brands Shares
you hold on behalf of the
Specified Person*** ((B ÷
A) x 100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTAL
* You do not need to name the Specified Person.
** If you are not accepting the Offer in respect of these Restaurant Brands Shares, write ‘nil’.
*** If this percentage is greater than the Specified Percentage (75%) then the Specified Person should not be
included in this Pool A Table, but should instead be included in the Pool B Table.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
10
POOL B TABLE – Complete this Pool B Table only for the Specified Persons on whose behalf
you are accepting the Offer for more than the Specified Percentage (75%) of the total number of
Restaurant Brands Shares that you hold on that Specified Person’s behalf.
Specified
Person
Total number of Restaurant
Brands Shares that you
hold on behalf of the
Specified Person (A)
Number of the Restaurant
Brands Shares that you
hold on behalf of the
Specified Person in
respect of which you are
accepting the Offer (B)
Percentage that the
number of the Restaurant
Brands Shares in
respect of which you
are accepting the Offer
is of the total number of
Restaurant Brands Shares
you hold on behalf of the
Specified Person** ((B ÷
A) x 100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTAL
* You do not need to name the Specified Person.
** If this percentage is less than or equal to the Specified Percentage (75%) then the Specified Person should not
be included in this Pool B Table, but should instead be included in the Pool A Table.
SIGN HERE
By signing this Certificate you represent, warrant, and certify that you hold Restaurant Brand
Shares as a Specified Holder on behalf of Specified Persons, that the information in this
Certificate (including any schedule attached to this Certificate) is true and correct, and that this
Certificate has been duly completed and executed.
DATED AND SIGNED
....................................................................................this ................................................................................day of ..................................................................................20 ................................
Daytime phone number should Link Market Services need to contact you in relation to this
Certificate:
....................................................................................................................................................................................
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
11
SIGNATURE(S) FOR AN INDIVIDUAL/
ATTORNEY/TRUSTEE
SIGNATURE(S) FOR A COMPANY
POWER OF ATTORNEY: If this Certificate is signed under a power of attorney, the certificate
of non-revocation printed on this Certificate must be completed by the party holding the Power
of Attorney and signing this Certificate. If you are an individual fill out the certificate of non-
revocation of power of attorney for individual. If you are a body corporate fill out the certificate
of non-revocation of power of attorney for body corporate. In either case, the relevant instrument
appointing the attorney must be submitted for noting and return.
ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION IF THE SPECIFIED HOLDER
CERTIFICATE IS SIGNED UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND
YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL:
CERTIFICATE OF NON-REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
I
(full name of attorney) .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OF (place and country of residence), ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(occupation), ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................certify:
1 That by deed dated ............................................................................................................(date of instrument creating the power of attorney)
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(full name of donor (individual or corporate)), of
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(place and country of residence/registered office)
office) appointed me his / her / its attorney.
2 That I have not received notice of any event revoking the power of attorney.
SIGNED at
.......................................................................................this ..........................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................20 ................................
Signature and Name of Attorney
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
12
ONLY COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION IF THE SPECIFIED HOLDER
CERTIFICATE IS SIGNED UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND YOU
ARE A BODY CORPORATE:
CERTIFICATE OF NON-REVOCATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR BODY CORPORATE
I
(full name of attorney) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
OF (place and country of residence), .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(occupation), ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................certify:
1 That by deed dated ..........................................................................................................(date of instrument creating the power of attorney)
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(full name of donor (individual or corporate)), of
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(place and country of residence/registered office)
office) appointed as attorney.
............................................................................................................................................................................................................(full name of body corporate holding power of
attorney), a body corporate having its registered office/principal place of business at
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(address of registered office or principal place of business), and I am authorised to give this
certificate on its behalf. The capacity in which I give this certificate for the attorney is as director/
officer/other.
2 That I have not received notice of any event revoking the power of attorney and to the best of
my knowledge and belief no such notice has been received by
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
(full name of body corporate holding power of attorney), or by any employee or agent of that
body corporate.
SIGNED at
.......................................................................................this ..........................................................................day of ..................................................................................................................................20 ................................
Signature and Name of Attorney
SIGNATURES: Sign this certificate where marked. Companies must sign in accordance with the Companies Act
1993 or other applicable law. If you hold Restaurant Brand Shares jointly with others all joint holders must sign
this certificate.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
13
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Do I need to complete this Certificate?
If you hold your Restaurant Brand Shares on behalf of more than one person (e.g. as a trustee
corporation, nominee company, or bare trustee) then you are a Specified Holder for the purposes
of the Takeovers Code and each person on whose behalf you hold Restaurant Brand Shares is a
Specified Person.
If you are a Specified Holder, you MUST complete this Certificate and return it to Global Valar S.L.
(Offeror) with your Acceptance Form so that it is received by the Offeror by no later than 11:59pm
on the Closing Date (12 March 2019), unless extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code).
You must complete this Certificate regardless of:
• whether the holdings are direct or indirect;
• whether you are a custodian or not; or
• the particular arrangements between you and the Specified Person.
You do NOT need to complete and return this Certificate if you hold Restaurant Brand Shares:
• for yourself or in a joint holding (unless you jointly hold Restaurant Brand Shares on
behalf of more than one person);
• on behalf of only one other person; or
• if you are the trustee of a discretionary family trust (see below).
Do I need to complete this Certificate if I am a trustee of a family trust?
If you are a trustee of a discretionary family trust and the trust deed or governing document for
the trust does not provide the beneficiaries of the family trust with any beneficial interest in the
Restaurant Brand Shares held by the trustee or trustees of the trust (other than as discretionary
beneficiaries), then you do NOT need to complete and return this Certificate. If the trust
arrangements are such that separate beneficiaries of the trust can direct the trustees as to
whether to accept the Offer for that beneficiary’s portion of the Restaurant Brand Shares, then this
Certificate must be completed and returned to the Offeror if the Offer is accepted.
What happens if I fail to complete and return this Certificate by 11:59pm on the Closing
Date?
If, as a Specified Holder, you fail to complete this Certificate and return it to Global Valar with your
Acceptance Form so that it is received by the Offeror by no later than 11:59pm on the Closing
Date (12 March 2019, unless extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code), any Acceptance
Form that you return in respect of the Restaurant Brand Shares you hold will be invalid and you
will be deemed not to have accepted the Offer in respect of any of those shares, and you will be
in breach of Rule 14B of the Takeovers Code.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
RECOMMENDED OFFER
14
Why is this Certificate required?
This Certificate is required under Rules 14A to 14D of the Takeovers Code.
The Offer is an offer for 75% (Specified Percentage) of the Restaurant Brand Shares. If the Offer
is accepted in respect of more Restaurant Brand Shares than are sought by the Offeror, the
scaling provisions in Rules 12 and 13 of the Takeovers Code determine the number of Restaurant
Brand Shares that the Offeror must take up from each shareholder of Restaurant Brands who has
accepted the Offer in excess of the Specified Percentage of their Restaurant Brand Shares.
In order to ensure that persons who have their Restaurant Brand Shares held for them by another
person are not unfairly prejudiced by those scaling provisions, Rule 14E of the Takeovers Code
requires the Offeror to ‘look through’ the holding of a Specified Holder and treat Specified
Persons as if those Specified Persons held the Restaurant Brand Shares directly, based on the
information that is required to be disclosed in this Certificate.
How/where do I deliver this Certificate?
Either mail, deliver or email this Certificate attached to the Acceptance Form (as provided for
below) so that it is received by the Offeror on or before 11:59pm on the Closing Date (12 March
2019 unless extended in accordance with the Takeovers Code).
MAIL: Place the completed and signed Certificate and Acceptance Form in the enclosed prepaid
envelope and send by post to the following address:
Global Valar, S.L.
C/- Link Market Services Limited
PO Box 91976
Victoria Street West
Auckland, 1142
DELIVER: Deliver the completed and signed Certificate and Acceptance Form to Global Valar, at
the following address:
Global Valar, S.L.
C/- Link Market Services Limited
Level 11, Deloitte Centre
80 Queen Street
Auckland, 1010
NOTE: These offices are only open on weekdays during normal business hours (8.30 am to 5.00
pm).
EMAIL: Email the completed and signed Certificate and Acceptance Form to Global Valar at
applications@linkmarketservices.co.nz. (Please use ‘Global Valar Acceptance’ in the subject line
for easy identification).
IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT ABOUT HOW TO COMPLETE THIS CERTIFICATE OR THE
PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTANCE, PLEASE CALL LINK MARKET SERVICES.
Sample only please do not
complete this form
---
1
RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Ta rget Company
Statement
In response to a partial takeover
offer by Global Valar S.L.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT AND REQUIRES YOUR URGENT ATTENTION.
If you have any questions in respect of this document or the Offer,
you should seek advice from your financial or legal adviser.
10 December 2018
Contents
01Chairman’s letter
03Section 1: Why you should accept the Offer – summary
04Section 2: Why you should accept the Offer – detail
06Section 3: Other factors for you to consider
13Section 4: Frequently asked questions
16Section 5: Takeovers Code Disclosures
28Appendix A: How scaling works – a worked example
29Appendix B: Independent Adviser’s Report
97Glossary
99Directory
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement
1
CHAIRMANS LETTER
Chairman’s letter
Introduction
Global Valar S.L. (“Global Valar”), a subsidiary of
Finaccess Capital S.A. de C.V. (“Finaccess Capital”), has
made a partial takeover offer for 75% of the fully paid
ordinary shares (“Shares” or “Restaurant Brands Shares”)
in Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited (“Restaurant
Brands”) (the “Offer”).
This letter forms part of Restaurant Brands’ Target
Company Statement in response to the Offer. The Target
Company Statement is required by the Takeovers Code
and includes the Directors’ recommendation, as well as an
Independent Adviser’s Report prepared by Grant Samuel
& Associates Limited (the “Independent Adviser”) on the
merits of the Offer. You should read this Target Company
Statement, including the Independent Adviser’s Report,
carefully and in full when considering whether to accept
the Offer. Capitalised terms used in this Target Company
Statement have the meanings given to them in the Glossary.
Directors’ unanimous recommendation
The Board’s analysis of the Offer was led by the
Independent Directors, Ted van Arkel (Chairman),
Vicky Taylor, Hamish Stevens and David Beguely. The Board
sought advice from Macquarie Capital (New Zealand)
Limited as financial adviser and Harmos Horton Lusk
Limited as legal adviser, and carefully considered the
Independent Adviser’s Report, minority protections and
a range of other factors, including those in Sections 1 to 4
of this Target Company Statement.
The Board unanimously recommends that you
should ACCEPT the Offer for all of your Shares,
in the absence of a Superior Proposal which
Global Valar does not match.
The Independent Directors intend to ACCEPT
the Offer for all of the Shares that they hold or
control, in the absence of a Superior Proposal
which Global Valar does not match.
You should, when deciding whether to accept the
Offer, consider your own individual circumstances,
views on value and the merits of the Offer
and investment time horizons. If you have any
questions, you are encouraged to seek your own
independent financial, taxation or legal advice.
Major Shareholder support
Interests associated with Stephen Copulos (a non-executive
Director of Restaurant Brands), which together own 8.52%
of the Restaurant Brands Shares (and together represent
the largest holding of Restaurant Brands Shares), have
agreed to accept the Offer for all of their Shares.
Key features of the Offer
The full terms and conditions of the Offer are set out in
Global Valar’s Offer Document, which accompanies this
Target Company Statement.
The key features of the Offer are as follows:
1. The Offer is a partial takeover for up to 75% of
Restaurant Brands Shares.
2. The Offer price is NZ$9.45 cash per Share (the
“Offer Price”).
3. The Offer is subject to certain conditions, including:
(a) Global Valar receiving acceptances for 75% of
the Restaurant Brands Shares. This condition
may be waived by Global Valar and the Offer will
then become conditional on Global Valar receiving
acceptances for at least 50.01% of the Restaurant
Brands Shares. Global Valar is not obliged to waive
this condition;
1
(b) the consent of the New Zealand Overseas
Investment Office;
(c) the conditional consent of the Yum! Franchisors
to the Offer becoming unconditional in all respects;
and
(d) no material adverse change occurring between
26 November 2018 and the time that the Offer is
declared unconditional by Global Valar.
Your acceptance of the Offer may be scaled down
Under the terms of the Offer, you can accept the Offer for
some or all of your Restaurant Brands Shares.
The Offer is a partial offer. If you accept the Offer for up
to 75% of your Restaurant Brands Shares and the Offer
becomes unconditional, you will be guaranteed to sell
those Shares to Global Valar under the Offer. If you accept
the Offer for more than 75% of your Restaurant Brands
Shares and the Offer becomes unconditional, the number
10 December 2018
Dear Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited Shareholder
1
If Global Valar waives the 75% minimum acceptance condition, the Offer is conditional on Global Valar
receiving acceptances for more than 50% of Restaurant Brands’ Shares. However, for the sake of simplicity,
this has been reflected in this Target Company Statement as 50.01% of the Restaurant Brands Shares.
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement2
CHAIRMANS LETTER
of Shares acquired from you under the Offer may be
subject to scaling. Accordingly, the Board considers that
there is a reasonable prospect that you will remain as a
Shareholder in Restaurant Brands after the Offer, even if
you accept the Offer for all of your Shares.
Further explanation of the scaling mechanism is set out
in Section 4 of the Target Company Statement and a
worked example is included in Appendix A of this Target
Company Statement.
Outcomes of the Offer
If the Offer is successful, Global Valar will hold between
50.01% and 75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares. This
will result in a corresponding reduction in the liquidity of the
Shares on the NZX Main Board and ASX.
As the majority shareholder in Restaurant Brands, Global
Valar will be able to determine the composition of the
Restaurant Brands Board. Control of the Board will allow
Global Valar to, amongst other things, influence or control
Restaurant Brands’ strategy and change the company’s
dividend policy. In this regard, Global Valar has advised
the Board that Global Valar intends to support Restaurant
Brands’ existing strategy and does not intend to change
Restaurant Brands’ dividend policy in the near term. Global
Valar has also agreed with the Yum! Franchisors that Global
Valar will use commercially reasonable endeavours to
maintain a high level of continuity in the Restaurant Brands’
senior management team, including using commercially
reasonable endeavours to retain Russel Creedy as Chief
Executive Officer for at least three years.
For further information about the potential outcomes of the
Offer, the implications of those outcomes and Global Valar’s
intentions for Restaurant Brands, see Sections 3 and 4 of
this Target Company Statement.
Ongoing minority Shareholder protections
If the Offer is successful, the Companies Act, Takeovers
Code and the provisions of the NZX Listing Rules will
continue to provide various protections for minority
Shareholders, including restrictions on transactions with
related parties (including Global Valar), limitations on the
issue of new Shares and the requirement for a minimum
number of Independent Directors.
For further information about minority protections, see
Part B of Section 3 of this Target Company Statement.
Acceptance and timing
If you wish to accept the Offer, use the acceptance form
that accompanied Global Valar’s Offer Document and
carefully follow the instructions on that form. If you do
not wish to accept the Offer, you do not need to take any
further action. For more information about your options in
respect of the Offer, see the Frequently Asked Questions
in Section 4 of this Target Company Statement.
If you are considering accepting the Offer, there is no
advantage in accepting the Offer early. The Offer must
remain open until 12 March 2019, acceptances are
irrevocable, and shareholdings for scaling purposes will
be assessed on the closing date (and not, for example, on
the date of acceptance). In addition, it is possible that new
information relevant to the Offer (for example, if a Superior
Proposal eventuates) may arise after the date of this Target
Company Statement. Accordingly, the Directors suggest
that Shareholders who are considering accepting the Offer
should do so towards the end of the Offer period.
Conclusion
The Board considers that the Offer provides an attractive
opportunity for Shareholders to accelerate the realisation of
some of the future value of their Restaurant Brands Shares
in cash now. Accordingly, on behalf of the Directors, I would
like to reiterate our support for the Offer. We recommend
that you ACCEPT the Offer for all of your Shares in the
absence of a Superior Proposal which is not matched by
Global Valar. Accepting the Offer for all of your Shares
maximises your opportunity to sell Shares under the Offer.
On behalf of the Directors, I thank you for your support of
Restaurant Brands.
Yours faithfully,
Ted van Arkel, Chairman
Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited
SECTION 1: WHY YOU SHOULD ACCEPT THE OFFER – SUMMARY
Section 1:
Why you should accept the Offer – summary
In arriving at this recommendation, the Directors have considered many factors, including the Offer
Price, the partial nature of the Offer, key conditions of the Offer, potential outcomes of the Offer, the
likelihood of a competing transaction and Global Valar’s intentions after the Offer. The key reasons
for the Directors’ recommendation are summarised below.
Further details are set out in Section 2 of this Target Company Statement. Additional factors for
Shareholders to consider are set out in Section 3 of this Target Company Statement and Section 4
sets out the answers to certain Frequently Asked Questions. The Directors strongly encourage you to
take account of Sections 2 to 4, and the merits of the Offer addressed in the Independent Adviser’s
Report, when considering your options in respect of the Offer.
The Board unanimously recommends that you
ACCEPT the Offer for all of your Shares in the
absence of a Superior Proposal which is not
matched by Global Valar.
1.
The Offer Price is attractive and represents a material premium
to the market price of Restaurant Brands Shares prior to the
announcement of the Offer.
2.
The Offer Price of NZ$9.45 per share is substantially above the
upper end of the Independent Adviser’s value range of NZ$ 8 .15
to NZ$8.92 per share.
3.
The Offer provides an opportunity for Shareholders to realise
some of the future value of at least 75% of their Restaurant
Brands Shares now for cash.
4.
Finaccess Capital supports Restaurant Brands’ existing
growth strategy.
5.
Competing transactions are unlikely.
3
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement4
SECTION 2: WHY YOU SHOULD ACCEPT THE OFFER – THE DETAIL
1. The Offer Price is attractive and represents
a premium to Restaurant Brands’ trading
prices on the NZX and ASX
Offer Price premium
The Offer Price of NZ$9.45 cash per Share
represents:
(a) a premium of 24.3% to the closing price of
NZ$7.60 on 17 October 2018, the last trading
day before Restaurant Brands announced Global
Valar’s indicative proposal to make the Offer; and
(b) a premium of 23.1% to the New Zealand volume
weighted average price for the six months ended
17 October 2018.
2
Restaurant Brands Shares listed at NZ$2.20 in
May 1997. Restaurant Brands Shares have closed
below the Offer Price every day since listing.
Comparison against other change of control
transactions
NZ$9.45 per Share values Restaurant Brands’
earnings favourably when compared with other
comparable change of control transactions. The Offer
Price of NZ$9.45 per Share implies a ratio of EV
3
to
underlying EBITDA
4
for last 12 months to 26 February
2018 of 14.1x.
5
This compares favourably to the
average for this ratio of recent precedent comparable
transaction multiples of 8.8x EV to historic EBITDA.
6
No brokerage costs payable
No brokerage costs will be charged on the transfer
of your Restaurant Brands Shares to Global Valar
if you accept the Offer. In contrast, if you sell your
Restaurant Brands Shares on the NZX or ASX
markets you may incur brokerage charges.
Post-Offer Share price
If the Offer does not succeed, the Board considers
that it is likely that the price for Restaurant Brands
Shares will decline to levels more in line with (or
potentially below) the price prior to Restaurant Brands’
initial announcement of Finaccess Capital’s indicative
proposal to make the Offer.
For more information about the potential post-Offer
Share price if the Offer succeeds, see Part A of
Section 3 of this Target Company Statement.
Section 2:
Why you should accept the Offer – the detail
2
Six month value weighted average price as at 17 October 2018 is NZ$7.68.
3
Restaurant Brands considers that EV (enterprise value) is the best valuation metric for comparing transaction
multiples. It represents the total purchase price paid for a company (including outstanding debt balances and cash)
and allows for comparisons of transactions even though companies may have differing capital structures.
4
Enterprise Value divided by underlying EBITDA (Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, amortisation, significant
items, associates and minority interest).
5
FY18 EBITDA includes earnings from Starbucks New Zealand, which was sold in FY19. The historic EV / EBITDA
multiple of 14.1x was calculated using an enterprise value of NZ$1,333.1 million and an FY18 EBITDA of NZ$94.4
million. Enterprise value is calculated as equity value of NZ$1,175.4 million plus net debt of NZ$157.7 million as at
26 February 2018. The equity value is calculated as the NZ$9.45 Offer Price per Share times the Shares on issue
of 124,380,523 as at 26 February 2018. This differs to the historic EV / EBITDA multiple of 13.9x provided in
the Independent Adviser’s Report, which uses an enterprise value of NZ$1,316.2 million and an FY18 EBITDA of
NZ$94.4 million. The difference in enterprise value is due to the use of FY19 net debt of NZ$137.1 million (forecast
net debt as at completion) and 124,768,523 shares on issue which represents the fully diluted Shares post vesting of
performance rights held by Russel Creedy and Grant Ellis.
6
Source: Grant Samuel Independent Adviser’s Report in relation to the Offer, page 30.
5
SECTION 2: WHY YOU SHOULD ACCEPT THE OFFER – THE DETAIL
2. The Offer Price of NZ$9.45 per Share
is substantially above the upper end of
the Independent Adviser’s value range of
NZ$8.15 to NZ$8.92 per Share
The Independent Adviser has assessed the value of
Restaurant Brands Shares (including a premium for
control) to be in the range of NZ$8.15 to NZ$8.92
per Restaurant Brands Share. The Offer Price of
NZ$9.45 cash per Restaurant Brands Share is
substantially above the upper end of this range.
The Independent Adviser’s Report is included as
Appendix B to this Target Company Statement.
3. The Offer provides an opportunity for
Shareholders to realise some of the future
value of at least 75% of their Restaurant
Brands Shares now for cash
In recent years Restaurant Brands has successfully
achieved a number of milestones, including the
acquisition of its Australian and Hawaiian operations.
As a result of these growth initiatives, the company
has experienced strong Share price appreciation.
Restaurant Brands has a number of further growth
opportunities available to it. However, the execution
of Restaurant Brands’ future growth plans could
take a number of years to achieve and involves
execution risks.
The Directors believe the Offer, which allows
Shareholders to sell at least 75% of their Restaurant
Brands Shares for NZ$9.45 cash per Share, provides
an attractive opportunity for you to realise some of the
future value for your Restaurant Brands Shares now.
The partial nature of the Offer means that there is a
reasonable prospect that you will continue to hold
Shares after completion of the Offer (even if you
accept the Offer for all of your Shares). For more
information about Restaurant Brands’ future strategy,
and the factors that may influence the future value of
your ongoing investment in Restaurant Brands, see
paragraph 4 below and Part A of Section 3 of this
Target Company Statement.
4. Finaccess Capital supports Restaurant
Brands’ existing growth strategy
In recent years, the Restaurant Brands Board has
adopted and pursued an international growth strategy,
including the acquisition of KFC stores in Australia and
Pizza Hut and Taco Bell stores in Hawaii, Saipan and
Guam. Restaurant Brands has also stated that
it is actively investigating acquisition opportunities
in the mainland of the United States of America.
Global Valar has confirmed to the Board that
Global Valar intends to support Restaurant Brands’
management to continue to execute the existing
strategy. Global Valar has also agreed with the Yum!
Franchisors that Global Valar will use commercially
reasonable endeavours to maintain a high level
of continuity in the Restaurant Brands’ senior
management team, including using commercially
reasonable endeavours to retain Russel Creedy
as Chief Executive Officer for at least three years.
Finaccess Capital, which is Global Valar’s indirect
holding company, has a successful track record. It
acquired a majority shareholding in European quick
service restaurant operator AmRest Holdings S.E.
(“AmRest”) in 2016 and has supported a growth
strategy that has seen an increase in AmRest’s
store numbers, EBITDA and share price. For more
information, see Part A of Section 3.
5. Competing transactions are unlikely
Since Restaurant Brands’ announcement on
18 October 2018 to NZX and ASX of Global Valar’s
indicative proposal to the make the Offer, and
up to ASX market close on 28 November 2018
(being the last practicable date before the date
of this Target Company Statement), no competing
transaction has emerged.
Your Directors do not believe that a competing
transaction is likely to emerge during the
Offer period.
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement6
1. What is this Section?
1.1 Section 3 of this Target Company Statement was
prepared by the Independent Directors and addresses
a number of the factors, additional to those set out
in Section 2. The Independent Directors encourage
you to take these factors into account when
considering the Offer.
1.2 This Section is presented in two Parts:
(a) Part A: Factors which may influence the future
value of your Restaurant Brands Shares; and
(b) Part B: Post-Offer minority Shareholder
protections.
Part A: Factors which may influence the future
value of your Restaurant Brands shares
2. The value of your remaining Shares
2.1 If Global Valar receives acceptances to the Offer for
more than 75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares,
acceptances to the Offer will be subject to scaling.
As a result, the Independent Directors believe that
there is a reasonable prospect that Shareholders who
accept the Offer (even Shareholders who accept for
all of their Shares) will continue to hold Restaurant
Brands Shares after completion of the Offer.
2.2 If you accept the Offer for some or all of your
Restaurant Brands Shares, the total value of your
investment in Restaurant Brands is:
(a) the value you receive for the sale of the
Restaurant Brands Shares under the Offer at
NZ$9.45 per share; plus
(b) the value of any Restaurant Brands Shares that
you continue to hold after the Offer.
2.3 Restaurant Brands Shares traded on NZX in the
range of NZ$6.48 to NZ$8.04 per share during the
12 months prior to the initial announcement of Global
Valar’s indicative proposal to make the Offer. There is
a risk that the Share price, after the Offer completes,
may retreat to levels more closely in line with (or
potentially below) that historial range.
2.4 Ultimately, the Share price and the value of your
remaining Restaurant Brands Shares after completion
of the Offer will be determined by the factors which
usually affect market prices of listed company shares,
including general economic and market factors, as
well as factors specific to Restaurant Brands including
post-Offer business strategy, dividends, debt levels,
capital structure, share trading liquidity and future
change of control events. Some of these factors are
discussed below.
3. Business strategy
Global Valar support for existing strategy
3.1 If the Offer is completed, Global Valar will control the
composition of the Board and, as a result, will control
Restaurant Brands’ post-Offer business strategy.
3.2 In recent years, the Restaurant Brands Board has
adopted and pursued an international growth strategy,
including the acquisition of KFC stores in Australia
and Pizza Hut and Taco Bell stores in Hawaii, Saipan
and Guam. Restaurant Brands has also stated that
it is actively investigating acquisition opportunities in
the mainland United States of America.
3.3 Global Valar has confirmed to the Independent
Directors that Global Valar intends to support
Restaurant Brands’ management to continue to
execute the existing strategy, and the Independent
Directors believe the success of that strategy
over the past few years was key to Global Valar’s
decision to make the Offer at NZ$9.45 per
Restaurant Brands Share.
3.4 Consistent with this, Global Valar has also agreed
with the Yum! Franchisors that Global Valar will
use commercially reasonable endeavours to
maintain a high level of continuity in the Restaurant
Brands’ senior management team, including using
commercially reasonable endeavours to retain Russel
Creedy as Chief Executive Officer for at least three
years (see paragraphs 3.11 to 3.16 below).
3.5 Restaurant Brands’ ability to continue to successfully
implement its growth strategy after the completion
of the Offer will be fundamental to the future value of
Restaurant Brands Shares. The Independent Directors
are unable to assess the likelihood of this occurring,
but note that the existing growth strategy of AmRest
was accelerated after the investment in that company
by Finaccess Capital, which is the indirect parent
company of Global Valar.
Finaccess Capital’s investment in AmRest
7
3.6 AmRest, which is listed on the Warsaw, Madrid,
Barcelona, Bilbao and Valencia Stock Exchanges, is
the largest independent chain restaurant operator
in Central and Eastern Europe. The company is also
developing its operations in Western Europe, Russia
and China.
Section 3:
Other factors for you to consider
7
Source: Finaccess Capital.
SECTION 3: OTHER FACTORS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
7
SECTION 3: OTHER FACTORS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
8
Source: Finaccess Capital. Figures calculated as at 30 October 2018.
9
PLN designates Polish złoty, which is the Polish currency.
3.7 Finaccess Capital first acquired a 32% shareholding
in AmRest in August 2015. Finaccess Capital
subsequently increased its shareholding to 61%
in 2016, before decreasing its shareholding to 56%
in 2017 because of a sale of AmRest shares to
AmRest management.
3.8 Finaccess Capital has advised the Independent
Directors that, since first investing in AmRest:
8
(a) AmRest’s network has increased from
approximately 850 stores to approximately
2,000 stores;
(b) adjusted EBITDA has increased from PLN
467 million
9
in FY15 to PLN 689 million in FY17
(with consensus forecast adjusted EBITDA of
PLN 809 million in FY18), representing annual
growth of approximately 20%; and
(c) the share price has increased over 130%
(equivalent to an effective annual return of
approximately 30%).
3.9 The success of AmRest after Finaccess Capital’s
investment is not a guarantee that the same will occur
for Restaurant Brands under Global Valar majority
ownership. However, it indicates to the Independent
Directors that Finaccess Capital has experience as a
majority owner in a listed company, with a track record
of supporting an international growth strategy.
Change of strategy
3.10 It is possible that the post-Offer Board could change
Restaurant Brands’ strategy in the future (for example,
to adjust to changing economic conditions). As any
future change in strategy cannot be known now, the
Independent Directors are unable to assess the
impact on value and risk profile of any change.
Yum! requirements
3.11 Certain subsidiaries of Yum! Brands Inc (referred
to collectively in this Target Company Statement as
“Yum!”) are the franchisors of the KFC, Pizza Hut and
Taco Bell brands operated by Restaurant Brands.
3.12 Under franchise arrangements between the Yum!
Franchisors and Restaurant Brands, the consent of
the Yum! Franchisors is required prior to Global Valar
acquiring control of Restaurant Brands under the
Offer. As a result, consent of the Yum! Franchisors
is an Offer condition.
3.13 Certain subsidiaries of Yum! Brands Inc, Global Valar
and Restaurant Brands have entered into a conditional
consent letter, under which the Yum! Franchisors have
conditionally consented to Global Valar acquiring
control of Restaurant Brands under the Offer (“Yum!
Consent Letter”).
3.14 The conditions to the Yum! Consent Letter are the
satisfaction of the Yum! Franchisors’ franchisee due
diligence requirements in respect of Finaccess Capital
and Global Valar, and the Yum! Franchisors, Finaccess
Capital and Restaurant Brands entering into formal
agreements to give effect to requirements recorded
in the Yum! Consent Letter.
3.15 Those requirements have implications for Restaurant
Brands’ future business strategy, including the
following:
(a) Finaccess Capital must use commercially
reasonable endeavours to ensure a high level
of continuity of Restaurant Brands’ senior
management and use commercially reasonable
endeavours to ensure that Russel Creedy remains
as Chief Executive Officer of Restaurant Brands
for at least three years after completion of the
Offer. During that period, Finaccess Capital must
ensure that Russel Creedy is not engaged or
employed by any of Finaccess Capital’s affiliated
companies.
(b) Restaurant Brands must comply with specified
new store development obligations for KFC and
Pizza Hut in New Zealand.
(c) If Restaurant Brands reaches an agreement
with the relevant Yum! Franchisor in relation to
the operation of Taco Bell in New Zealand and
Australia, Restaurant Brands will be required to
satisfy new store development obligations for
Taco Bell in these territories.
(d) Restaurant Brands must maintain operational
separation from AmRest (excluding certain
administrative functions).
3.16 The Independent Directors are comfortable with
Restaurant Brands agreeing to the matters in
paragraph 3.15. In accordance with its existing
growth strategy, Restaurant Brands would have
agreed the same or substantially similar new store
development obligations with the relevant Yum!
Franchisor even if Global Valar had not made
the Offer.
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement8
SECTION 3: OTHER FACTORS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
10
Source: Finaccess Capital as at 30 October 2018.
4. Dividends and imputation credits
4.1 Restaurant Brands’ current dividend policy is to
pay dividends having regard to all relevant factors,
including financial performance, cash flow, capital
requirements and the availability of imputation
credits. Restaurant Brands’ dividend policy does not
guarantee the payment of dividends or commit to any
timing or quantum of dividends.
4.2 Restaurant Brands paid total dividends (interim and
final) of NZ$0.28 per Restaurant Brands Share in
respect of FY18. Restaurant Brands has not paid an
interim dividend in respect of the current financial year,
FY19, because of the Offer. Restaurant Brands will not
pay the interim dividend if the Offer is successful.
4.3 Global Valar has confirmed to the Independent
Directors that it does not currently intend to promote
a change to Restaurant Brands’ dividend policy in
the near term. Global Valar has also stated that, after
completion of the Offer, the dividend policy will “need
to continue to be assessed against other capital
requirements in the business on an ongoing basis,
with Shareholder value from a dividend needing to be
considered relative to potential value creation from
reinvesting the funds within the business.”
4.4 Consistent with Global Valar’s statement above,
the Independent Directors believe that Global Valar
will focus on growth, rather than dividend yield.
Accordingly, there is a reasonable prospect that,
if the Offer is successful, Global Valar will prioritise
Restaurant Brands’ use of available cash to fund
acquisitions and store roll-outs by Restaurant Brands
over the payment of dividends at pre-Offer levels.
4.5 If the Offer is successful, Restaurant Brands will lose
the balance of imputation credits in its imputation
credit account. This may reduce Restaurant Brands’
ability to pay dividends to Shareholders in a tax
effective manner (i.e. by attaching imputation credits
to dividends paid) in the short to medium term.
5. Debt levels and capital structure
5.1 Global Valar has advised the Independent Directors
that it does not intend to significantly lever Restaurant
Brands (i.e. increase Restaurant Brands’ debt) and
that its investment philosophy is based on ensuring
portfolio companies have a responsible level of
leverage (i.e. debt).
5.2 Global Valar has also advised the Independent
Directors that Global Valar does not envisage any
future equity capital being required from Restaurant
Brands Shareholders in the near to medium term,
although any large-scale initiatives which are unable
to be funded from business cashflow would require
an assessment of capital sources at the relevant time.
This would include consideration of both debt and
equity capital, having regard to the matters set out
in paragraph 5.1.
5.3 The Independent Directors understand from
Finaccess Capital that:
10
(a) on investing in AmRest, Finaccess Capital set
a maximum target leverage ratio of net debt /
EBITDA at 3.2x; and
(b) despite borrowing to fund growth, AmRest
remains within the target leverage ratio.
6. Liquidity
6.1 Share trading liquidity is the ability to buy or sell
Restaurant Brands Shares in reasonable quantities
and within a short timeframe without materially
affecting the share price.
6.2 Liquidity is affected by the quantity of trades through
NZX and ASX, which is influenced by the number of
Shares which are available to trade (often referred
to as “free float”). A decrease in free float means
that fewer Shares are available to trade, which can
reduce liquidity.
6.3 The Independent Directors consider that currently
there is a reasonable level of liquidity in the market
for Restaurant Brands Shares. In the 12 month period
prior to 17 October 2018, 28,387,443 Restaurant
Brands Shares traded through NZX and 65,662
traded through ASX.
6.4 The recent levels of liquidity are supported by a
current free float of approximately 91% (being
all of the Restaurant Brands Shares, other than
those owned by interests associated with Stephen
Copulos) and the inclusion of Restaurant Brands in
the S&P/NZX50 index.
6.5 If the Offer is completed, the free float of Restaurant
Brands Shares (the Shares available for trading
through the market) will decrease to between 25%
and 49.99% depending on the outcome of the Offer.
This is likely to result in a decrease in liquidity and
Restaurant Brands Shares being removed from the
S&P/NZX50 index.
9
SECTION 3: OTHER FACTORS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
6.6 A decline in liquidity may have a negative influence
on the market price of Restaurant Brands Shares and
may limit your ability to sell your Restaurant Brands
Shares after completion of the Offer at a price that
you are prepared to accept.
6.7 That said:
(a) at a Share price of NZ$7.60 per Share, being
the closing price on the NZX on the day prior to
the initial announcement of the partial takeover
proposal, a 25% free float implies approximately
NZ$236 million of Shares available to be traded;
and
(b) given the scaling mechanism described in Part
A, the Independent Directors consider that there
is a reasonable prospect that Restaurant Brands
will have several thousand Shareholders after
completion of the Offer.
6.8 These factors may assist to support future liquidity
in the market for Restaurant Brands Shares.
7. Future control transactions
Finaccess Capital will determine the future control
of Restaurant Brands
7.1 If the Offer is successful, Global Valar will become
the majority Shareholder in Restaurant Brands and
will determine the future control of the company.
No change of control transaction (such as a full
takeover offer by a third party or a takeover by way
of scheme of arrangement promoted by a third party)
affecting Restaurant Brands can be successful unless
that transaction is supported by Global Valar.
Yum! requirements
7.2 Under the Yum! Consent Letter (see paragraph 3.13
above), Finaccess Capital and the Yum! Franchisors
have agreed that the consent of the Yum! Franchisors
is required to:
(a) a change of control of Restaurant Brands after
completion of the Offer; and
(b) changes of control of Global Valar and certain of
its holding companies, as well as certain transfers
of minority shareholdings in those companies.
7.3 The requirements in paragraph 7.2(b) provide the Yum!
Franchisors with a veto over future transactions which
result in a change of control of Restaurant Brands, as
well as certain other share transfers within the Global
Valar holding company structure. These requirements
could have negative implications for remaining
Shareholders in Restaurant Brands after completion
of the Offer, as breaches of those requirement may
give rise to deemed defaults under the franchise
arrangements between Restaurant Brands and the
Yum! Franchisors.
7.4 However, the Independent Directors do not consider
this to be a material risk for the following reasons:
(a) after completion of the Offer, Global Valar will
own between 50.01% and 75% of the Restaurant
Brands Shares. Global Valar’s interests will be
aligned with other Shareholders in maintaining
the Yum! Franchisor franchise arrangements, as
Global Valar will bear the greatest proportionate
economic impact of any disruption to those
arrangements;
(b) as noted in paragraph 3.7, Finaccess Capital is
currently a 56% Shareholder in AmRest, which is
also a significant operator of brands franchised
by certain subsidiaries of Yum! Brands Inc. This
heightens Finaccess Capital’s commercial
interests in maintaining a good relationship with
the Yum! Franchisors by complying with, and
ensuring that Global Valar complies with, the Yum!
Consent Letter requirements; and
(c) under the Yum! Consent Letter, Finaccess Capital
has a 30 day cure period to remedy breaches of
the provisions referred to in paragraph 7.2 above.
Finaccess Capital may increase its control of
Restaurant Brands
7.5 After waiting 12 months from the completion of the
Offer, Global Valar is entitled to acquire an additional
5% shareholding in Restaurant Brands in each
12 month period, by way of on-market and off-market
transactions, under the “creep” provisions of the
Takeovers Code. There are no pricing restrictions on
these transactions.
7.6 Importantly, unless certain limited exceptions apply,
Global Valar could not make any “creeping” acquisition
of Restaurant Brands Shares at any time while
Global Valar was in possession of inside information
(non-public price sensitive information) concerning
Restaurant Brands.
7.7 In addition to “creeping” acquisitions, Global Valar is
entitled to make a follow-on takeover offer at any time
after completion of the Offer. Finaccess Capital has
agreed that it will not do so within 12 months after
the completion of the Offer at a price below NZ$9.45
per Restaurant Brands Shares adjusted up or down
in proportion to any change in the S&P/NZX50 index
after completion of the Offer (for example, a 10%
decline in the S&P/NZX 50 index would result in a
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement10
SECTION 3: OTHER FACTORS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
10% decrease in the NZ$9.45 “floor price” and a 10%
increase in the S&P/NZX 50 index would result in a
10% increase in the NZ$9.45 “floor price”). After the
expiry of that period, Finaccess Capital will be free to
make another takeover offer at any price.
7.8 The Board of Restaurant Brands may waive the
prohibition on Global Valar making a takeover
offer at a price below the “floor price” during the
first 12 months after completion of the Offer. While
Restaurant Brands is listed by NZX (see paragraphs
8.3 to 8.9 below), any persons who are appointed as
Directors of Restaurant Brands to represent Global
Valar will be “interested” in any proposed waiver and
will be unable to vote on the Board decision.
7.9 If Global Valar increases its holding of Restaurant
Brands Shares to 90% or more, whether as a
result of a “creeping” acquisition or a takeover offer,
Global Valar is entitled, within a specified period,
to compulsorily acquire the remaining Restaurant
Brands Shares. If Global Valar chooses not to do so
then, within a specified period, remaining holders of
Restaurant Brands Shares can require Global Valar
to purchase those Shares.
7.10 The compulsory acquisition price will depend on
the manner in which Global Valar increased its
shareholding to 90% or above. In some cases (for
example, if Global Valar increased its shareholding
to 90% or above as a result of “creeping” acquisition),
the compulsory acquisition price must be a
cash sum certified as fair and reasonable by an
independent adviser.
Part B: Post-Offer minority Shareholder protections
8. Shareholder protections
8.1 After completion of the Offer, if you continue to hold
Restaurant Brands Shares you will have the benefit of
various legal protections for minority Shareholders.
8.2 This Part B is intended to be a general (and
non-exhaustive) high level summary of certain of
those legal protections. It is not legal advice. If you
have any questions about your legal rights as a
holder of Restaurant Brands Shares, you should
seek your own legal advice which is specific to
your circumstances.
Ongoing NZX and ASX listings
8.3 Many of the Shareholder protections described in
this Part B arise under the NZX Listing Rules.
To ensure that you continue to enjoy those protections,
Global Valar has agreed that, for 12 months after
completion of the Offer, it will not take steps to de-list
Restaurant Brands from the NZX except where Global
Valar becomes entitled to compulsorily acquire the
remaining Shares in Restaurant Brands as a result of
a takeover offer that complies with the minimum price
commitment described in paragraph 7.7.
8.4 After the 12 month period referred to in paragraph
8.3 it is possible that Global Valar could seek for the
Board to apply to NZX for delisting of Restaurant
Brands. However, Global Valar has informed the
Independent Directors that it would only look to delist
Restaurant Brands by moving to 100% ownership
and would not intend to have minority investors in an
unlisted business.
8.5 Ultimately, delisting, and the conditions of delisting,
are at NZX’s discretion. The Independent Directors
understand that, where a company is delisting from
NZX and not moving to another recognised stock
exchange (e.g. ASX), NZX usually requires, as a
pre-condition to delisting, that the delisting be
approved by an ordinary resolution of the minority
shareholders.
8.6 Finaccess Capital has also agreed that it will not take
steps to delist Restaurant Brands from ASX within
12 months after completion of the Offer. It is
possible that, after that period, the Board may
seek to de-list Restaurant Brands from ASX. The
Independent Directors understand that this would not
require Shareholder approval.
8.7 Global Valar has informed the Independent Directors
that Global Valar believes there to be a number
of benefits from Restaurant Brands maintaining
its current listings, including access to capital to
fund future growth while also providing existing
Shareholders an opportunity to continue participating
in the business over the long term.
8.8 The Board of Restaurant Brands may waive the
prohibition on Global Valar taking steps to de-list
Restaurant Brands from NZX and/or ASX during the
first 12 months after completion of the Offer. Any
persons who are appointed as Directors of Restaurant
Brands to represent Global Valar will be “interested” in
any proposed waiver and will be unable to vote on the
Board decision.
8.9 Restaurant Brands’ constitution requires the company
to comply with the NZX Listing Rules.
New NZX Listing Rules
8.10 NZX has implemented new Listing Rules which will
come into effect on 1 January 2019. Accordingly, this
Part B summarises the position under the current and
new NZX Listing Rules.
11
SECTION 3: OTHER FACTORS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
9. Governance protections
Requirement for New Zealand resident Directors and
Independent Directors
9.1 Under the current NZX Listing Rules, the Board
must have at least two Directors who are resident in
New Zealand and at least two Independent Directors
(or, if there are eight or more Directors, three or
one-third of the board, rounded down).
9.2 Under the new NZX Listing Rules, the Board
must have at least two Directors who are resident in
New Zealand and at least two Independent Directors.
Directors’ duties
9.3 Under the Companies Act 1993, all Directors,
including any Global Valar representatives who are
appointed as Directors of Restaurant Brands, owe
the same duties to Restaurant Brands.
9.4 Amongst other duties, all Directors, in their capacity
as Directors, must act in good faith and in the best
interests of Restaurant Brands.
Prohibitions on interested Director voting
9.5 Under the current and new NZX Listing Rules,
Directors must not vote on a Board resolution in
respect of a matter on which a Director is interested.
A Director will be interested in a matter in various
circumstances, including:
(a) if the Director is a party to, or may derive a
material financial benefit from, the matter;
(b) if the Director has a material financial interest
in another party to the matter; and
(c) if the Director is a director or officer of another
party to, or person who may derive a material
financial benefit from, the matter.
9.6 The two exceptions to the above rule are that a
Director may vote on:
(a) a matter in which a Director is interested if, under
the Companies Act, the matter requires Directors
to sign a certificate (for example, a “best interests”
certificate for the issue of Shares or a solvency
certificate for the authorisation of a dividend); or
(b) the approval of Director indemnities granted
under the Companies Act.
10. Shareholder oversight
Major transactions
10.1 Under the Companies Act, a “major transaction”
requires shareholder approval by special resolution.
10.2 In broad terms, a major transaction is the sale or
purchase of assets having a value in excess of 50% of
the pre-transaction market value of Restaurant Brands’
gross assets. Importantly, the major transaction rules
are entity specific: a transaction by a subsidiary of
Restaurant Brands will not require major transaction
Restaurant Brands Shareholder approval under the
Companies Act.
10.3 If a major transaction is approved by Shareholders,
those Shareholders who vote all of their Restaurant
Brands Shares against the major transaction have
minority buyout rights, being the right to require
Restaurant Brands to acquire their Shares for a fair
and reasonable cash price.
Related party transactions
10.4 Under the current and new NZX Listing Rules,
Restaurant Brands must not enter into a “material
transaction” (or series of related transactions) with
a “related party” without Shareholder approval by
ordinary resolution. The related party cannot vote on
this resolution. Global Valar will be a related party of
Restaurant Brands after completion of the Offer.
10.5 “Material transactions” include asset sales or
purchases having a value of more than 10% of
Restaurant Brands’ average market capitalisation
and service arrangements where the annual gross
costs is more than 1% of Restaurant Brands’ average
market capitalisation. In addition, the issue of
securities having a market value of more than 10%
of Restaurant Brands’ average market capitalisation
is also a “material transaction”.
Annual meetings
10.6 Restaurant Brands must continue to hold annual
meetings.
10.7 Under the current NZX Listing Rules, Restaurant
Brands must hold each annual meeting in
New Zealand.
10.8 Under the new NZX Listing Rules, Restaurant Brands
must hold each annual meeting in New Zealand,
or Australia (if Shareholders can participate in
the meeting by audio, audio and visual, and/or
electronic means).
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement12
SECTION 3: OTHER FACTORS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
11. Anti-dilution protection for minorities
NZX Listing Rules restrictions on share issues
11.1 Under the current and new NZX Listing Rules,
Restaurant Brands must not issue Restaurant Brand
Shares without Shareholder approval by ordinary
resolution unless an exception applies. A Shareholder
(e.g. Global Valar) cannot vote on a resolution to
approve the issue of Shares to itself.
11.2 Under the current NZX Listing Rules, the key
exceptions to the Shareholder approval requirements
are for:
(a) renounceable rights issues; and
(b) placements of up to 20% of Restaurant Brands’
share capital in a 12 month period.
11.3 Under the new NZX Listing Rules, the key exceptions
to the Shareholder approval requirements are for:
(a) renounceable or accelerated rights issues; and
(b) placements of up to 15% of Restaurant Brands’
share capital in a 12 month period.
11.4 Placements of new Restaurant Brands Shares
are still subject to the related party transaction
rules summarised in paragraph 10 above as well
as the Takeovers Code restrictions described in
paragraph 12 below.
11.5 In addition, if Global Valar has Board representation
(which the Independent Directors understand is
intended) the NZX Listing Rules prohibit a placement
of Restaurant Brands Shares solely to Global Valar
without Shareholder approval.
Governance requirements
11.6 Under the Companies Act, to issue Shares, the Board
must resolve, and Directors must certify, that the
price for the issue and the terms of the issue are
fair and reasonable to Restaurant Brands and to all
existing Shareholders.
12. Restrictions on Global Valar increasing
its shareholding
Takeovers Code restrictions
12.1 Under the Takeovers Code, after completion of the
Offer, Global Valar cannot increase its shareholding
in Restaurant Brands, except by way of one of the
following:
11
(a) another takeover (including by way of a scheme
of arrangement);
(b) with prior Shareholder approval by ordinary
resolution (on which Global Valar cannot vote); or
(c) the “creep” rules summarised below.
“Creep” rules
12.2 The Takeovers Code’s “creep” rules are referred to in
paragraph 7 above. To re-iterate, after a “stand down”
period of 12 months after completion of the Offer,
Global Valar may acquire, on or off market, up to 5%
of Restaurant Brands’ Shares in each 12 month period.
However, Global Valar would still be subject to usual
insider trading restrictions.
13. Shareholder information
Annual reports
13.1 Under the current NZX Listing Rules, Restaurant
Brands must prepare, and make available to
Shareholders, an annual and a half-year report.
13.2 Under the new NZX Listing Rules, Restaurant Brands
must prepare, and make available to Shareholders, an
annual report. This is also a Companies Act obligation.
13.3 The annual report must include audited consolidated
financial statements for Restaurant Brands.
Continuous disclosure
13.4 Under the current and new NZX Listing Rules,
Restaurant Brands must immediately disclose
price sensitive information to NZX, subject to
certain limited exceptions.
11
There are also a number of exemptions that would permit Global Valar to temporarily increase its shareholding
in certain circumstances, provided it reduced that shareholding within a specified time period.
13
1. What are my options?
1.1 You have four options in response to the Offer.
You can:
(a) reject (i.e. not accept) the Offer;
(b) accept the Offer for all of your Restaurant Brands
Shares;
(c) accept the Offer of some, but not all, of your
Restaurant Brands Shares; or
(d) sell your Restaurant Brands Shares on the NZX or
ASX (or off market) at any time if you do not wish
to hold them or participate in the Offer.
1.2 If you accept the Offer for more than 75% of your
Shares, your acceptance may be subject to scaling.
Scaling is discussed in further detail in paragraph
4 below and in Appendix A of this Target Company
Statement.
2. How do I accept or reject the Offer?
2.1 If you wish to accept the Offer, use the appropriate
acceptance form that accompanied Global Valar’s
Offer Document, and carefully follow the instructions
on that form. If you accept the Offer, your acceptance
is irrevocable. This means that you cannot withdraw
your acceptance or change your mind (for example,
if you wished to consider other options for your
Restaurant Brands Shares) once you have accepted
the Offer.
2.2 If you wish to reject (i.e. not accept) the Offer, you do
not need to take any action.
3. What are the key dates?
What is the time frame for accepting the Offer?
3.1 You have until the end of the Offer period to decide
whether or not to accept the Offer.
3.2 At the date of this Target Company Statement, the
Offer period will end on 11:59pm on 12 March 2019,
being 60 working days after the date of the Offer.
3.3 If Global Valar satisfies the minimum acceptance
condition in the period that begins 5 working days
prior to the closing date of the Offer, the Offer period
is automatically extended for 10 working days from
the date on which the condition is satisfied. This
provides Shareholders who have not accepted the
Offer further time to consider doing so.
When is my shareholding assessed for the purposes
of scaling?
3.4 Your shareholding is assessed for the purposes of
scaling on the closing date of the Offer (and not, for
example, on the date of the Offer or the date of your
acceptance). Therefore, accepting the Offer early will
not affect the scaling of your acceptance.
When will I be paid if I accept the Offer?
3.5 If you accept the Offer, Global Valar will not pay
you for any Restaurant Brands Shares to be acquired
from you under the Offer until the Offer has closed.
As noted above, the closing date is 12 March 2019,
being 60 working days after the date of the Offer.
3.6 You should also be aware that the Offer may remain
conditional for up to 20 working days after the Offer
has closed, to provide Global Valar with time to satisfy
outstanding conditions (such as Overseas Investment
Office consent).
3.7 Global Valar will not pay you for any Restaurant Brands
Shares to be acquired from you under the Offer until
after the Offer becomes unconditional.
3.8 Accordingly, accepting the Offer early during the Offer
period will not result in early payment to you.
4. Will my acceptance of the Offer be scaled?
Can I sell all of my Shares to Global Valar under
the Offer?
4.1 The Offer is a partial takeover offer. Global Valar is
offering to purchase only up to 75% of the Shares in
Restaurant Brands. Global Valar will only acquire and
pay for Shares under the Offer if Global Valar declares
the Offer unconditional.
4.2 You may accept the Offer for any number of your
Restaurant Brands Shares, but you are only certain
of being able to sell up to 75% of your shareholding.
There is no guarantee that you can sell more than
75% of your Restaurant Brands Shares under the
Offer. If you accept the Offer for more than 75% of
your shareholding, your acceptance may be subject to
scaling in accordance with the Takeovers Code.
4.3 If Global Valar receives acceptances for between
50.01% and 75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares
and declares the Offer unconditional, Global Valar will
acquire all the Restaurant Brands Shares you accept
into the Offer. Your Restaurant Brands Shares will not
be subject to scaling.
Section 4:
Frequently asked questions
SECTION 4: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement14
SECTION 4: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
How does scaling work?
4.4 If Global Valar receives acceptances for more than
75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares and you accept
the Offer for more than 75% of your Restaurant
Brands Shares, your Restaurant Brands Shares will
be subject to scaling.
4.5 Scaling involves two steps. First, Global Valar will take
up the lesser of:
(a) 75% of all the Restaurant Brands Shares held by
each accepting Shareholder; and
(b) the full number of Restaurant Brands Shares for
which a Shareholder accepted the Offer, where
that number is equal to or less than 75% of the
Shareholder’s total shareholding.
4.6 Second, if necessary to achieve the total 75%
shareholding in Restaurant Brands that Global Valar
wishes to acquire, Global Valar will acquire further
Restaurant Brands Shares from those Shareholders
who accept the Offer for more than 75% of their
shareholdings, calculated on a proportional basis to
the total excess acceptances.
4.7 A worked example of the scaling mechanism is set out
in Appendix A to this Target Company Statement.
If I accept the Offer for no more than 75% of my Shares,
will I be subject to scaling?
4.8 No. You can accept the Offer for up to 75% of your
Restaurant Brands Shares without being subject to
scaling. For example, if you hold 1,000 Shares, you
may accept the Offer for 750 Shares or fewer Shares
without your acceptances being scaled down.
If I accept the Offer for more than 75% of my Shares,
how many Shares will Global Valar purchase from me?
4.9 If you accept the Offer for more than 75% of your
Restaurant Brands Shares, at completion of the Offer,
Global Valar must purchase at least 75% of your
Shares. Whether, and the extent to which, Global Valar
purchases further Restaurant Brands Shares from you
will depend on the total number of acceptances to the
Offer that Global Valar receives (see the answer to the
question “
How does scaling work?” above).
If you accept the Offer for all of your Restaurant
Brands Shares and the Offer is subject to scaling you
will not be able to sell all of your Restaurant Brands
Shares under the Offer.
5. What are the potential outcomes of
the Offer?
5.1 There are three potential outcomes of the Offer:
12
(a) Global Valar receives acceptances to the Offer
for less than 50.01% of the Restaurant Brands
Shares or does not otherwise declare the Offer
unconditional; or
(b) Global Valar receives acceptances to the
Offer for between 50.01% and 75% of the
Restaurant Brands Shares and declares the
Offer unconditional; or
(c) Global Valar receives acceptances to the Offer for
more than 75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares
and declares the Offer unconditional.
5.2 These outcomes are discussed below.
What happens if Global Valar does not receive
acceptances for more than 50.01% of Restaurant
Brands Shares or does not otherwise declare the
Offer unconditional?
5.3 If Global Valar does not receive acceptances to the
Offer for 50.01% or more of the Restaurant Brands
Shares or if the Offer is not otherwise declared
unconditional, the Offer will lapse. No Restaurant
Brands Shares will be acquired from you (or any other
Shareholder) under the Offer and you will not be
paid for any Restaurant Brands Shares for which you
accept the Offer.
What happens if Global Valar receives acceptances
for between 50.01% and 75% of Restaurant Brands
Shares?
5.4 The Offer is conditional on Global Valar receiving
acceptances for at least 75% of the Restaurant
Brands Shares. Global Valar is able to waive
this condition and, if it does so, the Offer will be
conditional on Global Valar receiving acceptances for
at least 50.01% of the Restaurant Brands Shares.
5.5 If Global Valar receives acceptances to the Offer for
between 50.01% and 75% of the Restaurant Brands
Shares and declares the Offer unconditional:
12
If Global Valar waives the 75% minimum acceptance condition, the Offer is conditional on Global Valar
receiving acceptances for more than 50% of Restaurant Brands’ Shares. However, for the sake of simplicity,
this has been reflected in this Target Company Statement as 50.01% of the Restaurant Brands Shares.
15
SECTION 4: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
(a) Global Valar will acquire all of the Restaurant
Brands Shares that have been accepted into
the Offer. Accepting Shareholders will not be
subject to scaling or pro-rata adjustment of their
acceptances. The final percentage shareholding in
Restaurant Brands owned by Global Valar will be
between 50.01% and 75% – determined by the
level of acceptances to the Offer by Shareholders.
(b) Restaurant Brands will remain listed on the NZX
and ASX and the Restaurant Brands Shares will
continue to be quoted on, and tradeable on, the
NZX and ASX. See paragraphs 6 and 8.3 to 8.6
of Section 3 for more information.
(c) At a shareholding of between 50.01% and 75%,
Global Valar will have effective, but not absolute
control of Restaurant Brands:
(i) Global Valar will be able to pass an ordinary
resolution (a resolution requiring a bare
majority of the votes cast) by itself. This will
allow Global Valar to control the composition
of the Board of Restaurant Brands. Control of
the Board will allow Global Valar to, amongst
other things, determine Restaurant Brands’
business strategy, change the company’s
dividend policy and approve certain changes
to the company’s capital structure. For further
information see paragraphs 3 and 4 of
Section 3.
(ii) Global Valar will also have significant
influence over special resolutions (a resolution
requiring a 75% majority of the votes cast)
and, depending on the degree to which
other Shareholders vote on the resolution,
may be able to determine the outcome of
special resolutions. Special resolutions are
required for major transactions, changes to
the constitution and certain other matters. For
further information about major transactions
see paragraph 10 of Section 3.
(d) The price of Restaurant Brands Shares on the
NZX and ASX may fall below the price that
prevailed before Restaurant Brands announced
that Finaccess Capital was considering making a
partial takeover for Restaurant Brands. For further
information see Part B of Section 3.
What happens if Global Valar receives acceptances for
more than 75% of Restaurant Brands Shares?
5.6 If Global Valar receives acceptances for more than
75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares and declares
the Offer unconditional, Global Valar will become the
holder of 75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares:
(a) Shareholders who have accepted the Offer for
more than 75% of their Restaurant Brands Shares
will have their acceptances scaled in accordance
with the Takeovers Code and Global Valar will
acquire from accepting Shareholders the number
of Restaurant Brands Shares determined under
the scaling process.
(b) Restaurant Brands will remain listed on the NZX
and ASX and the Restaurant Brands Shares will
continue to be quoted on, and tradeable on, the
NZX and ASX. See paragraphs 6 and 8.3 to 8.6
of Section 3 for more information.
(c) In addition to being able to control the composition
of the Board of Restaurant Brands as described
in paragraph 5.5(c)(i) above, Global Valar will also
be able to pass special resolutions by itself.
(d) The price of Restaurant Brands Shares on the
NZX and ASX may fall below the price that
prevailed before Restaurant Brands announced
that Finaccess Capital was considering making a
partial takeover for Restaurant Brands. For further
information see Part B of Section 3.
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement16
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
This Section 5 sets out the information required by Schedule 2 of the Takeovers Code in relation to the Offer. Where any
information required by Schedule 2 to the Takeovers Code is not applicable, no statement is made regarding that information.
1. Date
1.1 This Target Company Statement is dated
10 December 2018.
2. Offer
2.1 This Target Company Statement relates to a partial
takeover offer by Global Valar S.L. to purchase 75%
of the fully paid ordinary shares in Restaurant Brands,
for a cash purchase price of NZ$9.45 per Restaurant
Brands Share.
2.2 The Offer is due to close at 11:59pm on 12 March
2019.
2.3 The full terms of the Offer are set out in Global Valar’s
Offer Document dated 10 December 2018, which
accompanies this Target Company Statement.
3. Target company
3.1 The name of the target company is Restaurant Brands
New Zealand Limited.
3.2 The postal address of Restaurant Brands is:
PO Box 22-749
Otahuhu
Auckland
New Zealand
3.3 Restaurant Brands’ website is at:
http://www.restaurantbrands.co.nz.
3.4 The contact email address of Restaurant Brands is
investor@rbd.co.nz.
4. Directors of Restaurant Brands
4.1 The names of the Directors of Restaurant Brands are:
(a) Eduard Koert (Ted) van Arkel (Chairman)
(b) Stephen Copulos
(c) David Ernest Beguely
(d) Hamish William Stevens
(e) Victoria Ann Taylor
4.2 The Board has determined that Ted van Arkel,
David Beguely, Hamish Stevens and Victoria Taylor
are Independent Directors for the purposes of the
NZX Listing Rules. Stephen Copulos is a
non-executive Director.
5. Ownership of equity securities of
Restaurant Brands
Ownership interests of Directors and Senior Managers
of Restaurant Brands
Restaurant Brands Shares
5.1 The only class of equity securities on issue in
Restaurant Brands is Restaurant Brands Shares.
The number and the percentage of Restaurant Brands
Shares held or controlled by each Director or Senior
Manager of Restaurant Brands, or their associates,
is set out in the following table. For the purposes of
this Target Company Statement, the Directors have
determined that the Senior Managers of Restaurant
Brands are Russel Creedy (Chief Executive Officer)
and Grant Ellis (Chief Financial Officer).
Section 5:
Takeovers Code Disclosures
17
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
13
Stephen Copulos controls his Restaurant Brands Shares through: (a) HSBC Custody Nominees Australia Limited as custodian for Eyeon No 2 Pty
Ltd (as to 1,585,482 shares); (b) HSBC Custody Nominees Australia Limited as custodian for PC Nab Pty Ltd (as to 2,117,853 shares); (c) Citibank
N.A., New Zealand Branch as custodian for Eyeon QSR Pty Ltd (as to 5,198,817 shares); (d) Citibank N.A., New Zealand Branch as custodian for
Copulos Superannuation Pty Ltd (as to 862,937 shares); (e) Citibank N.A., New Zealand Branch as custodian for Eyeon Investments Pty Ltd (as to
662,686 shares); and (f) Citibank N.A., New Zealand Branch as custodian for Copulos Foundation Pty Ltd (as to 203,044 shares).
14
David Beguely controls his Restaurant Brands Shares through Tiakarete Pty Ltd as trustee of the Tiakarete Superannuation Fund, of which he is
the beneficial owner.
15
Russel Creedy is the registered holder and beneficial owner of 571,601 Restaurant Brands Shares. Russel Creedy’s spouse, Linda Creedy, is
the registered holder and beneficial owner of 20,399 Restaurant Brands Shares. Linda Creedy may be an associate of Russel Creedy for the
purposes of the Takeovers Code.
16
Grant Ellis is the registered holder and beneficial owner of 194,529 Restaurant Brands Shares. Along with Ian Lewington and Lynley Lewington,
he is also an owner as trustee of 8,682 Restaurant Brands Shares held by JBWere (NZ) Nominees Limited as custodian for the Lewington
Business Trust. Grant Ellis has no beneficial interest in the Restaurant Brands Shares held by JBWere (NZ) Nominees Limited as custodian for
the Lewington Business Trust.
17
New Zealand Central Securities Depository Limited holds Restaurant Brands Shares as a custodian and bare trustee. It is not the beneficial
owner of Restaurant Brands Shares.
18
See footnote 13.
Name of Director
or Senior Manager
DescriptionNumber of Restaurant Brands
Shares held or controlled
Percentage of total
Restaurant Brands Shares
Ted van ArkelDirector160,6090 .13%
Stephen Copulos
13
Director10,630,8198.52%
David Beguely
14
Director50,0000.04%
Russel Creedy
15
Senior Manager
(Chief Executive Officer)571,6010.46%
Grant Ellis
16
Senior Manager
(Chief Financial Officer)
2 0 3 , 2110 .16 %
No other ownership of equity securities
5.2 Except as set out above, no other Director or Senior Manager, or their associates, holds or controls any equity securities
of Restaurant Brands.
Ownership interests of substantial product holders of Restaurant Brands
5.3 The table below sets out the number and the percentage of Restaurant Brands Shares held or controlled by any other
person holding or controlling 5% or more of the Restaurant Brands Shares, to the knowledge of Restaurant Brands.
The information in this table relating to New Zealand Central Securities Depository Limited is based on information as at
23 November 2018 which was provided by New Zealand Central Securities Depository Limited on 26 November 2018.
Name of substantial product holdersNumber of Restaurant Brands
Shares held or controlled
Percentage of total
Restaurant Brands Shares
New Zealand Central Securities Depository Limited
17
70,078,074 56 .17 %
Stephen Copulos
18
10,630,8198.52%
5.4 Except as set out in the table above, to Restaurant Brands’ knowledge no other person holds or controls more than 5%
of a class of equity securities of Restaurant Brands.
Issues of equity securities
5.5 Except as set out in paragraphs 5.6 to 5.8, Restaurant Brands has not, in the two year period ending on the date of this
Target Company Statement, issued any equity securities to Directors or Senior Managers or their associates.
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement18
Performance rights
5.6 In August 2017, Restaurant Brands issued to Russel Creedy 252,000 performance rights and to Grant Ellis 126,000
performance rights. Each performance right entitled the holder to one Restaurant Brands Share if the closing price
for Restaurant Brands Shares was or exceeded NZ$10.00 for 40 consecutive trading days within a prescribed period
(if certain other conditions were satisfied) or, in the event of a takeover, at the discretion of the Board.
5.7 All performance rights vested on 4 December 2018. On that date, as recorded in the table under paragraph 5.8, Restaurant
Brands issued to Russel Creedy 252,000 Restaurant Brands Shares and to Grant Ellis 126,000 Resturant Brands Shares.
Restaurant Brands Shares
5.8 The following Shares of Restaurant Brands have, during the two year period ending on the date of this Target Company
Statement, been issued to Directors or Senior Managers or their associates.
NamePositionNumber of
Restaurant Brands
Shares issued
Reason for issueConsideration
per share
Date of
transaction
Grant EllisSenior Manager
(Chief Financial
Officer)
196Issue of Shares on
reinvestment of dividends
under Restaurant Brands’
Dividend Reinvestment Plan
NZ$7.79
19
22 June 2018
Russel CreedySenior Manager
(Chief Executive
Officer)
252,000Issue of Shares under
Restaurant Brands’
Performance Rights Plan
Nil4 December
2018
Grant EllisSenior Manager
(Chief Financial
Officer)
126,000Issue of Shares under
Restaurant Brands’
Performance Rights Plan
Nil4 December
2018
6. Trading in Restaurant Brands
6.1 Except for the Share issues disclosed in paragraph 5.8, no Director or Senior Manager (including their associates) has
acquired or disposed of any equity securities of Restaurant Brands during the six month period before ASX market close
on 28 November 2018 (being the latest practicable date before the date of this Target Company Statement).
6.2 No Restaurant Brands Shares were acquired or disposed of during the six month period before ASX market close
on 28 November 2018 (being the latest practicable date before the date of this Target Company Statement) by any
person holding or controlling 5% or more of Restaurant Brands Shares as at the date of this Target Company Statement
(excluding share acquisitions and disposals by New Zealand Central Securities Depository Limited, which holds Shares as
a custodian and bare trustee).
7. Acceptance of Offer
7.1 The table below sets out, as at the date of this Target Company Statement, the name of every Director, Senior Manager
and associate of a Director or Senior Manager who has advised Restaurant Brands that he or she intends to accept the
Offer, and the number of Restaurant Brands Shares in respect of which the person intends to accept the Offer.
Name DescriptionNumber of Restaurant Brands Shares in respect
of which the person intends to accept the Offer
Ted van ArkelDirector160,609
Stephen Copulos Director10,630,819
20
David BeguelyDirector50,000
21
19
See footnote 16. These Shares were acquired for the Lewington Business Trust. Grant Ellis has no beneficial interest in
the Restaurant Brands Shares held by JBWere (NZ) Nominees Limited as custodian for the Lewington Business Trust.
20
See footnote 13.
21
See footnote 14.
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
19
7.2 Ted van Arkel and David Beguely intend to accept
the Offer absent a Superior Proposal which is not
matched by Global Valar.
7.3 Global Valar, Finaccess Capital, the Copulos Interests
and Stephen Copulos (who is a Director of Restaurant
Brands) have entered into a lock-in deed dated 25
November 2018 under which the Copulos Interests
agreed to accept the Offer (“Lock-in Deed”). The
Lock-in Deed is summarised in paragraphs 11.2 and
11.3. A full copy of the Lock-in Deed was attached to
the substantial product holder notice filed by Global
Valar with NZX on 26 November 2018.
8. Ownership of equity securities of Global Valar
8.1 Neither Restaurant Brands, nor any Director, Senior
Manager or any of their associates, holds or controls
any equity securities of Global Valar or any related
company of Global Valar.
9. Trading in equity securities of Global Valar
9.1 Neither Restaurant Brands, nor any Director, Senior
Manager or any of their associates, has acquired or
disposed of any equity securities of Global Valar or any
related company of Global Valar during the six month
period before ASX market close on 28 November
2018, being the latest practicable date before the
date of this Target Company Statement.
10. Arrangements between Global Valar and
Restaurant Brands
10.1 Except as set out below in this paragraph 10,
no agreement or arrangement (whether legally
enforceable or not) has been made, or is proposed
to be made, between Global Valar or any associates
of Global Valar and Restaurant Brands or any related
company of Restaurant Brands in connection with, in
anticipation of, or in response to, the Offer.
Confidentiality Agreement
10.2 On 16 July 2018, Finaccess Capital and Restaurant
Brands entered into a confidentiality agreement
under which Finaccess Capital agreed to keep
confidential information provided by Restaurant
Brands in connection with its evaluation of a potential
transaction involving the acquisition of shares.
Pre-Bid Agreement
10.3 Finaccess Capital, Global Valar and Restaurant
Brands have entered a pre-bid agreement
dated 25 November 2018 relating to the Offer
(the “Pre-Bid Agreement”). The material terms of
the Pre-Bid Agreement are as follows:
(a) Global Valar was required to:
(i) send the Takeover Notice to Restaurant Brands
not later than 8.00 am one business day after
the date of the Pre-Bid Agreement; and
(ii) make the Offer as soon as reasonably
practicable and, in any event, not later
than 20 business days after sending the
Takeover Notice.
(b) Restaurant Brands was required to:
(i) make an agreed public statement on signing
of the Pre-Bid Agreement;
(ii) prepare this Target Company Statement within
an agreed timeframe; and
(iii) procure that the Board unanimously
recommended that Shareholders accept the
Offer (subject to the consideration under the
Offer being within or above the Independent
Adviser’s valuation range for the Shares and
there being no unmatched Superior Proposal).
(c) Restaurant Brands must procure that each
Director of Restaurant Brands (other than
Stephen Copulos) accepts the Offer in respect of
any Shares which he/she owns or controls, except
where there is an unmatched Superior Proposal.
(d) Restaurant Brands must not:
(i) solicit, or engage in talks in relation to, a
competing transaction to acquire control,
or a material part of the business, of
Restaurant Brands; or
(ii) make available non-public information about
the business of Restaurant Brands to any
third party in relation to such a competing
transaction,
except in relation to an unsolicited competing
transaction where the Board determines that
a failure to engage in such talks or provide
non-public information would be likely to
constitute a breach of the fiduciary or statutory
duties owed by the Directors of Restaurant
Brands. This obligation applies from the date
of the Pre-Bid Agreement until the agreement
is terminated or Global Valar fails to match a
Superior Proposal.
(e) If a matter or circumstance arises which will, or is
likely to, result in a breach or non-satisfaction of
certain conditions in clause 5.4 of the terms of
the Offer, Global Valar must not invoke its right to
terminate the Pre-Bid Agreement for such breach
or non-satisfaction of those conditions unless
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement20
they remain breached or unsatisfied for a period
of two business days after Global Valar’s notice
of breach.
(f) In relation to the condition in clause 5.2 of the
terms of the Offer (Overseas Investment Office
consent):
(i) Global Valar and Restaurant Brands will
co-operate with one another in relation to
obtaining the consent under the Overseas
Investment Act 2005; and
(ii) Global Valar will not withhold its approval to
the terms of any consent or conditions of
consent granted by the Overseas Investment
Office (“OIO”) if the terms and conditions
imposed are the standard terms or conditions
of consent available on the OIO website as
at the date of the Pre-Bid Agreement.
(g) Restaurant Brands must notify Global Valar
if Restaurant Brands receives a competing
transaction (including any inquiries to initiate
negotiations or requests for non-public
information that could lead to a competing
transaction).
(h) Restaurant Brands must provide Global Valar with
the opportunity to match any Superior Proposal,
which will be duly considered by the Board of
Restaurant Brands.
(i) Restaurant Brands must pay Global Valar a
reimbursement sum of NZ$7,000,000 (plus
GST, if any) where:
(i)
Restaurant Brands fails to issue the public
statement referred to in paragraph (b)(i) above;
(ii) any Director of Restaurant Brands fails to
recommend the Offer, makes other adverse
comments in relation to the Offer or (other
than Stephen Copulos) fails to accept this
Offer, other than as a result of:
(A) the Independent Adviser concluding that
the consideration under this Offer does
not fall within or above its valuation range
for the Shares;
(B) a failure of any of the conditions set out in
clauses 5.2 (Overseas Investment Office
consent), 5.3 (Yum! consent) or 5.4(q)
(No restraining orders) of the terms of the
Offer Terms; or
(C) Global Valar breaching the Pre-Bid
Agreement;
(iii) a competing transaction is announced prior
to the closing of the Offer and is successfully
implemented within 12 months of that
announcement;
(iv) Restaurant Brands, with the intention of
frustrating this Offer, solicits or encourages a
person to acquire 10% or more of the Shares
and that person does not accept the Offer;
(v) the Pre-Bid Agreement is terminated
after Global Valar fails to match a Superior
Proposal; or
(vi) any of the Copulos Interests fail to accept the
Offer in accordance with the Lock-in Deed.
(j) Restaurant Brands is not required to pay a
reimbursement sum to Global Valar if the Offer
becomes unconditional.
(k) Global Valar was required to pay Restaurant
Brands a reimbursement sum of NZ$7,000,000
(plus GST, if any) if it failed to give the Takeover
Notice or make the Offer in accordance with the
Pre-Bid Agreement.
(l) Global Valar must pay to Restaurant Brands
a reimbursement sum of NZ$7,000,000 (plus GST,
if any) if it fails to meet its payment obligations to
Shareholders under the Offer.
(m) Global Valar will not delist Restaurant Brands
from the NZX or ASX within 12 months after
completion of this Offer, except where Global
Valar becomes entitled to compulsorily acquire
the remaining Restaurant Brands Shares
under Part 7 of the Takeovers Code as a result
of a takeover offer which complies with the
requirements summarised in paragraph (n).
(n) If Global Valar makes a further takeover offer
for Restaurant Brands within 12 months after
completion of this Offer (“Follow-On Offer”), the
offer price of the Follow-On Offer must be at least
NZ$9.45 per Share, subject to an adjustment on
a pro-rata basis to reflect any decline or increase
(if any) in the S&P/NZX 50 index between the
date of completion of this Offer and the date that
Global Valar gives the notice of intention for the
Follow-On Offer.
(o) Restaurant Brands has agreed to waive all
of its rights, and not make any claim against,
any director, shareholder, officer, employee or
representative of Finaccess Capital and each
of its related companies, in connection with any
breach of any representations, covenants, and
warranties of Finaccess Capital (and any member
of the Finaccess group) in the Pre-Bid Agreement,
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
21
or any other act or omission in connection with
the Pre-Bid Agreement or the Offer, except in the
case of wilful misconduct or fraud.
(p) Finaccess Capital guarantees the obligations of
Global Valar under the Pre-Bid Agreement.
Disclosure Letter
10.4 Restaurant Brands and Global Valar have signed
a disclosure letter dated 25 November 2018 relating
to the ability of Restaurant Brands to make fair
disclosures to Global Valar in relation to certain
conditions set out in clause 5.4 of the terms of the
Offer and for the purposes of relevant corresponding
provisions of the Pre-Bid Agreement.
Yum! Consent Letter
10.5 Kentucky Fried Chicken International Holdings LLC,
Pizza Hut International LLC and Taco Bell Corp.,
Finaccess Capital and Restaurant Brands have
entered into a letter agreement dated 19 November
2018 under which the Yum! Franchisors gave
conditional consent to the acquisition by Global Valar
of up to 75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares under
the Offer (the “Yum! Consent Letter”).
10.6 The consent of the Yum! Franchisors in the Yum!
Consent Letter is conditional on:
(a) the satisfaction of the Yum! Franchisors’
franchisee due diligence requirements in respect
of Global Valar and Finaccess Capital; and
(b) Finaccess Capital and Restaurant Brands entering
into formal agreements relating to the ownership
of Restaurant Brands, and the operation and
development of Restaurant Brands’ KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell businesses after completion
of this Offer.
10.7 The key requirements for the formal agreements
contemplated by the Yum! Consent Letter are
summarised in paragraphs 3.13 to 3.16 and 7.2 to 7.4
of Section 3 of this Target Company Statement.
11. Relationship between Global Valar and
Directors and Senior Managers of
Restaurant Brands
11.1 Except as set out in this paragraph 11, no agreement
or arrangement (whether legally enforceable or not)
has been made, or is proposed to be made, between
Global Valar and any associates of Global Valar, and
any Director or Senior Manager of Restaurant Brands
or any related company of Restaurant Brands in
connection with, in anticipation of, or in response to,
the Offer.
Lock-in Deed
11.2 Under the Lock-in Deed each of the Copulos
Interests has irrevocably agreed to accept, and
Stephen Copulos has irrevocably agreed to procure
that each of the Copulos Interests accept, the Offer
in respect of:
(a) the Shares held (directly or indirectly) by each
of the Copulos Interests as at the date of the
Lock-in Deed (being, in aggregate, 10,630,819
Shares, which represent 8.52% of the Shares on
issue); and
(b) any other Shares acquired by Stephen Copulos
and/or any of the Copulos Interests on or after
the date of the Lock-in Deed,
(together, the “Copulos Shares”).
11.3 The material terms of the Lock-in Deed are as follows:
(a) Subject to the Offer being made by Global Valar
on the terms attached to the Lock-in Deed,
the Copulos Interests must accept the Offer in
respect of all of the Copulos Shares.
(b) The Copulos Interests must accept the Offer by
the later of the date which is two working days
after date of despatch of the Offer and the date
on which the Offer is received by the Copulos
Interests. The Copulos Interests may delay their
acceptance of the Offer for up to seven working
days if Restaurant Brands announces that it has
received a Superior Proposal and has provided
Global Valar with an opportunity to match it.
(c) Acceptance of the Offer by the Copulos Interests
is subject to the condition that the Directors of
Restaurant Brands do not withdraw or qualify
their recommendation that all Restaurant Brands
Shareholders accept the Offer or the Directors
of Restaurant Brands otherwise indicate that
Restaurant Brands Shareholders should not
accept the Offer.
(d) None of Stephen Copulos or the Copulos Interests
will dispose of, encumber or deal in any way with
any of the Copulos Shares (or any interest in them),
except to accept this Offer.
(e) None of Stephen Copulos or the Copulos
Interests will:
(i) enter into any discussions or negotiations
relating to the possible disposal of the
Copulos Shares or provide any information
of any nature to a third party for the
purposes of encouraging or facilitating
a competing transaction;
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement22
(ii) make any public statement indicating a lack
of support for, or endorsement of, the Offer
or supporting, recommending or endorsing
a different transaction to the Offer; or
(iii) directly or indirectly, engage in, initiate, solicit,
continue or encourage any proposals or
approaches or offers from, or discussions or
negotiations with, any person in relation to a
competing transaction.
(f) The restrictions summarised in paragraph (e) do
not prevent Stephen Copulos from taking certain
actions in his capacity as a Director of Restaurant
Brands, provided that such actions do not breach
the Pre-Bid Agreement.
(g) The Lock-in Deed may be terminated by the
Copulos Interests if the Directors of Restaurant
Brands withdraw or qualify their recommendation
that all Restaurant Brands Shareholders accept
the Offer or the Directors of Restaurant Brands
otherwise indicate that Restaurant Brands
Shareholders should not accept the Offer.
(h) The Lock-in Deed will automatically terminate if:
(i) the Offer lapses; or
(ii) the Offer is withdrawn in accordance with
the Takeovers Code.
(i) Each of the Copulos Interests may exercise
and/or control the exercise of all voting rights
(as defined in the Takeovers Code) attached
to their respective Copulos Shares in whatever
manner it sees fit until such time as the Offer
is declared unconditional.
Pre-Bid Agreement
11.4 Under the Pre-Bid Agreement, Global Valar and
Finaccess Capital have agreed:
(a) to ensure that, for seven years after the closing
date of the Offer, the constitutions of Restaurant
Brands and its subsidiaries provide for each
company to indemnify each of its current and
former directors and officers for liability incurred
by that person in his or her capacity as a director
or officer of the company;
(b) that, prior to the closing date of the Offer,
Restaurant Brands was, with Finaccess Capital’s
prior consent (not to be unreasonably withheld),
permitted to enter into arrangements to secure
directors’ and officers’ run-off insurance for a
period of up to seven years from the closing date
and pay all premiums required;
(c) each of Finaccess Capital and Global Valar has
agreed to waive all of its rights, and not make any
claim against, the Directors and employees (which
would include the Senior Managers) of Restaurant
Brands, or any related company of Restaurant
Brands in connection with any breach of the
Pre-Bid Agreement or any other act or omission
in connection with the Pre-Bid Agreement or
the Offer, except in the case of wilful misconduct
or fraud.
11.5 The Directors and Senior Managers of Restaurant
Brands are not parties to the Pre-Bid Agreement.
However, they are able to personally enforce the
provisions summarised in paragraph 11.4 under
the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
Yum! Consent Letter
11.6 The Yum! Consent Letter contemplates that Global
Valar will use commercially reasonable endeavours
to ensure that Russel Creedy is retained as Chief
Executive Officer of the Restaurant Brands group for
at least three years following completion of the Offer.
12. Agreement between Restaurant Brands and
its Directors and Senior Managers
12.1 Except as set out in this paragraph 12, no agreement
or arrangement (whether legally enforceable or
not) has been made, or is proposed to be made,
between Restaurant Brands or any related company
of Restaurant Brands and any Directors, Senior
Managers, or their associates, of Restaurant Brands or
its related companies, under which a payment or other
benefit may be made or given by way of compensation
for loss of office, or as to their remaining in or retiring
from office in connection with, in anticipation of, or in
response to, the Offer.
Performance rights vesting letters
12.2 On 25 November 2018, Restaurant Brands entered
into letter agreements with each of Russel Creedy
(Restaurant Brands’ Chief Executive Officer) and Grant
Ellis (Restaurant Brands’ Chief Financial Officer) under
which Restaurant Brands agreed that performance
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
23
rights previously issued to each executive would vest,
and Restaurant Brands would issue Shares to each
executive, if Global Valar gave the Takeover Notice
and if the relevant executive remained employed by
Restaurant Brands on the record date for the Offer.
12.3 Further background to, and terms of, the letter
agreements are summarised in paragraphs 23.5
to 23.9.
Run-off insurance
12.4 On 25 November 2018, the Board of Restaurant
Brands approved run-off insurance cover, for a period
of seven years, for Directors and Senior Managers.
Directors’ fees
12.5 It is intended that an aggregate sum of NZ$20,000
will be allocated from the existing total pool
of directors’ fees (currently NZ$475,000 per
annum – as approved by shareholders at the most
recent Annual Shareholders’ Meeting) to pay each
Independent Director an ad hoc fee to reflect
the significant increase in Independent Director
workload in connection with the Offer.
13. Interests of Directors and Senior Managers
of Restaurant Brands in contracts of Global
Valar or its related companies
13.1 Except as set out in paragraph 11 above, no Director
or Senior Manager, or their associates, has an
interest in any contract to which Global Valar, or any
related company of Global Valar, is a party. Except
as set out in paragraph 13A.2, Restaurant Brands
is unable to quantify the monetary value of the
interests described in paragraph 11.
13A. Interests of Restaurant Brands’ substantial
security holders in material contracts of
Global Valar or its related companies
13A.1 Other than the Lock-in Deed described in paragraph
11 above, no person who, to the knowledge of the
Directors or the Senior Managers holds or controls
5% or more of any class of equity securities of
Restaurant Brands, has an interest in any material
contract to which Global Valar, or any related
company of Global Valar, is a party.
13A.2 If the Copulos Interests accept the Offer for all of
their Restaurant Brands Shares, as required to do
so by the Lock-in Deed, and sell 75% of the Shares
held by the Copulos Interests at NZ$9.45 per Share
under the Offer, the Copulos Interests will receive, in
aggregate, NZ$75,345,929.
13A.3 Restaurant Brands is unable to quantify
the monetary value of the other aspects of the
Lock-in Deed.
14. Additional information
14.1 In the opinion of Restaurant Brands’ Directors
and to the best of their knowledge, no additional
information is required to make that information in
the Offer Document correct or not misleading.
15. Recommendation
15.1 Your Directors unanimously recommend that
Shareholders ACCEPT the Offer for all of their
Shares in the absence of a Superior Proposal which
Global Valar does not match. Accepting the Offer for
all of your Shares maximises your opportunity to sell
Shares under the Offer.
15.2 The details of the Directors’ recommendation, and
reasons for it, are set out in the Chairman’s Letter
and Sections 1 and 2 of this Target Company
Statement. Further factors which influenced the
Directors’ recommendation are set out in Sections
3 and 4, and in the Independent Adviser’s Report.
You are encouraged to read each of those Sections
and the Independent Adviser’s Report carefully and
in full.
15.3 Before deciding whether to accept the Offer,
you should also consider your own individual
circumstances, views on value and the merits of
the Offer and investment time horizons.
15.4 If you have any questions, you are encouraged to
seek your own independent financial, taxation or
legal advice.
15.5 Your Directors’ interests in Restaurant Brands Shares
are disclosed in paragraph 5 above.
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement24
16. Actions of Restaurant Brands
16.1 Except for the arrangements summarised in
paragraph 10 above, there are no material
agreements or arrangements (whether legally
enforceable or not) of Restaurant Brands or any
related company of Restaurant Brands entered
into as a consequence of, in response to, or in
connection with, the Offer.
16.2 There are no negotiations underway as a
consequence of, in response to, or in connection
with, the Offer that relate to, or could result in:
(a) an extraordinary transaction, such as a merger,
amalgamation or reorganisation, involving
Restaurant Brands or any of its related
companies;
(b) the acquisition or disposition of material assets
by Restaurant Brands or any of its related
companies;
(c) an acquisition of equity securities by, or
of, Restaurant Brands or any of its related
companies; or
(d) any material change in the issued equity
securities of Restaurant Brands, or the
policy of the Restaurant Brands Board
relating to distributions of Restaurant Brands.
For discussion of Restaurant Brands’ dividend
policy after completion of the Offer, see
paragraph 4 of Section 3 of this Target
Company Statement.
17. Equity securities of Restaurant Brands
17.1 As at the date of this Target Company Statement,
Restaurant Brands has 124,758,523 Restaurant
Brands Shares on issue. All Restaurant Brands Shares
are fully paid.
17.2 Restaurant Brands has no options, or rights to acquire
equity securities, on issue.
17.3 Subject to certain conditions in the constitution of
Restaurant Brands and the NZX Listing Rules and
the ASX Listing Rules, each Restaurant Brands Share
confers upon the holder the right to:
(a) an equal share in dividends authorised by the
Restaurant Brands Board;
(b) an equal share in the distribution of surplus assets
on liquidation of Restaurant Brands;
(c) participate in certain further issues of equity
securities by Restaurant Brands; and
(d) cast one vote on a show of hands or the right to
cast one vote per share on a poll, at a meeting
of Shareholders on any resolution, including a
resolution to:
(i) appoint or remove a director or auditor;
(ii) alter Restaurant Brands’ constitution;
(iii) approve a major transaction;
(iv) approve an amalgamation involving Restaurant
Brands; and
(v) put Restaurant Brands into liquidation.
18. Financial information
18.1 Every person to whom the Offer is made is entitled
to obtain from Restaurant Brands a non-electronic
copy of Restaurant Brands’ most recent annual report
(being the annual report for the 52-week period
ended 26 February 2018) and half-year report (being
the half-year report for the 28-week period ended
10 September 2018) by making a written request to:
Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited
PO Box 22-749
Otahuhu
Auckland
New Zealand
18.2 An electronic copy of the annual report and half-year
report is also available on Restaurant Brands’ website
at http://www.restaurantbrands.co.nz/.
Forfeiture of Australian tax losses
18.3 If the Offer is successful, all of the Restaurant Brands
group’s Australian carried forward revenue losses will
be forfeited and it is likely that all of, or the majority
of, the Restaurant Brands group’s Australian carried
forward capital losses will be forfeited. This will mean
those losses will not be available to set-off against
future income or capital gains.
18.4 Australian carried forward capital losses can only
be set-off against future capital gains. Australian
carried forward revenue losses and the majority of
the Australian carried forward capital losses are
ring-fenced to one Australian group company and
there is currently limited ability to utilise those losses.
No other information
18.5 Other than as set out in this Target Company
Statement and the Independent Adviser’s Report:
(a) there have been no known material changes
in the financial or trading position, or prospects,
of Restaurant Brands since the 2018 annual
report; and
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
25
(b) there is no other information about the assets,
liabilities, profitability and financial affairs of
Restaurant Brands that could reasonably be
expected to be material to the making of a
decision by Shareholders to accept or reject
the Offer.
19. Independent advice on merits of the Offer
19.1 Grant Samuel & Associates Limited is the Independent
Adviser who has provided a report under rule 21 of
the Takeover Code (“Independent Adviser’s Report”)
in relation to the merits of the Offer. A copy of the full
Independent Adviser’s Report is set out in Appendix B
to this Target Company Statement.
20. Asset valuations
20.1 No information provided in this Target Company
Statement refers to a valuation of any asset of
Restaurant Brands.
21. Prospective financial information
21.1 The Independent Adviser’s Report contains
prospective financial information in relation to
Restaurant Brands. The principal assumptions on
which the prospective financial information is based
are set out in the Independent Adviser’s Report.
21.2 In considering the prospective financial information
contained in the Independent Adviser’s Report, you
should note that the information was prepared for
internal management purposes only. It was not
prepared for, or with the intention of giving, public
guidance as to Restaurant Brands’ future financial
performance. Accordingly, the basis of preparation of
the prospective financial information, while appropriate
for internal management purposes, may differ from
the basis which would be adopted when prepared for
external reporting purposes.
21.3 Other than the prospective financial information
referred to above, this Target Company Statement
does not refer to any other prospective financial
information about Restaurant Brands.
22. Sales of unquoted equity securities under
the Offer
22.1 There are no unquoted equity securities that are
subject to the Offer.
23. Market prices for quoted equity securities
under the Offer
Market prices
23.1 The Restaurant Brands Shares are quoted on the
NZX Main Board and ASX.
23.2 The closing price on the NZX Main Board and ASX
of Restaurant Brands Shares on:
(a) 28 November 2018, being the latest practicable
working day before the date on which this Target
Company Statement is sent by Restaurant Brands,
was NZ$8.53 on the NZX Main Board and
AU$7.33 on the ASX; and
(b) 23 November 2018, being the last day on which
NZX and ASX was open for business before the
date on which Restaurant Brands received the
Takeover Notice, was NZ$8.45 on the NZX Main
Board and AU$7.26 on the ASX.
23.3 The highest and lowest closing market prices of
Restaurant Brands Shares on the NZX Main Board
and ASX (and the relevant dates) during the six
months before 23 November 2018 (being the last day
on which NZX and ASX was open for business before
the date on which Restaurant Brands received the
Takeover Notice), were as follows:
(a) the highest closing market price of Restaurant
Brands Shares was NZ$8.70 on the NZX Main
Board on 5 November 2018 and AU$8.05 on
the ASX on 22 June 2018; and
(b) the lowest closing market price of Restaurant
Brands Shares was NZ$7.37 on the NZX Main
Board on 15 October 2018 and AU$6.89 on
the ASX on 13 August 2018.
Dividend and Dividend Reinvestment Plan
23.4 On 22 June 2018 Restaurant Brands paid a final
dividend for the 52-week period ended 26 February
2018 of NZ$0.18 per Share and issued 751,180
Restaurant Brands Shares under its Dividend
Reinvestment Plan.
Vesting of performance rights
23.5 On 28 August 2017, Restaurant Brands announced
that it had established a Performance Rights
Plan for Russel Creedy and Grant Ellis. Under the
Performance Rights Plan Restaurant Brands issued
to Russel Creedy 252,000 performance rights and to
Grant Ellis 126,000 performance rights.
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement26
Each performance right entitled the holder to
one Restaurant Brands Share if the closing price
for Restaurant Brands Shares was or exceeded
NZ$10.00 for 40 consecutive trading days within
a prescribed period (if certain other conditions
were satisfied).
23.6 Under the terms of the performance rights, the
Board of Restaurant Brands had the discretion to
take certain actions if there was a change of control
transaction, including early vesting. The Offer, if
completed, will be a change of control transaction.
23.7 Accordingly, the Board of Restaurant Brands has
resolved to exercise its discretion and deemed the
performance rights to have vested on 4 December
2018. On that date, Restaurant Brands issued to
Russel Creedy 252,000 Restaurant Brands Shares
and to Grant Ellis 126,000 Resturant Brands Shares.
23.8 Russel Creedy and Grant Ellis have each agreed with
Restaurant Brands that:
(a) they will not deal with their Shares during the
Offer period, except to accept the Offer, and will
not deal with any remaining Shares for 10 trading
days after completion of the Offer;
(b) if the Offer is not completed or if Russel Creedy
or Grant Ellis ceases to be an employee of
Restaurant Brands prior to completion of the
Offer, Russel Creedy or Grant Ellis (as applicable)
must:
(i) transfer his Shares (less any Shares sold under
the Offer, if applicable) back to Restaurant
Brands for no consideration; and
(ii) if he sells Shares under the Offer, pay the
gross proceeds of sale to Restaurant Brands;
and
(c) if the Offer is completed and Russel Creedy
or Grant Ellis ceases to be an employee of
Restaurant Brands within 10 trading days
after completion of the Offer, Russel Creedy
or Grant Ellis (as applicable) must transfer his
remaining Shares back to Restaurant Brands
for no consideration.
23.9 The restrictions summarised in paragraph 23.8 only
apply to Shares issued to Russel Creedy and Grant
Ellis as a result of the vesting of their respective
performance rights.
No other distributions or changes to equity securities
23.10 Other than:
(a) the dividend referred to in paragraph 23.4;
(b) the issue of Restaurant Brands Shares under
the Dividend Reinvestment Plan referred to in
paragraph 23.4; and
(c) the issue of Shares to Russel Creedy and Grant
Ellis under the Performance Rights Plan,
during the six month period before 23 November
2018 (being the last day on which NZX and
ASX was open for business before the date on
which Restaurant Brands received the Takeover
Notice), Restaurant Brands did not issue any
equity securities, make any changes to any equity
securities on issue, or make any distributions, which
could have affected the market prices of Restaurant
Brands Shares.
Imputation credits
23.11 If the Offer is successful, Restaurant Brands will lose
the balance of imputation credits in its imputation
credit account. This may reduce Restaurant Brands’
ability to pay dividends to Shareholders in a tax
effective manner (i.e. by attaching imputation credits
to dividends paid) in the short to medium term.
No other information
23.12 Except as set out in this Target Company Statement,
there is no other information about the market price
of Restaurant Brands Shares that would reasonably
be expected to be material to the making of a
decision by Shareholders when making a decision
to accept or reject the Offer.
24. Other information
Partial offer
24.1 The Offer is a partial takeover offer for up to 75% of
the Restaurant Brands Shares. Global Valar cannot
acquire more than 75% of the Restaurant Brands
Shares under the Offer. If Global Valar receives
acceptances for more than 75% of the Restaurant
Brands Shares, acceptances will be scaled in
accordance with the Takeovers Code. Accordingly,
there is a reasonable prospect that you will remain
a Shareholder after completion of the Offer, even if
you accept the Offer for all of your Shares.
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
27
SIGNED by:
Ted van ArkelHamish Stevens
Russel CreedyGrant Ellis
24.2 If all Shareholders accept the Offer for all of their
Restaurant Brands Shares, each Shareholder will, at
completion of the Offer, sell 75% of their Restaurant
Brands Shares and retain 25% of their Restaurant
Brands Shares.
Rounding
24.3 All percentages referred to in this Target Company
Statement are rounded to two decimal places unless
otherwise stated.
Minimum acceptance condition
24.4 If Global Valar waives the 75% minimum acceptance
condition to the Offer, the Offer is conditional on
Global Valar receiving acceptances for more than
50% of Restaurant Brands’ Shares. However, for
the sake of simplicity, this has been reflected in
this Target Company Statement as 50.01% of the
Restaurant Brands Shares.
Reliance on Information
24.5 In preparing this Target Company Statement,
Restaurant Brands has relied on the completeness
and accuracy of information provided to it by or
on behalf of various persons, including Finaccess
Capital, Global Valar and New Zealand Central
Securities Depository Limited.
25. Approval of Target Company Statement
25.1 This Target Company Statement has been unanimously
approved by the Directors.
26. Certificate
26.1 To the best of our knowledge and belief, after
making proper enquiry, the information contained
in or accompanying this Target Company Statement
is, in all material respects, true and correct and not
misleading, whether by omission of any information or
otherwise, and includes all the information required
to be disclosed by Restaurant Brands under the
Takeovers Code.
SECTION 5: TAKEOVERS CODE DISCLOSURES
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement28
APPENDIX A: HOW SCALING WORKS – SA WORKED EXAMPLE
When is the Offer subject to scaling?
The Offer is a partial takeover offer to purchase 75%
of all of the Restaurant Brands Shares on issue. If the
Offer is declared unconditional, Global Valar will acquire
up to 93,568,893 Restaurant Brands Shares (75% of
124,758,523, assuming no Share are issued prior to
completion of the Offer).
If Global Valar receives acceptances for between 50.01%
and 75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares and the
Offer becomes unconditional, Global Valar will acquire all
Restaurant Brands Shares that have been accepted into the
Offer. Acceptances of the Offer will not be subject to scaling.
If Global Valar receives acceptances for more than
93,568,893 Restaurant Brands Shares (more than 75%
of the Restaurant Brands Shares) and the Offer becomes
unconditional, acceptances of the Offer will be scaled. Under
the Takeovers Code a two-step process is applied to calculate
any necessary scaling, as summarised in this Appendix A.
A Shareholder who accepts the Offer for only 75% of
its shareholding (or for a lesser number of Restaurant
Brands Shares) will not be subject to any scaling if the
Offer is successful.
Description of two-step scaling mechanism
Step 1
At Step 1, Global Valar must take up from each accepting
Shareholder the lessor of:
• 75% of all of the Restaurant Brands Shares held by that
accepting Shareholder; or
• the full number of Restaurant Brands Shares for which
that shareholder accepted the Offer, where that number
is equal to or less than 75% of the Shareholder’s total
shareholding.
At the end of the Step 1 calculations, Global Valar is
then able to determine the total number of Restaurant
Brands Shares still required to achieve 75% ownership
of Restaurant Brands (being 93,475,337 Restaurant
Brands Shares).
Example: At the time of scaling, Restaurant Brands will
have 124,758,523 Restaurant Brands Shares on issue.
If Shareholders accepted the Offer for 100,000,000
Restaurant Brands Shares (assuming that every
accepting Shareholder accepts the Offer in respect
of all of their Restaurant Brands Shares), 75,000,000
Restaurant Brands Shares will be acquired under the
Step 1 calculations (being 75% of the 100,000,000),
with a further 18,568,893 Restaurant Brands Shares still
being required to achieve a shareholding of 93,568,893
Restaurant Brands Shares.
Step 2
At Step 2, Global Valar determines:
• the number of Restaurant Brands Shares for which it
received acceptances which were not taken up at Step 1
(the “Surplus Shares”); and
• the total number of additional Restaurant Brands Shares
it needs to take up in order to achieve 75% ownership of
the Restaurant Brands Shares.
The additional Restaurant Brands Shares referred to above
are acquired from the Shareholders who accepted the
Offer for more than 75% of their Restaurant Brands Shares
(termed “Surplus Acceptors”).
Global Valar will take up Restaurant Brands Shares from
each Surplus Acceptor on a proportionate basis relative
to the total number of Surplus Shares. That proportion is
calculated as follows:
(Total number of Restaurant Brands Shares
required to achieve 75% ownership post Step 1)
(Total number of Surplus Shares)
Example: Shareholders accepted the Offer for
100,000,000 Restaurant Brands Shares (assuming that
every accepting Shareholder accepted the Offer for all of
their Restaurant Brands Shares), and Global Valar took up
75,000,000 Restaurant Brands Shares at Step 1. This left
25,000,000 Surplus Shares held by Surplus Acceptors.
Accordingly, the proportion of each Surplus Acceptor’s
Surplus Shares taken up by Global Valar at Step 2 is
calculated as follows:
18,568,893
= 74.28%
(100,000,000-75,000,000)
Therefore, Global Valar must take up from each Surplus
Acceptor 74.28% (rounded to two decimal places) of that
Surplus Acceptor’s Surplus Shares.
In this example, assuming a Shareholder accepts the
Offer for its entire shareholding of 1,000 Restaurant
Brands Shares, that shareholder will have 750 Restaurant
Brands Shares acquired at Step One, and a further 185
Restaurant Brands Shares acquired in Step Two (rounded
down to the nearest Share). That Shareholder would then
be left with 65 Restaurant Brands Shares following the
close of the Offer.
Appendix A:
How scaling works – a worked example
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
Appendix B:
Independent Adviser’s Report
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
INDEPENDENT REPORT IN RELATION TO THE TAKEOVER OFFER FROM
FINACCESS CAPITAL
Grant Samuel confirms that it:
§ has no conflict of interest that could affect its ability to provide an unbiased report; and
§ has no direct or indirect pecuniary or other interest in the proposed transaction considered in this report, including
any success or contingency fee or remuneration, other than to receive the cash fee for providing this report.
Grant Samuel has satisfied the Takeovers Panel, on the basis of the material provided to the Panel, that it is independent
under the Takeovers Code for the purposes of preparing this report.
GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
NOVEMBER 2018
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________ 1
2 Terms of the Offer _______________________________________________________________________ 4
2.1 Background _______________________________________________________________________ 4
2.2 Finaccess Capital ___________________________________________________________________ 5
3 Scope of the Report ______________________________________________________________________ 7
3.1 Purpose of the Report _______________________________________________________________ 7
3.2 Basis of Evaluation _________________________________________________________________ 7
3.3 Approach to Valuation ______________________________________________________________ 8
4 Overview of the Global Fast Food Restaurants Industry __________________________________________ 9
4.1 Overview of Global Market ___________________________________________________________ 9
4.2 Overview of Major Global Fast Food Restaurant Chains ___________________________________ 10
4.3 Overview of Brands Franchised by Restaurant Brands New Zealand _________________________ 12
5 Profile of Restaurant Brands _______________________________________________________________ 16
5.1 Overview of Operations ____________________________________________________________ 16
5.2 Background and History ____________________________________________________________ 16
5.3 Consolidated Financial Performance __________________________________________________ 17
5.4 Financial Performance by Division ____________________________________________________ 20
5.5 Financial Position _________________________________________________________________ 22
5.6 Cash Flow _______________________________________________________________________ 23
5.7 Capital Structure and Ownership _____________________________________________________ 24
5.8 Share Price Performance ___________________________________________________________ 24
6 Valuation of Restaurant Brands ____________________________________________________________ 26
6.1 Methodology _____________________________________________________________________ 26
6.2 Summary ________________________________________________________________________ 26
6.3 Earnings Multiple Analysis __________________________________________________________ 29
7 Merits of the Global Valar Offer ____________________________________________________________ 34
7.1 The value of the Global Valar Offer ___________________________________________________ 34
7.2 The timing and circumstances surrounding the Offer _____________________________________ 35
7.3 Outcomes of the Global Valar Offer ___________________________________________________ 35
7.4 Implications for RBD Shareholders if the Global Valar Offer is Successful _____________________ 37
7.5 Other Merits of the Global Valar Offer _________________________________________________ 37
7.6 Risks and Benefits of an investment in RBD _____________________________________________ 38
7.7 Other Factors ____________________________________________________________________ 39
7.8 Likelihood of alternative offers _______________________________________________________ 40
7.9 Acceptance or rejection of the Global Valar Offer ________________________________________ 40
APPENDIX A - Qualifications, Declarations and Consents _________________________________________ 41
APPENDIX B – Recent Transaction Evidence ___________________________________________________ 44
APPENDIX C – Comparable Listed Companies __________________________________________________ 49
APPENDIX D – Valuation Methodology Descriptions ____________________________________________ 60
APPENDIX E – Interpretation of Multiples _____________________________________________________ 63
RESTAURANT BRANDS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
INDEPENDENT REPORT IN RELATION TO THE TAKEOVER OFFER FROM
FINACCESS CAPITAL
Grant Samuel confirms that it:
§ has no conflict of interest that could affect its ability to provide an unbiased report; and
§ has no direct or indirect pecuniary or other interest in the proposed transaction considered in this report, including
any success or contingency fee or remuneration, other than to receive the cash fee for providing this report.
Grant Samuel has satisfied the Takeovers Panel, on the basis of the material provided to the Panel, that it is independent
under the Takeovers Code for the purposes of preparing this report.
GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
NOVEMBER 2018
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
GLOSSARY
TERM DEFINITION
Code The Takeovers Code
Companies Act Companies Act 1993
DCF Discounted Cash Flow
EBIT Earnings before interest and tax
EBITDA Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation
Finaccess Capital
Finaccess Capital, S.A.d.e.C.V
Global Valar Global Valar S.L.
FY15 Financial year ended 2 March 2015
FY16 Financial year ended 29 February 2016
FY17 Financial year ended 27 February 2017
FY18 Financial year ended 26 February 2018
FY19F Forecast for the financial year ending 25 February 2019
Grant Samuel Grant Samuel and Associates Limited
OIO
Overseas Investment Office
RBD
Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
1
1 Executive Summary
On 26 November 2018 Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited (RBD) announced that it had received a notice
of intention to make a Takeover Offer from Finaccess Capital, S.A.de C.V (Finaccess Capital) to acquire up to
75% of the issued capital of RBD for a cash consideration of $9.45 cash per share (the Offer). Global Valar
S.L. (Global Valar), a subsidiary of Finaccess Capital, is the acquirer under the Offer. Global Valar has signalled
that it does not want 100% or for the company to be de-listed at this time.
The Offer is conditional on Global Valar receiving acceptances sufficient for it to control 75% of the voting
rights in RBD. This condition may be waived by Global Valar provided it has received acceptances sufficient
for it to control at least 50.01 % of the voting rights in RBD.
The possible outcomes of the Offer are:
Global Valar achieves acceptances less than 50.01%.
In this circumstance no shares will be acquired by Global Valar and the shareholding structure of RBD will
remain unchanged. If Global Valar is not successful in achieving the 50.01% minimum threshold at its current
offer price it may or may not choose to increase the offer price. If Global Valar chooses to increase its current
offer price while the Global Valar Offer is still open, the increased value will be available to all shareholders
even if they have already accepted the current offer price. Any increased price would also be available to
the locked up shareholders.
Global Valar achieves acceptances greater than 50.01% but less than 75%
In these circumstances assuming the Offer becomes unconditional:
§ Global Valar will proceed to acquire all of the shares that have been accepted into the Glob al Valar Offer.
Accepting shareholders will not be subject to scaling or pro-rata adjustment of their acceptances. Global
Valar will become the cornerstone shareholder in RBD with a shareholding of between 50.01% and 75%.
The final percentage owned by Global Valar will be a function of the level of acceptances from all
shareholders. The liquidity of RBD shares will be reduced, and the free float will be reduced. The closer
the Global Valar shareholding approaches the 75% limit, the more the liquidity in RBD shares will
contract;
§ At a shareholding of between 50.01% and 75% Global Valar would have effective but not absolute
control of RBD. Global Valar would be able to control the Board and therefore key decisions affecting
the business such as strategy, dividend policy, appointment of Directors, acquisitions and divestments
and capital programmes. With a shareholding greater than 50% Global Valar would be able to dictate
the outcome of ordinary resolutions put to shareholders, unless it is disqualified from voting under NZX
Listing Rules or the Takeovers Code. It would not be able to control but would have significant influence
over special resolutions (those resolutions requiring 75% of votes cast in respect of the resolution).
Special resolutions often relate to transformational events such as major transactions or changes to the
constitution. There are protections for minority shareholders in the NZX Listing Rules and the
Companies Act; and
§ RBD must continue to have at least two independent directors on the board of RBD. Global Valar will
be able to determine the identities of those independent directors. At the time of the preparation of
this report, Finaccess Capital have given no information as to whom the independent directors will be.
Global Valar receives acceptances greater than 75%
In these circumstances assuming the Offer becomes unconditional, Global Valar is not permitted to acquire
more than 75% of the issued shares in RBD under the construct of the Global Valar Offer. In the case of
excess acceptances, Global Valar is required under Rule 12 of the Takeovers Code to take up from each
offeree the lesser of:
§ 75% of a shareholders’ shares accepted into the Offer; and
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
2
§ all of the shares in respect of which the shareholder has accepted into the Offer.
If the number of shares acquired under this mechanism is less than the total percentage sought (75% in this
case), then Global Valar will acquire further shares from accepting shareholders, who accepted for more than
75% of their shares, pro rata to the total shares accepted into the Offer by accepting shareholders, who
accepted for more than 75% of their shares.
If the Global Valar Offer is successful at any level over the 75% threshold (recognising that it is highly unlikely
that acceptances representing exactly 75% will be received), RBD shareholders who accept the Global Valar
Offer for their entire shareholding will not be able to sell all of the accepted shares into the Global Valar Offer
as excess acceptances will be scaled back. The table below shows examples of various levels of total
acceptances to the Global Valar Offer, and the implications for accepting shareholders:
NUMBER AND % OF SHARES ACCEPTED INTO THE GLOBAL VALAR OFFER THAT WOULD BE ACQUIRED BY GLOBAL
VALAR
The table above shows that if acceptances in respect of greater than 75% of RBD’s shares then a shareholder
who accepts shares into the Global Valar Offer will only have certainty that 75% of their shares would be
acquired under the Global Valar Offer. The level of scaling increases as the overall acceptance level increases
e.g. if all RBD shareholders accept the Global Valar Offer for all of their shares, Global Valar will only acquire
75% of each shareholder’s shares.
All shareholders are treated equally in a partial offer regardless of their shareholding size . Accordingly, there
is no certainty what proportion of shares an accepting shareholder will be able to sell if the Global Valar Offer
is successful. Accepting shareholders, who accepted for more than 75% of their shares, could end up with
small and potentially uneconomic parcels of shares. This is a less appealing feature of partial offers.
If the 75% acceptance threshold is met in the last 5 working days of the Offer period, the Offer period is
aut omatically increased by 10 working days.
Importantly, shareholders may choose to accept none of their shares, some of their shares, or all of their
shares into the Offer. There is no requirement to accept all the shares at the Offer.
As the Global Valar Offer is a partial offer there is no certainty what proportion of each accepting
shareholder’s, who accepted for more than 75% of their shares, shares in RBD will be bought if the Global
Valar Offer is successful. All that is certain is that if the Offer becomes unconditional, shareholders will be
% OF SHARES THAT ARE
TENDERED INTO THE OFFER
% OF SHARES TENDERED
INTO THE OFFER THAT WILL
BE ACQUIRED BY GLOBAL
VALAR POST SCALING
EXAMPLE:
NUMBER OF SHARES THAT
WILL BE ACQUIRED BY
GLOBAL VALAR UNDER THE
OFFER, ASSUMING A
SHAREHOLDER HAS AND
TENDERS 1,000 RBD SHARES
EXAMPLE:
NUMBER OF SHARES
OWNED AFTER THE GLOBAL
VALAR OFFER HAS CLOSED,
ASSUMING A SHAREHOLDER
HAS AND TENDERS 1,000
SHARES
50.01% 100.00% 1,000 -
55.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
60.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
65.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
70.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
75.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
80.00% 93.75% 938 62
85.00% 88.24% 882 118
90.00% 83.33% 833 167
95.00% 78.95% 789 211
100.00% 75.00% 750 250
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
3
able to sell at least 75% of the shares they currently own if they accept all their shares into the Global Valar
Offer and the Global Valar Offer is accepted by shareholders at 50.01% or greater of the issued shares in
RBD. Given that excess acceptances will be scaled down it is almost certain that if the Global Valar Offer
achieves acceptances greater than 75%, accepting shareholders who accept for more than 75% of their
holdings will not be able to sell all of their shares into the Global Valar Offer. This lack of certainty is
problematic for communications with shareholders but is in line with the rules of the Takeovers Code.
When considering the options outlined above, RBD shareholders should also consider the following:
§
the Offer price of $9.45 per share is above Grant Samuel’s assessed value range for RBD shares. In Grant
Samuel’s opinion the full underlying value of RBD shares is in the range of $8.15 - $8.92 per share. This
value represents the value of 100% of the equity in RBD and therefore includes a premium for control;
§
the Offer price of $9.45 per share implies a premium of 24.3% relative to the closing price of $7.60 per
share on 17 October 2018 – being the last trading day prior to the announcement of the Finaccess
Capital indicative proposal to make the Offer, and a premium of 23% over the volume weighted average
share price (VWAP) over the 30 trading days prior to the announcement of $7.69 per share. The
premium is similar to the average premium for control generally observed in successful takeovers of
other NZX listed companies;
§
under a partial offer the actual premium over the closing price before the Offer was announced is less
as not all shares will be accepted into the Offer. Assuming 75% of shares are accepted into the Offer
and the share price after the Offer closes reverts to the 1 month VWAP (calculated prior to the Offer
being announced), the weighted average share price
1
is $ 9.01 which is a premium of 18.6% over the
$7.60 pre -Offer share price;
§
if the minimum acceptance levels are not achieved, theoretically Global Valar could elect to increase
the price it is prepared to pay for RBD during the offer period or in any subsequent offer. However,
there is no certainty that a revised offer would be tabled. Unless a revised offer from Global Valar or a
competing takeover offer from another party is made, in the short-term RBD’s shares are likely to trade
at levels below the Offer price of $9.45 per share; and
§
acceptance of the Offer is a matter for individual shareholders based on their own view as to value and
future market conditions, risk profile, liquidity preference, portfolio strategy, tax position and other
factors. In particular, taxation consequences will vary widely across shareholders. Shareholders will
need to consider these consequences and, if appropriate, consult their own professional adviser(s).
Section 2 sets out a summary of the terms and conditions of the Offer and an overview of Global Valar and
its intentions for managing RBD which will be important for shareholders who may become minority
shareholders in a company controlled by Global Valar.
A detailed assessment of the merits of the Offer is outlined in section 7 of this report. Grant Samuel’s opinion
is to be considered as a whole. Selecting portions of the analyses or factors considered by it, without
considering all the factors and analyses together, could create a misleading view of the process underlying
the opinion. The preparation of an opinion is a complex process and is not necessarily susceptible to partial
analysis or summary.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Calculated as 75% of the Offer price and 25% of the 1 month VWAP of $7.69
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
4
2 Terms of the Offer
2.1 Background
On 18 October 2018 RBD announced that it had received an indicative proposal to make a Takeover Offer
from Finaccess Capital through its subsidiary Global Valar to acquire up to 75% of the issued capital of RBD
for a cash consideration of $9.45 cash per share. The formal notice of intention to make a Takeover Offer
was received on 26
th
November 2018.
The Offer is subject to several key conditions that are set out in the Takeover Notice, including:
§
approval from the New Zealand Overseas Investment Office (OIO); and
§
Yum! Brands, Inc., (Yum!) consent to the Offer becoming unconditional in all respects.
In addition the Offer will not be completed unless the following usual conditions are satisfied or waived by
Global Valar:
§
no restraining order, injunction or other order that would prevent or prohibit the t ransaction issued by
any court of competent jurisdiction or regulatory agency;
§
no m aterial adverse change occurs or is discovered, announced, disclosed or otherwise becomes known
to Global Valar;
§
none of the following occurs:
• no subdivision of the RBD shares;
• no other changes to or repurchase of the RBD shares;
• no new shares issued other than in relation to the Performance Rights issued to the CEO and CFO;
• no performance rights, convertible securities or other equity securities by any RBD Group member;
• no dividends are paid;
• there is no sale of the whole or a substantial part of RBD’s businesses or properties;
• no security interest granted in respect of the whole or substantial part of RBD’s businesses or
properties ;
• no change to the Constitution of any member of RBD; and
• no insolvency event occurs in relation to RBD.
The full list of conditions to the Offer are set out in the Takeover Offer Document.
RBD and Global Valar have entered into a pre-bid agreement which sets out the responsibilities of both
parties leading up to the making of the Takeover Offer by Global Valar. The pre-bid agreement provides for,
amongst other matters:
§ Global Valar cannot terminate the agreement for breach or non-satisfaction of certain Offer conditions
if the relevant matter or circumstance had been:
• fairly disclosed in Finaccess’s due diligence;
• fairly disclosed to NZX in the last 24 months; or
• actually known by Global Valar on the date of the agreement.
§ Following receipt of Global Valar’s Takeover Notice, RBD is required to:
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
5
• prepare a target company statement to be sent to the RBD shareholders with the Offer;
• procure its board of directors to unanimously recommend that shareholders accept the Offer,
subject to the Independent Adviser’s Report concluding that the Offer price is within or above Grant
Samuel’s valuation range for the shares and there being no “unmatched superior proposal”; and
• procure that each director (other than Mr. Stephen Copulos) accepts the offer within two business
days of the offer being made. Interests associated with Stephen Copulos have entered into a
separate lock-in deed to accept the Offer.
§ The pre-bid agreement also contains certain exclusivity arrangements to apply until the end of the
Offer. In summary, during the exclusivity period:
• No Shop. RBD must not solicit any competing transaction or any proposal that may reasonably be
expected to encourage or lead to the making of a competing transaction;
• No Talk. RBD must not enter into discussions or negotiations in relation to, or which would
reasonably be expected to lead to, a competing transaction;
• No Due Diligence. RBD must not provide or make available to a third party any non-public
information relating to RBD in relation to, or which would reasonably be expected to lead to the
making of, a competing transaction;
• Notification. If RBD receives a potentially competing transaction, or any request to do anything
referred to in the no due diligence provisions (as described above), RBD must notify Global Valar
within two business days; and
• Matching Right. If RBD receives a competing transaction which the board of RBD concludes is a
superior proposal, RBD must give Global Valar five business days to provide an equivalent or better
proposal to the terms of the superior proposal. If Global Valar does not exercise its matching rights,
then the exclusivity period ends and either Global Valar or RBD may terminate the pre -bid
agreement.
§ RBD is not required to comply with its “no talk” and “no due diligence” obligations if it receives an
unsolicited bona fide competing transaction and the directors, acting in good faith and having
considered legal advice, determine that:
• failing to respond to such competing transaction would be likely to constitute a breach of the
fiduciary or statutory duties owed by a director to RBD or its shareholders; and
• the bona fide competing transaction may result in a superior proposal.
2.2 Finaccess Capital
In 2012 Anheuser Busch InBer, the world’s biggest brewery acquired the remaining 49.8% of Mexico’s Grupo
Modelo for US$20 billion, adding Corona, the top selling imported beer in the United States to its brands.
Grupo Finaccess was founded by Mr. Carlos Fernández following completion of the transaction. Carlos
Fernández is the majority shareholder of Grupo Finaccess. The founder and former owner of Grupo Modelo
was Carlos Fernández’s great uncle. Fina ccess Capital is one of five divisions of Grupo Finaccess which invests
in businesses across different sectors to create value over the long term. It has a strong presence in the
casual dining and quick service restaurant sector, as well as in real estate in Europe and Asia. Finaccess
Capital major investments in publicly traded companies include:
§ ̃56% stake in AmRest, a European fast-food and casual dining restaurant operator listed on the Polish
stock exchange (approximate US$2.6 billion market cap); and
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
6
§ ̃18% stake in Inmobiliaria Colonial, a Spanish real estate business listed on the Spanish stock exchange
(approximate US$4.8 billion market cap).
Finaccess Capital has given the following undertakings to Yum! in regard to the future operations of RBD:
§ to operate RBD as a standalone business and maintain operational separation between RBD and
AmRest;
§ to maintain a high level of continuity in the senior management team of RBD; and
§ continue a focus on Yum! brands and committing to certain development obligations imposed by Yum!
which RBD management are comfortable with.
Finaccess Capital has given the following undertakings to RBD in regard to the future operations of RBD:
§ for 12 months after the completion of the takeover, agreeing not to de-list RBD unless it makes a full
takeover offer for all of the RBD shares (and as a result, Global Valar becomes entitled to compulsorily
acquire the remaining RBD shares under the Takeovers Code); and
§ if such takeover offer is made by Global Valar for all of the RBD shares in the 12 months following
completion of the Takeover Offer, the Offer price will not be less than $9.45 per share, subject to
adjustment for any percentage change upwards or downwards, in the NZX 50 index during that period.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
7
3 Scope of the Report
3.1 Purpose of the Report
The Directors of RBD have engaged Grant Samuel & Associates Limited (Grant Samuel) to prepare an
Independent Adviser’s Report to assess the Offer. Grant Samuel is independent of RBD and Global Valar and
has no involvement with, or interest in, the outcome of the Offer.
Rule 21 of the Takeovers Code requires the Independent Adviser to report on the merits of an offer. The
term “merits” has no definition either in the Takeovers Code itself or in any statute dealing with securities or
commercial law in New Zealand. While the Takeovers Code does not prescribe a meaning of the term “merit”,
the Panel has interpreted the word “merits” includes both positives and negatives in respect of a transaction.
A copy of this report will accompany the Target Company Statement to be sent to all RBD shareholders. This
report is for the benefit of the shareholders of RBD. The report should not be used for any purpose other
than as an expression of Grant Samuel’s opinion as to the merits of the Offer. This report should be read in
conjunction with the Qualifications, Declarations and Consents outlined at Appendix A.
This report has been prepared without taking into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of
individual RBD shareholders. Accordingly, before acting in relation to their investment, shareholders should
consider the appropriateness of the advice having regard to their own objectives, financial situation or needs.
Shareholders should read the Target Company Statement issued by RBD in relation to the Offer.
Whether to accept or not to accept the Offer is a matter for individual shareholders based on their views as
to value and business strategy, their expectations about future economic and market conditions and their
particular circumstances including risk profile, liquidity preference, investment strategy, portfolio structure
and tax position. Shareholders who are in doubt as to the action they should take in relation to the Offer
should consult their own professional adviser.
Similarly, it is a matter for individual shareholders as to whether to buy, hol d or sell securities in RBD outside
of the Offer. These are investment decisions upon which Grant Samuel does not offer an opinion and are
independent of a decision on whether to accept or not to accept the Offer. Shareholders should consult their
own professional adviser in this regard.
3.2 Basis of Evaluation
Grant Samuel has evaluated the Offer by reviewing the following factors:
§
the terms of the Offer;
§
the impact of the Offer on the ownership and control of RBD;
§
the estimated value range of RBD and the price of the Offer when compared to that estimated value
range;
§
the likelihood of an alternative offer and alternative transactions that could realise fair value for RBD
shareholders;
§
the likely market price and liquidity of RBD shares in the absence of the Offer;
§
any advantages or disadvantages for RBD shareholders of accepting or rejecting the Offer;
§
the current trading conditions for RBD;
§
the likely market price of RBD shares after the Offer closes;
§
the timing and circumstances surrounding the Offer; and
§
the attractions and risks of RBD’s business.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
8
3.3 Approach to Valuation
Grant Samuel has estimated the value range of RBD with reference to its full underlying value. In Grant
Samuel’s opinion the price to be paid in the context of a full takeover that may result in a change of control
should reflect the full underlying value of the company. In the context of takeove r offers, the support for
this opinion is twofold:
§
the Code’s compulsory acquisition provisions apply when a single shareholder or group of associated
shareholders acquires 90% or more of the voting rights in a Code company.
§
Where rule 57 of the Code requires the price payable on compulsory acquisition to be determined, the
Code seeks to avoid issues of premiums or discounts for minority holdings by providing that a class of
shares is to be valued as a whole with each share then being valued on a pro rata basis. In other words,
a minority shareholder is allocated its share of the full underlying value. Grant Samuel believes that the
appropriate test for fairness under a full or partial takeover offer where the offeror will gain control is
the full underlying value, prorated across all shares. The rationale for this opinion is that it would be
inconsistent for one group of minority shareholders, those selling under compulsory acquisition, to
receive a different price under the same offer from those who accepted the offer earlier; and
§
under the Code a single shareholder, or group of associated shareholders, can only acquire 20% or more
of the voting rights in a Code company if an offer to acquire shares is made to all shareholders of the
company or if non-associated shareholders give their approval to the acquisition by an ordinary
resolution. As a result, a controlling shareholding (generally accepted to be no less than 40% of the
voting rights) cannot be transferred to another owner without the acquirer making an offer on the same
terms and conditions to all shareholders (unless non- associated shareholders pass on ordinary
resolution approving the transfer). One of the core foundations of the Code is that all shareholders be
treated equally. Any control premium that is implied by an offer is available to all shareholders under
a takeover offer (in a scenario where an offeror will gain control), regardless of the size of their
shareholding or the size of the offeror’s shareholding at the time the offer is made.
Accordingly, Grant Samuel is of the opinion that not only because shares acquired under a compulsory
acquisition scenario are required to be valued at a price equivalent to full underlying value, but because the
control premium (if any) is available to all shareholders, the share price under either a full or partial takeover
offer where the offeror will gain control should be within or exceed the prorated full underlying valuation
range of the company.
RBD has been valued at fair market value, which is defined as the estimated price that could be realised in
an open market over a reasonable period of time assuming that potential buyers have full information.
Grant Samuel’s opinion is to be considered as a whole. Selecting portions of the analyses or factors
considered by it, without considering all the factors and analyses together, could create a misleading view of
the process underlying the opinion. The preparation of an opinion is a complex process and is not necessarily
susceptible to partial analysis or summary. For the avoidance of doubt, Appendices A to E form part of this
report.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
9
4 Overview of the Global Fast Food Restaurants Industry
4.1 Overview of Global Market
2
RBD operates in the global fast food restaurants industry. During 2017, it was estimated that global fast food
restaurant industry revenue was approximately US$650 billion across approximately 783,000 restaurants and
approximately 540,000 enterprises, employing 11.9 million people. The industry is typically segmented
based on the main type of food served. The primary segments are outlined below:
OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY SEGMENTS OF THE GLOBAL FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS INDUSTRY
SEGMENT INDUSTRY REVENUE % PRIMARY BRANDS PRIMARY PRODUCTS
Burger 46.7% McDonald’s, Burger King Burgers, french fries
Chicken 13.5% KFC, Chick-fil -A Chicken, chicken salads, chicken wraps
Snack 11.8% Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts Coffee shop, ice cream shops, smoothie bars
Sandwich 10.8% Subway, Panera, Arby’s Sandwiches, soups, salads
Pizza 9.6%
Pizza Hut, Domino’s, Papa
Johns
Pizza, salad, pasta
Other 7.6% - La tin American, Chinese, hot dogs
Revenue in each country is driven by the size of the population and per capita income. Developed areas of
the world with above-average levels of disposable income account for the largest proportion of revenue -
North America is the largest market representing approximately 35% of total industry revenue. Other
developed regions also have high concentrations of industry revenue, with Europe accounting for an
estimated 13.5% of industry revenue. Oceania, which includes Australia and New Zealand, comprises 2.2%
of industry revenue. Within many of these developed regions, the industry is considered to be in a mature
stage of its economic cycle and close to reaching market saturation. A breakdown of industry revenue by
product segment and geographic region is depicted below:
INDUSTRY REVENUE BY PRODUCT SEGMENT (%) INDUSTRY REVENUE BY BUSINESS LOCATION (%)
The global fast food restaurant industry is characterised by a low level of market share concentration (i.e. it
is highly fragmented) with the industry’s four largest players accounting for less than 35% of total revenue.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
Source: IBIS World Industry Report on Global Fast Food Restaurants Industry dated January 2018.
Burger
46.7%
Chicken
13.5%
Snack
11.8%
Sandwich
10.8%
Pizza
9.6%
Other
7.6%
North
America
34.8%
Europe
13.5%
South East Asia
7.5%
South
America
7.0%
Oceania
2.2%
Rest of
World
7.4%
North Asia
27.6%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
TS
$!.!!4%/0//1/0*0%(*1)!.+"/%*#(!B(+0%+*.!/01.*0/,.+2% %*# %2!./!.*#!+"1%/%*!* "/0
"++ $+%!/0+1/0+)!./=
$!#(+("/0"++ .!/01.*0%* 1/0.5%/"+.!/00++*0%*1!0+!4,* 3%0$#(+(!+*+)%#.+30$=
+*/1)!./,!* %*#+*/)(((141.%!/E%*(1 %*#!0%*#+10F:%/(/+!4,!0! 0+%*.!/!=%/%*#%*0!.*0%+*(
!4,*/%+*+"B/! "/0"++ $%*/%/!4,!0! 0++*0%*1!0+!0$!,.%).5 .%2!.+"%* 1/0.5#.+30$
/!)!.#%*#!+*+)%!/%*.!/%*#(5 !)* )+.!"/0"++ +,0%+*/= %0%+*((5: !)* "+."/0"++ %/
!4,!0! 0+%*.!/!%*(%*!3%0$0$!!4,*/%+*+"$!(0$5)!*1+,0%+*/:* //+)!+"0$!+*!.*/+2!.
0$!$!(0$.%/'///+%0! 3%0$"/0"++ %//%,0!=
* 1/0.5.!2!*1!%/"+.!/00+%*.!/!0***1(%/!
.0!+"U=X_,==0+LZVY%((%+*+2!.0$!"%2!5!./0+USUU=$!"+((+3%*#$.0/$+3/0$!$%/0+.%(*
"+.!/00.!* %*%* 1/0.5.!2!*1!<
=A
>
I9G1 -1$ 2*!%*-'*'./** ./0-)/#$).
$!)&+.#(+("/0"++ .!/01.*0$%*/E+. !.! 5*1)!.+"+10(!0/F.!/1)).%/! !(+3<
=FG
>
PT135* 3%$.%20!WW:[VW
PU+*( >/1.#!.+*( >/+.,+.0%+*VZ:UWT
BH/-0&.)&/-0&.*-+*-/$*)GM7GFM
BI#$& )0(6GF7IML
PX1.#!.%*#1.#!.!/01.*0.* /
*0!.*0%+*(TY:ZYZ
BK$55 0/$550(6FK7LIM
PZ+)%*+>/%66+)%*+>/%66
*=TW:[XY
P[1*'%*>+*10/*'1*'%*>.* /.+1,
*=TU:XV[
P\/'%*+%*/*'1*'%*>.* /.+1,
*=Z:\[U
PTS 1*0.+0$!./%66%66.%20!Z:XSS
BFF* ''/# -= 3$)>0(6K7MIN
PTU!* 5>/1.#!.!* 5>/+.,+.0%+*Y:YVW
.*0)1!(!/!.$
XTX
XTU
XUW
XVZ
XXU
XYV
XZZ
YT\
YVW
YXT
YY[
Y[W
ZSS
ZT[
ZVY
S
TSS
USS
VSS
WSS
XSS
YSS
ZSS
[SS
USS[ USS\ USTS USTT USTU USTV USTW USTX USTY USTZ UST[ UST\ USUS USUT USUU
%/0+.%(USS[BUSTZ
U=Y_,==
+.!/0USTZBUSUU
U=X_,==
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
11
The following comments are relevant when reviewing the table above:
§
Subway is the largest fast food restaurant chain globally with approximately 45,000 outlets in over 100
countries. The Subway brand is privately owned and is estimated to generate approximately US$18.8
billion in revenue per annum;
§
McDonald’s Corporation is the world’s largest fast food chain (by revenue) with more than 37,000
outlets. Approximately 85% of its outlets are franchisee owned;
§
Starbucks Corporation is the largest coffee chain in the world with more than 28,000 outlets;
§
Yum! Brands Inc. (Yum!) is a fast food conglomerate with more than 45,000 outlets under the KFC, Pizza
Hut and Taco Bell brands. The right to operate these brands is franchised to numerous franchisees
around the world;
§
Burger King is the second largest burger chain in the world behind McDonald’s. It is owned by US-listed
company Restaurant Brands International Inc. Restaurant Brands International also owns the Tim
Hortons and Popeye brands;
§
Domino’s operates pizza stores in the US and internationally. Approximately 90% of the sites are
franchisee owned. Domino’s is a key competitor of Pizza Hut;
§
Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin Robbins are owned by Dunkin Brands Group Inc. Dunkin’ Donuts specialises
in doughnuts and Baskin Robins specialises in cakes; and
§
the following graph shows the number of stores globally for the world’s largest quick service restaurant
chains. Brands franchised by RBD are shaded in red.
NUMBER OF GLOBAL OUTLETS – TOP 12 BRANDS BY OUTLET NUMBERS
44,834
37,241
28,218
21,487
16,767
16,748
14,856
12,538
7,982
7,500
6,849
6,634
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
12
4.3 Overview of Brands Franchised by Restaurant Brands New Zealand
An overview of the brands franchised to RBD are provided below:
4.3.1 KFC
Contribution to RBD
FY18 Revenue – NZ$471m (64% of total)
Number of stores (as at February 2018) – 155 (49% of total)
Global Outlets
21,487 outlets in 131 countries and territories (as at 31 December 2017)
Ownership
Yum! (listed)
Business Model
Franchised (97%)
History
KFC was founded in Corbin, Kentucky by Colonel Harland D. Sanders, an early developer of the quick
service restaurant business and a pioneer of the restaurant franchise concept. The Colonel perfected
his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices for Kentucky Fried Chicken in 1939 and signed up his first
franchisee in 1952.
Brand Concept
KFC restaurants offer fried and non-fried chicken products such as sandwiches, chicken strips, chicken-
on -the -bone and other chicken products. KFC restaurants also offer a variety of entrees and side items
suited to local preferences and tastes. Restaurant decor throughout the world is characterized by the
image of the Colonel.
Historical Growth in
Global Outlets
3
Competitors
KFC has the leading position in the global chicken segment. Its primary competitors are the other large
fast food chains such as McDonald’s and Burger King.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
Source: Yum! Annual Reports (2010 – 2017).
16,853
17,401
18,198
18,875
19,420
19,952
20,604
21,487
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
20102011201220132014201520162017
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
13
4.3.2 Pizza Hut
Contribution to RBD
FY18 Revenue – NZ$113m (15% of total)
Number of stores (as at February 2018) – 81 (26% of total)
Global Outlets
16,748 outlets in 106 countries and territories (as at 31 December 2017)
Ownership
Yum! (listed)
Business Model
Franchised
History
The first Pizza Hut restaurant was opened in 1958 in Wichita, Kansas, and within a year, the first franchise
unit was opened. Today, Pizza Hut is the largest restaurant chain in the world specialising in the sale of
ready-to-eat pizza products.
Brand Concept
Pizza Hut operates in the delivery, carryout and casual dining segments around the world. Outside of the
U.S., Pizza Hut often uses unique branding to differentiate these segments. Pizza Hut features a variety
of pizzas which are marketed under varying names. Each of these pizzas is offered with a variety of
different toppings suited to local preferences and tastes. Many Pizza Hut outlets also offer pasta and
chicken wings, including approximately 5,900 stores offering wings under the WingStreet brand in the
U.S . Outside the U.S., Pizza Hut casual dining restaurants offer a variety of core menu products other than
pizza, which are typically suited to local preferences and tastes. Pizza Hut units feature a distinctive red
roof logo on their signage.
His torical Growth in
Global Sites
4
Competitors
Pizza Hut’s predominant competitor is Domino’s. Domino’s currently has ̃14,900 outlets globally which
is slightly behind Pizza Hut. However, Domino’s has been growing faster than the Pizza Hut brand
globally, especially outside of the US market.
To a lesser extent, Pizza Hut also competes against independent pizza chains. The pizza market has
lower barriers to entry and is more competitive than the chicken market.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
Source: Yum! Annual Reports (2010 – 2017).
13,432
13,747
14,357
14,967
15,605
16,063
16,409
16,748
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20102011201220132014201520162017
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
14
4.3.3 Taco Bell
Contribution to RBD
FY18 Revenue – NZ$96m (13% of total)
Number of stores (as at February 2018) – 37 (12% of total)
Global Outlets
6,849 outlets in 27 countries and territories (as at 31 December 2017)
Ownership
Yum! (listed)
Business Model
Franchised (90%)
History
The first Taco Bell restaurant was opened in 1962 by Glen Bell in Downey, California, and in 1964, the first
Taco Bell franchise was sold.
Brand Concept
Taco Bell specialises in Mexican-style food products, including various types of tacos, burritos,
qu esadillas, salads, nachos and other related items. Taco Bell offers breakfast items in its U.S. stores.
Taco Bell restaurants feature a distinctive bell logo on their signage.
Historical Growth in
Global Sites
5
Primary competitors
Taco Bell’s primary competitor, especially in the US market is Chipotle Mexican Grill. Outside of the US
the Taco Bell brand is relatively underdeveloped. In Hawaii, Taco Bell’s only competitor in the Mexican
Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) segment are Taco Del Mar. Taco Bell’s segment market share in Hawaii
is high at approximately 90%.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5
Source: Yum! Annual Reports (2010 – 2017).
5,896
5,945
5,980
6,053
6,206
6,407
6,604
6,849
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
20102011201220132014201520162017
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
15
4.3.4 Carl’s Jr.
Contribution to RBD
FY18 Revenue – NZ$35m (5% of total)
Stores (as at February 2018) – 19 (6% of total)
Global Outlets
1,616 outlets in approximately 28 countries and territories (as at 31 December 2017)
Ownership
Privately held (CKE Restaurants)
Business Model
Franchised (95%)
History
In 1941, Carl N. Karcher and his wife Margaret founded the predecessor of Carl’s Jr. in Los Angeles after
they purchased a hot dog cart. In 1945, the Karchers moved to California to open their first Carl's Drive-
In Barbecue with hamburgers on the menu.
Brand Concept
Carl’s Jr. offers a limited menu of breakfast, lunch and dinner products featuring charbroiled burgers,
chicken tenders and other related items. Carl’s Jr. features a distinctive smiling star on their logo.
Primary competitors
Carl’s Jr. primarily competes against McDonald’s and Burger King in New Zealand (and to a lesser extent
Wendy’s). KFC is also a primary competitor in New Zealand, although it operates in a different market
segment.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
16
5 Profile of Restaurant Brands
5.1 Overview of Operations
RBD operates fast food restaurants in New Zealand, Australia, Hawaii, Saipa n and Guam. As at 18 November
2018, the company operated a total of 283 outlets across the KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Carl’s Jr. brands.
RBD employs approximately 8,000 people and serves 120,000 customers daily across its operations. RBD is
headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand. A breakdown of the number of outlets by brand and geography
is outlined below:
BREAKDOWN OF RBD OPERATED OUTLETS BY BRAND AND LOCATION (AS AT 18 NOVEMBER 2018)
NEW ZEALAND AUSTRALIA
SAIPAN, HAWAII &
GUAM
TOTAL
KFC 94 61 - 155
Pizza Hut 29 - 45 74
Taco Bell - - 36 36
Carl’s Jr. 18 - - 18
Total 141 61 81 283
5.2 Background and History
The following table provides a summary of the key events since RBD was established in 1997:
TIMELINE OF KEY COMPANY EVENTS
1997
- RBD formed to acquire the New Zealand operations of the KFC and Pizza Hut brands.
1998
- RBD secured New Zealand Franchise for Starbucks Coffee, opening its first store in Parnell, Auckland.
2000
- Acquisition of Eagle Boys pizza business in New Zealand. Stores were subsequently rebranded to Pizza Hut.
2002
- Acquisition of 51 Pizza Hut stores in Victoria, Australia
2008
- Sale of Pizza Hut business in Victoria, Australia.
2011
- Pizza Hut starts selling a number of its smaller regional stores to independent franchisees.
- Acquired the New Zealand Franchise for Carl's Jr.
2012
- Carl’s Jr. commenced store roll out in New Zealand.
2014
- Acquired 7 additional Carl’s Jr. stores in Auckland.
2016
- Acquisition of QSR Pty Ltd, which owns 42 KFC stores in New South Wales, Australia.
2017
- Acquisition of Pacific Island Restaurants Inc., which owns 37 Taco Bell stores and 45 Pizza Hut stores in Hawaii,
Guam and Saipan.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
17
5.3 Consolidated Financial Performance
The historical financial performance of RBD for the years ended February 2015 to 2018 (FY1 5 to FY1 8), and
the forecast for the year ending to 25 February 2019 (FY19F), is summarised below:
RBD SUMMARY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (NZ$ MILLIONS)
Source: RBD and Grant Samuel analysis
Commentary in relation to historical financial information.
The following points are relevant when reviewing the table above:
§
RBD acquired 42 KFC stores in New South Wales in April 2016. D uring FY18, RBD acquired a further 18
stores in New South Wales across three transactions. In March 2017, RBD acquired US based Pacific
Island Restaurants, adding a further 82 stores under both the Pizza Hut and Taco Bell brands. The
decline in store numbers in FY19 reflects the sale of Starbucks Coffee New Zealand during the financial
year ;
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6
Cost of sales in RBD’s Annual Report includes depreciation and amortisation expenses. This is shown in depreciation and amortisation
below.
YEAR END FEBRUARY
2015A 2016A 2017A 2018A 2019F
New Zealand 359.5 387.6 400.0 421.4 419.4
Australia
- -
97.2 151.8 195.4
Hawaii - - - 167.5 183.7
Store sales 359.5 387.6 497.2 740.8 798.5
Change in store revenue %
7.8% 28.3% 49.0%
7.8%
Other revenue 13.1 16.5 20.4 25.5 28.7
Total revenue 372.6 404.1 517.5 766.3 827.2
Cost of sales
6
(289.8) (314.3) (402.8) (601.3) (649.9)
Gross profit 82.8 89.8 117.1 164.9 177.3
Gross margin %
22.2% 22.2% 22.5% 21.5%
21.3%
Marketing and distribution expenses (21.2) (23.2) (30.9) (43.0 )
(47.7 )
General and administration expenses (12.8) (13.8) (17.2) (27.5) (30.7 )
Operating expenses (34.0) (37.0) (48.1) (70.5) (78 .4)
Normalised EBITDA 48.7 52.8 69.0 94.4 98.9
EBITDA margin % 13.1% 13.1% 13.3% 12.3% 12.4%
Depreciation & amortisation (16.6) (18.3) (24.5) (31.9) (33.9)
Normalised EBIT 32.1 34.5 44.5 62.5 65.0
Non-trading items 1.3 (0.5) (5.1) (4.8) (1.6)
EBIT 33.4 34.1 39.4 57.8 63.4
Financing expenses (1.0) (1.0) (2.3) (5.6) (6.9)
Taxation expense (8.6) (9.0) (11.1) (16.7) (15.8)
NPAT 23.8 24.1 26.0 35.5 40.7
Number of owned stores
New Zealand 181 173 170 171 142
Australia - - 42 61 62
Hawaii - - - 82 83
Total stores 181 173 212 314 287
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
18
§
RBD’s gross margins have remained relatively stable during the historical period, ranging between
21.5% and 22.5%;
§
the decline in EBITDA margin percentage from FY17 to FY18 was in part attributable to the acquisition
of Pacific Islands Restaurants Inc. which had lower operating margins;
§
non- trading items consist of acquisition costs, amortisation of franchise rights, store closure costs,
impairments and other expenses not related to the trading business;
§
financing expenses have increased over the historical period as RBD has raised additional debt to f und
acquisitions; and
§
in New Zealand continued same store sales growth from KFC has been offset in part by less than stellar
performances from Pizza Hut and Carl’s Jr. KFC generates 75% of New Zealand revenue and 87% of
EBITDA.
RBD’s current performance reflects the following attributes:
§
KFC organic growth and refurbishment programme;
§
acquisitions have been a significant driver of earnings growth over the last few years and this growth
strategy is expected to be continued into the future with a number of potential acquisition
opportunities in both Australia and the US. These potential, but not certain, acquisitions have been
discussed with Yum! which has indicated its support. The successful track record of acquisitions is likely
to be one of the key attractions of RBD to Global Valar;
§
the Taco Bell and KFC franchises enjoy relatively high margins. The acquisition of Taco Bell stores in
Hawaii and Guam should enable RBD to expand this franchise into other existing jurisdictions in which
it operates;
§
establishing Carl’s Jr. as a new brand in the New Zealand market has been more difficult and taken
longer than expected to reach a level of acceptable earnings;
§
in New Zealand RBD has been able to operate all four franchises from one central head office generating
significant economies of scale; and
§
the first in-line (i.e. not free standing DriveThru) KFC in Fort St, Auckland has been very successful in
terms of both the capital cost to develop and turnover per square metre. RBD is looking to expand the
number of in-line KFC stores, initially in New Zealand.
Future outlook.
§
RBD has nearly doubled the size of the business through acquisitions of franchisee businesses in New
South Wales and Hawaii, Guam and Saipan over the last two financial years;
§
it has established a record of consistently growing revenues both from existing businesses through new
stores and major refurbishments and through acquisitions to a point where today RBD is a multi brand
international business;
§
RBD is in discussions with Yum! about the Taco Bell brand in New Zealand and Australia;
§
in Australia there are over 600 KFC outlets with all but 50 operated by franchisees of Yum!. The 50 Yum!
owned stores are all in New South Wales and present an acquisition opportunity for RBD. In addition
there are another 90 stores in New South Wales operated by independent franchisees; and
§
in Hawaii major store transformations are underway with both Pizza Hut and Taco Bell along with the
development of new stores and some acquisitions. RBD is also seeking expansion opportunities on the
US mainland.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
19
Principal assumptions in relation to FY19F.
The FY19 forecast is based on management’s current forecasts, including:
§ actual results for the nine operating periods to 5 November 2018 plus management’s forecast for the
four operating periods to 25 February 2019;
§ Starbucks Coffee New Zealand sold at the end of October 2018;
§ average annual foreign exchange rates of US$0.66 per NZD and A$0.91 per NZD;
§ net debt at the end of FY19 of NZ$137.1 million; and
§ capital expenditure of NZ$47.0 million, including four new stores opened across the portfolio and a
number of store refurbishments.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
20
5.4 Financial Performance by Division
The historical financial performance for each division is summarised below:
5.4.1 New Zealand
The financial performance of the New Zealand operations from FY15 to FY18, and the forecast for FY19, is
summarised below:
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF NEW ZEALAND OPERATIONS (NZ$ MILLIONS)
§
the New Zealand business continues to deliver consistent growth, driven by the strength of the KFC
brand. KFC’s same store sales growth was 6.2% in FY18 and 4.1% in Q1 of FY19. New in-line stores are
expected to provide growth opportunities in high foot traffic CBD areas;
§
the Pizza Hut New Zealand Master Franchise Agreement was finalised in June 2018 with RBD becoming
the Master Franchisee for the Pizza Hut brand in New Zealand for the next 10 years. Under the new
arrangement RBD steps into the position of franchisor for existing independent franchisees and receives
a share of the franchise fees payable to Yum!. A further 10 of RBD’s owned Pizza Hut stores are forecast
to be sold to franchisees in FY19;
§
RBD sold Starbucks Coffee New Zealand at the end of October 2018. The sale reflects the non-core
nature of the brand with management focus being better spent on KFC and other growth initiatives
across the group; and
§
RBD’s focus for Carl’s Jr. has been to improve EBITDA margins. EBITDA margins have increased from
1.3% in FY16 to 5.7% in FY18 and the EBITDA margin is forecast to increase to 6.0% in FY19. Margin
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7
Normalised EBITDA means EBITDA before non-trading items
8
Normalised EBIT means EBIT before non-trading items
YEAR END FEBRUARY
2015A 2016A 2017A 2018A 2019F
KFC 265.0 282.5 296.5 319.6 334.3
Pizza Hut 48.4 44.9 40.5 41.1 36.5
Starbucks 26.1 26.8 26.7 25.8 16.0
Carl’s Jr. 20.1 33.4 36.3 34.9 32.6
Store sales revenue 359.5 387.6 400.0 421.4 419.4
Change in store revenue % 9.2% 7.8% 3.2% 5.4% (0.5%)
Other revenue 13.1 16.5 20.4 25.3 28.6
Total revenue 372.6 404.1 420.4 446.7 447.9
Total expenses (323.9) (351.3) (362.9) (383.7) (383.2)
Normalised EBITDA
7
48.7 52.8 57.5 63.0 64.8
EBITDA margin % 13.1% 13.1% 13.7% 14.1% 15.4%
Depreciation & amortisation (16.6) (18.3) (19.8) (18.3) (18.7 )
Normalised EBIT
8
32.1 34.5 37.7 44.7 46.1
Number of RBD owned stores
KFC 91 91 92 94 96
Pizza Hut 46 39 35 36 28
Starbucks 26 25 24 22 -
Carl’s Jr. 18 18 19 19 18
Total 181 173 170 171 142
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
21
improvement has been assisted by a revised menu and growth in sales revenue. The decline in store
numbers during FY19 reflects the permanent closure of a store due to major road works near the site.
5.4.2 Australia
The financial performance of the Australian operations from FY17 to FY18, including the forecast for FY19 is
summarised below:
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AUSTRALIAN OPERATIONS (NZ$ MILLIONS)
§ since the acquisition of 42 KFC stores in April 2016, RBD has added a further 19 stores (18 stores
acquired and one new store build). KFC Australia has consistently delivered strong same store sales
growth. Same store sales growth in FY19 is supported by the rollout of delivery to 20 stores by year
end, scheduled price increases for selected products and a number of refurbishments and upgrades.
5.4.3 Hawaii
The financial performance of the Hawaii (including Guam and Saipan) operations for FY18, and the forecast
for FY19, is summarised below:
PERFORMANCE HAWAII OPERATIONS (NZ$ MILLIONS)
YEAR END FEBRUARY
2017A 2018A 2019F
KFC sales revenue 97.2 151.8 195.4
Change in store revenue %
n.a. 56.2%
28.7%
Total expenses
(85.7) (135.1)
(172.0)
Normalised EBITDA
11.5 16.7
23.4
EBITDA margin %
11.8% 11.0%
12.0%
Depreciation & amortisation
(4.7) (6.9)
(8.3 )
Normalised EBIT
6.8 9.8
15.1
Number of owned stores
KFC 42 61 62
YEAR END FEBRUARY
2018A 2019F
Pizza Hut 72.0 78.3
Taco Bell 95.5 105.5
Store sales revenue 167.5 183.7
Change in store revenue % n .a. 9.7%
Other revenue 0.2 0.2
Total revenue 167.7 183.9
Total expenses (151.3) (168.3)
Normalised EBITDA 16.3 15.6
EBITDA margin % 9.7% 8.5%
Depreciation & amortisation (6.7) (6.9 )
Normalised EBIT 9.7 8.6
Number of owned stores
Pizza Hut 45 46
Taco Bell 37 37
Total 82 83
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
22
§
the Hawaii operations commenced in March 2017 following the acquisition of Pacific Island Restaurants.
The acquisition provided RBD with access to the Taco Bell brand which has exhibited strong same store
sales growth and customer loyalty. RBD is currently awaiting consents to refurbish stores that have
been underinvested in and to build new Taco Bell stores. The consenting process in Hawaii is very
protracted; and
§
the Hawaii business has experienced a period of operational and customer disruption in the Pizza Hut
brand as a result of the recently implemented POS and website upgrades. There have also been some
trading headwinds in FY19, particularly rising wage and commodity prices. RBD management believe
that these pricing pressures are also being felt by its competitors in the market.
5.5 Financial Position
The financial position of RBD as at February 2017 and 2018 and 5 November 2018 is summarised below:
RBD - FINANCIAL POSITION (NZ$ MILLIONS)
AS AT FEB 2017 FEB 2018 5 NOV 2018
Inventories 8.7 12.6 10.1
Trade & other receivables 4.3 8.8
10.5
Creditors & accruals (50.4) (67.5)
(62.2 )
Provision for employee entitlements (2.0) (2.5)
(16.3 )
Income tax payable (3.6) (4.2)
(3.1 )
Net working capital (43.1) (52.8 )
(61.0)
Intangible assets 84.4 246.3
257.8
Property, plant & equipment 124.4 157.2
159.9
Deferred income (6.2) (9.8 )
(8.9)
Deferred tax asset 10.3 15.0
16.1
Other assets/(liabilities) (1.6) 2.4
-
Net operating assets 168.2 358.3
363.9
Net debt 23.9 (156.7)
(14 1.7)
Net assets 192.1 201.6
222.2
STATISTICS
Shares on issue at period end (million) 122.8 123.6
124.4
Net assets per share $1.56 $1.63
1.79
Gearing
9
(14.2%) 43.7%
38.9%
Source: RBD and Grant Samuel analysis
§
RBD has a negative net working capital position as it receives revenue in cash at the point of sale and
pays employees on a weekly basis and suppliers on varying longer terms. The increase in the negative
net working capital position is the result of the increase in the size of the business;
§
intangible assets primarily relates to goodwill paid upon business acquisitions. The large increase in the
intangible asset balance from February 2017 to February 2018 related to the acquisition of Pacific Island
Restaurants Inc . and further KFC stores in Australia;
§
property, plant and equipment primarily consists of leasehold improvements and restaurant fit out
costs; and
§
deferred income relates to non-routine revenue from suppliers and landlords and is recognised in profit
or loss over the life of the associated contract.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9
Gearing is net borrowings divided by net assets plus net borrowings.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
23
5.6 Cash Flow
RBD’s cash flows from F15 to F18 is summarised below:
RBD SUMMARY CASH FLOW (NZ$ MILLIONS)
Source: RBD Financial Statements
§
RBD’s net operating cash flows have increased as the business has grown its store network and
underlying profitability;
§
the purchase of SR Pty Ltd comprising 42 KFC stores in New South Wales, Australia for A$82.4 million
was completed during F17, and the purchase of Pacific Island Restaurants for US$105 million was
completed during F18;
§
RBD raised NZ$94 million in new e-uity capital through an underwritten entitlement offer during F17
to fu nd the ac-uisition of Pacific Island Restaurants Inc . Share issue costs of $2.7 million have been
netted off the gross proceeds of the share issue above;
§
a portion of these funds remained on deposit at the end of F17 pending the settlement of the Pacific
Island Restaurant Inc ac-uisition; and
§
RBD’s dividend payout ratio has ranged between 80-85% of underlying NPAT (i.e. excluding non-trading
items) between F16 and F18.
YEAR END FEBRUARY
2015A 2016A 2017A 2018A
Normalised EBITDA 48.7 52.8 69.0 94.4
Tax
(9.2) (10.6)
(13.5) (15.8)
Interest
(1.0) (1.0)
(2.3) (5.6)
Movement in working capital (and other items) (3.3)
3.6
(0.2) (0.4)
Non-trading items
1.3 (0.5)
(5.1) (4.8)
Net operating cash flow 36.5 44.3 47.9 67.8
Business ac-uisitions
(10.4) - (63.9) (147.5)
Net purchase of property, plant I e-uipment
(19.8) (16.5) (12.4) (22.3)
Purchase of intangible assets
(2.8) (1.7) (3.7) (4.8)
Landlord contributions received
- 2.8 1.0 1.2
Net investing cash flow (33.0) (15.3) (79.0) (173.3)
Net drawdownA(repayment) of borrowings
14.4 (9.9) 30.7 64.7
Net proceeds from share issue
- - 91.1 -
Dividends paid (17.1) (19.6) (22.6) (23.7)
Net financing cash flow (2.6) (29.4) 99.2 40.9
Net cash flow 0.8 (0.5) 68.1 (64.6)
Opening cash 0.8 1.6 1.1 70.4
Cash balances of ac-uired businesses - - 1.5 4.6
F gainsA(losses) - - (0.3) (0.2)
Closing cash 1.6 1.1 70.4 10.1
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
24
5.7 Capital Structure and Ownership
RBD has the following securities on issue:
§
124,380,523 ordinary shares; and
§
a total of 378,000 performance rights granted to Russel Creedy (CEO) and Grant Ellis (CFO) entitling the
holders to one ordinary RBD share subject to vesting criteria options over unissued ordinary shares. We
understand that the performance rights will vest (and the associated shares will be issued) on the record
date for the Offer.
As at 2 November 2018, RBD had approximately 7,220 registered shareholders. The top 10 shareholders
own approximately 40.4%
of the ordinary shares on issue:
RBD - MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AS AT 2 NOVEMBER 2018
NUMBER OF SHARES (000S) PERCENTAGE
Copulos, Stephen 10,631 8.6%
Craigs Investment Partners (private wealth) 6,318 5.1%
Hobson Wealth Partners Ltd. (private wealth) 6,090 4.9%
Fisher Funds Management 6,0 20 4.8%
First NZ Capital (private wealth) 4,027 3.2%
Diab Investments NZ Ltd. 3,500 2.8%
Euro Pacific Asset Management LLC 3,326 2.7%
Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation 3,273 2.6%
Grandeur Peak Global Advisors LLC 2,840 2.3%
Columbia Wanger Asset Management LLC 2,710 2.2%
Top 10 Shareholders 50,261 40.4%
Other Shareholders 74,120 59.6%
Total Shares 124,381 100.0%
NZX Research
5.8 Share Price Performance
5.8.1 Liquidity
The following table shows the volume of RBD shares traded in the 12 months prior to the announcement of
the partial takeover proposal on 18 October 2018:
RBD - SHARE PRICE HISTORY
TIME PERIOD LOW HIGH VWAP VOLUME (000S)
1 month $7.25 $7.87 $7.69 6,722
3 months $7.25 $7.87 $7.68 15,414
6 months $7.05 $8.15 $7.67 34,239
12 months $6.46 $8.15 $7.47 53,249
NZX Company Research
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
25
5.8.2 Share Price Performance
The share price and trading volume history of RBD shares since the beginning of 2015 is depicted below:
RBD SHARE PRICE PERFORMANCE SINCE BEGINNING OF 2015
Source: NZX Company Research
RBD’s share price against the NZX50 Capital Index is shown below:
RBD RELATIVE PERFORMANCE VERSUS THE NZX50 CAPITAL INDEX
Source: Capital IQ
RBD has significantly outperformed the NZX50 Capital Index since the beginning of 2015 with its shares up
by more than 67% versus the Index prior to the announcement of the partial takeover proposal on 18 October
2018.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
Jan
-
15
Mar
-
15
May
-
15
Jul
-
15
Sep
-
15
Nov
-
15
Jan
-
16
Mar
-
16
May
-
16
Jul
-
16
Sep
-
16
Nov
-
16
Jan
-
17
Mar
-
17
May
-
17
Jul
-
17
Sep
-
17
Nov
-
17
Jan
-
18
Mar
-
18
May
-
18
Jul
-
18
Sep
-
18
Nov
-
18
Monthly Volume
Share Price
Monthly Volume (RHS)Share Price (LHS)
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Jan
-
15
Mar
-
15
May
-
15
Jul
-
15
Sep
-
15
Nov
-
15
Jan
-
16
Mar
-
16
May
-
16
Jul
-
16
Sep
-
16
Nov
-
16
Jan
-
17
Mar
-
17
May
-
17
Jul
-
17
Sep
-
17
Nov
-
17
Jan
-
18
Mar
-
18
May
-
18
Jul
-
18
Sep
-
18
Nov
-
18
RBLNZX50 Capital Index
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
26
6 Valuation of Restaurant Brands
6.1 Methodology
6.1.1 Overview
Grant Samuel’s valuation of RBD has been estimated on the basis of fair market value as a going concern,
defined as the estimated price that could be realised in an open market over a reasonable period of time
assuming that potential buyers have full information. The valuation of RBD is appropriate for the acquisition
of the company as a whole and accordingly incorporates a premium for control. The value is in excess of the
level at which, under current market conditions, shares in RBD could be expected to trade on the share
market. Shares in a listed company normally trade at a discount of 15% - 25% to the underlying value of the
company as a whole, but the extent of the discount (if any) depends on the specific circumstances of each
company.
The most reliable evidence as to the value of a business is the price at which the business or a comparable
business has been bought and sold in an arm’s length transaction. In the absence of direct market evidence
of value, estimates of value are made using methodologies that infer value from other available evidence.
There are four primary valuation methodologies commonly used for valuing businesses:
§
capitalisation of earnings or cash flows;
§
discounting of projected cash flows (DCF);
§
industry rules of thumb; and
§
estimation of the aggregate proceeds from an orderly realisation of assets.
Each of these valuation methodologies has application in different circumstances. The primary criterion for
determining which methodology is appropriate is the actual practice adopted by purchasers of the type of
business involved. A detailed description of each of these methodologies is outlined at Appendix D.
6.1.2 Preferred approach
Grant Samuel has placed primary reliance on the capitalisation of earnings methodology in determining a
value range for RBD. This is primarily due to the availability of quality information that can be analysed to
determine an applicable multiple range. This information includes the earnings multiples implied from the
prices of comparable transactions and the sharemarket ratings of listed companies.
In addition, a DCF valuation was undertaken as a cross check.
6.2 Summary
Grant Samuel has valued RBD in the range of $1,017 - $1,113 million, which corresponds to a value of $8.15
to $8.9 2 per share. The valuation is summarised below:
RBD - VALUATION SUMMARY ($ MILLIONS)
REPORT SECTION
REFERENCE
VALUE RANGE
LOW HIGH
Enterprise value 1,154 1,250
Less: Net Debt 6.2.1 (137) (137)
Value of equity 1,017 1,113
Shares on issue (millions) 6.2 .2 124.8 124.8
Value per share $8.15 $8.9 2
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
27
The value exceeds the price at which, based on current market conditions, Grant Samuel would expect RBD
shares to trade on the NZX in the absence of a takeover offer or proposal similar to the Offer with Global
Valar. The valuation reflects the strengths and weaknesses of RBD and takes into account the following
factors:
§
KFC is a leading international fast food brand that has demonstrated consistent growth in recent years.
RBD’s KFC business in New Zealand is attractive with strong EBITDA margins. The opportunity to expand
the KFC business in Australia through the acquisition of independent franchisees and Yum! owned
stores in New South Wales is also attractive. RBD also has opportunities to expand into new
geographies including a store rollout program in Hawaii;
§
the Pizza Hut brand operates in a more competitive market with lower barriers to entry than KFC. The
Domino’s brand is growing more rapidly than the Pizza Hut brand globally. This is likely to put further
pressure on sales growth and margins in New Zealand and Hawaii. The opportunity to repurpose Pizza
Hut sites to incorporate to the higher margin Taco Bell stores in Hawaii is an attractive opportunity;
§
Taco Bell is an attractive brand with strong margins. The opportunity to apply the learnings from the
KFC store transformation programme in New Zealand to refresh the Taco Bell stores in Hawaii should
yield improved performance and an attractive return on investment. There are currently discussions
underway with Yum! to potentially bring the brand to New Zealand and parts of Australia;
§
RBD has an established record of expansion through acquisition which has enabled it to achieve high
growth in the four years since 2014:
Revenue +125%
EBIT +105%
NPAT (Reported) +77%
NPAT (Excluding non-trading items) +114%
§ RBD management believe that these growth levels are sustainable given the number of franchisee
chains which could potentially be acquired at reasonably attractive multiples. In addition, there exist
expansion opportunities in each of the three key regions RBD operates in; and
§ RBD has a strong working relationship with Yum!, albeit with normal tensions that exist between
franchisors and franchisees. This has allowed RBD to expand rapidly through acquisition and new store
builds.
6.2.1 Net debt for valuation purposes
For valuation purposes, Grant Samuel has adopted the forecast net debt of $137.1 million at 25 February
2019, being the forecast net debt at the settlement date of the Offer.
6.2.2 Fully diluted shares on issue
The fully diluted shares on issue has been calculated as follows:
RBD – FULLY DILUTED SHARES ON ISSUE AS AT 26 NOVEMBER 2018
MILLION
Shares on issue
124.4
Shares issued on exercise of performance rights
0.4
Fully diluted shares on issue
124.8
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
28
6.2.3 Valuation assumptions
EARNINGS FOR VALUATION PURPOSES
NZ$ MILLION
Forecast FY19 EBITDA for valuation purposes 98.9
Less contribution from Starbucks during FY19 (2.8)
Earnings for valuation 96.1
The earnings for valuation purposes assumes the following:
§ 3% same store sales growth in New Zealand;
§ 3.5% same store sales growth in Australia;
§ the benefit from 19 new stores in Australia purchased in FY18;
§ sales growth of 2.5% in Hawaii and reduction in the Federal Tax rate from 34% to 21%;
§ capital expenditure on new stores and refurbishments of NZ$47 million in FY19; and
§ foreign exchange rates US$0.66 per NZD and A$0.91 per NZD.
6.2.4 DCF Valuation
A DCF valuation as a cross check was undertaken using RBD’s 10 year forecast financial model. Discount rates
of 8.5% to 9.0% were applied to the after tax ungeared cash flows. A terminal growth rate of 2.0% pa was
assumed. The valuation outcome of the DCF analysis was very similar to the capitalisation of earnings
valuation. The DCF valuation which was undertaken as a cross-check was $8.06 - $8.8 2 per share.
10 YEAR MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
New Zealand
§ New Zealand same store growth:
KFC 4.0%
Pizza Hut 3.7%
Carl’s Jr. 3.0%
§ New Zealand store numbers:
KFC new stores
21
Pizza Hut sales to franchisees
21
New Pizza Hut to be sold to franchisees
57
Carl’s Jr. new stores
8
§ New Zealand EBITDA margin:
KFC 20.5%
Pizza Hut 10.6%
Carl’s Jr. 11.0%
Australia
§ Australia same store growth of 3.4% per annum; and
§ EBITDA margin for Australian stores of 15.7%.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
29
Hawaii (including Guam and Saipan)
§ Hawaii same store growth:
Taco Bell 4.6%
Pizza Hut 1.0%
§ Hawaii new stores:
Taco Bell 11
Pizza Hut 7
§ Hawaii EBITDA margin:
Taco Bell
19.7%
Pizza Hut
9.0%
6.3 Earnings Multiple Analysis
6.3.1 Implied multiples
Grant Samuel’s valuation of RBD implies the following multiples:
RBD – IMPLIED VALUATION MULTIPLES
MULTIPLES VARIABLE ($MILLION) LOW HIGH
Enterprise Value Range ($ millions) 1,154 1,250
Multiple of EBITDA (times)
Year ended February 2018 (normalised)
10
94.4 12.2 13.2
Year ended February 2019 (forecast)
11
96.1 12.0 13.0
Multiple of EBIT (times)
Year ended February 2018 (normalised)
10
62.5 18.5 20.0
Year ended February 2019 (forecast)
11
62.0 18.6 20.1
Grant Samuel has reviewed the multiples having regard to the multiples implied by transactions involving
franchisees of international fast food businesses and the multiples implied by the current share prices of
listed franchisees of international fast food brands. An explanation regarding interpreting the above
mul tiples is included in Appendix E. Grant Samuel’s enterprise value range implies a multiple range of 12.0
to 1 3.0 times forecast FY19 EBITDA.
6.3.2 Transaction Evidence
The valuation of RBD has been considered having regard to the earnings multiples implied by the price at
which franchisees of international fast food businesses have changed hands. Grant Samuel has primarily
focused on franchisees of the major international fast food restaurant chains. The transaction evidence is
summarised below:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10
Adjusted for non-trading items
11
Excludes earnings from Starbucks
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
30
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING INTERNATIONAL FAST FOOD BRAND FRANCHISEES
DATE TARGET ACQUIRER
IMPLIED
ENTERPRISE
VALUE
(MILLIONS)
EBITDA MULTIPLE
(TIMES)
EBIT MULTIPLE
(TIMES)
HISTORIC FORECAST HISTORIC FORECAST
ASIA PACIFIC
Jun 17 28 KFC stores in Australia Collins Foods A$112.0 7.0 n.a. 10.2 n.a.
May 16
13 KFC stores in Australia Collins Foods A$25.5 5.9 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Mar 16
42 KFC stores in Australia RBD A$82.4 5.5 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Feb 16 Burger King Korea Affinity PE US$171 11.4 n.a. n.a. n.a.
May 14 SRS Korea CVC Capital US$98 5.4 n.a. 8.9 n.a.
Nov 13 44 KFC stores in Australia Collins Foods A$55.6 n.a. 5.5 n.a. n.a.
Aug 13 75% of Domino’s Pizza Japan DPE A$282 10.4 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Aug 13 KFC Indonesia Dyviacom US$492 14.2 15.3 19.3 25.8
Nov 12 SRS Korea DIP Holdings US$138 5.3 n.a. 7.7 n.a.
Aug 12 Crust Gourmet Pizza Retail Food Group A$44.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. 7.0
Feb 12 Pizza Capers Retail Food Group A$30.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 7.0
Dec 11 KFC Malaysia CVC Capital US$1,038 9.6 9.5 13.8 13.1
Dec 11 Pizza Hut Malaysia CVC Capital US$956 7.0 6.3 10.3 8.8
Oct 11 Burger King NZ Blackstone NZ$155 8.2 7.9 10.5 11.5
Average - Asia Pacific 8.2 9.2 11.5 12.3
UK & EUROPE
Feb 16 Nordic Service Partners LGT Capital SEK 468 7.9 6.0 34.2 16.7
Jul 16 34.3% of AmRest Holdings Finaccess £1,250 13.5 12.0 27.4 23.6
Dec 15 Joey’s Pizza DPE €79 13.2 11.3 n.a. n.a.
Oct 15
Pizza Sprint DPE
€35 10.0 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Jul 15 31.7% of AmRest Holdings Finaccess £770 11.5 10.3 25.1 26.1
Aug 14 Grupo Zena Alsea, SA.B. De CV €270 8.4 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Feb 11 Restauravia Group AmRest Holdings €198 7.4 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Average - UK & Europe 10.3 9.9 28.9 22.1
THE AMERICAS
Oct 16 Pacific Island Restaurants RBD US$105 7.6 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Jan 15
Brazil Fast Food Corp Shareholders US$137 8.1 n.a. 10.1 n.a.
Mar 14
Morgan’s Foods Inc. Apex Restaurants US$50 7.7 n.a. 14.4 n.a.
Nov 11
NPC Restaurant Holdings Olympus Partners US$755 7.5 n.a. 13.7 n.a.
Average - The Americas
7.7 - 12.7 -
Average – All Transactions 8.8 9.5 15.8 16.0
Grant Samuel analysis
12
(see Appendix B)
When observing the table above the following points should be noted:
§
approximately three quarters (19 of 27) of the transactions above involve franchisees for Yum!
restaurant concepts (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell). Of these transactions, eight transactions involved
KFC only franchisees, two involved Pizza Hut only franchisees and the other nine transactions involved
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12
Grant Samuel analysis based on company announcements and, in the absence of company published financial forecasts, brokers’
reports. Where company financial forecasts are not available, the median of the financial forecasts prepared by a range of brokers has
generally been used to derive relevant forecast value parameters. The source, date and number of broker reports utilised for each
company depends on analyst coverage, availability and recent corporate activity.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
31
fran chisees of multiple Yum! brands. Grant Samuel has not focused on transactions involving head
franchisor businesses;
§
the implied EBITDA multiples of the transaction evidence range between ̃5.3 times historical EBITDA
to ̃14.2 times EBITDA reflecting differences in the size of the targets, the growth prospects of the
targets in their primary geographies and the degree of strategic importance of the acquisitions and
synergies. For transactions involving smaller franchisees (i.e. with less than US$40m of EBITDA) the
implied EBITDA multiples typically range between ̃5.5 to ̃8.5 times EBITDA. The transactions
undertaken by Collins Food Limited (the largest KFC franchisee in Australia) during 2016 and 2017 were
at multiples of 5.9 and 7.0 times EBITDA and the two transactions by RBD announced during 2016
implied multiples of 5.5 and 7.6 times EBITDA;
§
smaller transactions that transacted at higher EBITDA multiples include the purchase of a substantial
shareholding in KFC Indonesia by Dyviacom (at 14.2 times), the purchase of Burger King Korea by Affinity
Private Equity (at 11.4 times) and the purchase of a 75% stake in Domino’s Pizza Japan by Domino’s
Pizza Enterprise Limited at 10.4 times. Each of these target companies operated in markets with
significant scope for growth in the store networks and this may explain the higher implied multiples for
these transactions. Two of the smaller transactions at higher EBITDA multiples involved DPE purchasing
independent pizza chains in geographies where Domino’s did not have a store footprint. They were
strategic acquisitions as they expanded their store network rapidly in the markets versus new store
builds;
§
in July 2015 Finaccess Capital acquired a 31.7% shareholding in AmRest Holdings, a fast food restaurant
company operating in Central and Eastern Europe. A year later, Finaccess Capital acquired a further
34.3% stake in the company. The transactions implied EBITDA multiples of 10.3 times and 12.0 times
forecast EBITDA respectively. AmRest is of a similar size to RBD on an enterprise value basis;
§
other large transactions included CVC Capital’s acquisition of Pizza Hut Malaysia and KFC Malaysia in
December 2011 (at multiples of 6.3 and 9.5 times forecast EBITDA respectively). This multiple paid for
Pizza Hut Malaysia is close to the 7.5 times EBITDA Olympus Partners paid for NPC Restaurant Holdings,
the largest Pizza Hut franchisee in the United States;
§ the implied EBIT multiples for the transaction evidence varied significantly and in a substantial
proportion of cases EBIT was not disclosed. Grant Samuel has placed only limited reliance on the implied
EBIT multiples from the transaction evidence in assessing an appropriate capitalisation multiple for RBD;
and
§ each transaction has its own unique set of circumstances. As such it is often very difficult to identify
trends or draw any meaningful conclusions. Further details on these transactions are set out in
Appendix B.
6.3.3 Sharemarket Evidence
The valuation of RBD has been considered in the context of the multiples implied by the share market prices
of listed franchisees of the leading international fast food restaurant brands. While the size and geographies
served by these companies are different, the share market data provides a useful framework within which
to assess the valuation of RBD.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
32
SHAREMARKET RATINGS OF LISTED FAST FOOD FRANCHISE COMPANIES
13
ENTITY
MARKET
CAP.
(NZ $
MILLIONS)
EBITDA MULTIPLE (TIMES)
14
EBIT MULTIPLE (TIMES)
15
HISTORIC
FORECAST
YEAR 1
FORECAST
YEAR 2
HISTORIC
FORECAST
YEAR 1
FORECAST
YEAR 2
RBD (pre -offer price) 933 11.5 10.8 9.7 17.4 16.1 14.1
RBD (at Offer price) 1,175 14.1 13.3 11.9 21.3 19.8 17.2
ASIA PACIFIC
Berjaya Food Berhad 175 8.3 7.6 6.9 14.7 12.5 11.1
Collins Foods Limited 899 11.3 9.5 8.8 16.5 14.3 13.2
Dominos Enteprises Limited 4,546 18.4* 16.2 14.2 23.2 20.1 17.3
KFC Holdings Japan Limited 575 12.6 n.a. n.a. n.m. n.a. n.a.
PT Fast Food Indonesia Tbk 331 8.8 7.8 6.8 26.2 21.2 16.9
PT Map Boga Adiperkasa Tbk 386 10.9 n.a. n.a. 19.9 n.a. n.a.
PT Sarimelati Kenana Tbk 267 7.2 6.8 5.8 10.4 11.5 10.5
Yum! China Holdings Inc. 19,827 9.6 9.4 9.1 15.4 13.5 12.7
Average - Asia Pacific 10.9 9.5 8.6 18.0 15.5 13.6
UK & EUROPE
AmRest Holdings BV 3,390 17.2 13.2 10.5 38.5* 28.7* 20.2*
DP Eurasia N.V. 383 13.1 11.6 9.1 22.8 17.1 12.7
Domino’s Pizza Group PLC 2,564 13.9 13.3 12.1 16.0 15.6 14.8
Ibersol SGPS , SA 465 5.6 6.1 5.5 11.0 11.1 10.7
Sphera Franchise Group SA 316 13.7 10.7 7.9 18.2 14.9 10.8
Average - UK & Europe 11.6 10.4 8.6 16.7 14.7 12.3
THE AMERICAS
Alsea, SAB de CV 2,823 8.4 8.4 7.3 14.6 14.5 12.2
Arcos Dorados Holdings Inc. 2,311 5.8 6.9 6.1 6.5 11.9 9.0
BK Brasil SA. 1,484 17.0 12.2 9.1 39.4* 28.2* 17.8*
Meritage Hospitality Group 164 10.4 n.a. n.a. 16.2 n.a. n.a.
Prestige Holdings Limited 137 6.5 n.a. n.a. 12.4
n.a. n.a.
Average - The Americas
7.8 9.2 7.5 12.4 13.2 10.6
Average – All companies
9.7 10.0 8.5 16.3 14.9 13.6
Gran t Samuel analysis. n.m. means not meaningful
* denotes outliers
A description of each of the companies above is set out in Appendix C. When observing the table above the
following points should be noted:
§
the implied multiples of the listed comparable companies varies substantially due to differences in the
growth prospects, size , brands and operating margins of each company. In general the larger companies
trade at higher multiples and the companies exhibiting higher EBITDA growth are trading at higher
EBITDA multiples. Historic and forecast year 1 multiples can often be very high as the contribution from
new stores is yet to be fully realised until forecast year 2;
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13
The companies selected have a variety of year ends. The financial information presented in the Historic column corresponds to the most
recent actual annual result. The forecast column corresponds to the forecast for the subsequent year.
14
Represents gross capitalisation (that is, the sum of the market capitalisation adjusted for minorities, plus borrowings less cash as at the
latest balance date) divided by EBITDA.
15
Represents gross capitalisation divided by EBIT.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
33
§
Grant Samuel has not focused on Master Franchise businesses. They tend to trade at higher earnings
multiples reflecting the value of their brands and lower capital intensity;
§
Domino’s Pizza Enterprise Limited and Domino’s Pizza Group PLC (Domino’s Pizza UK) are the largest
Domino’s franchisees globally with 2,393 and 1,192 stores respectively. Their higher trading multiples
in part reflect the success of the Domino’s brand globally, which has been growing faster than its
primary rival Pizza Hut and an expectation for further strong growth in earnings for both companies as
they roll out new stores in their existing geographies. DP Eurasia N.V, which operates in Turkey and
Russia is also trading at relatively high multiples reflecting the underdeveloped nature of these markets;
§
AmRest Holdings BV (which is 56.4% owned by Global Valar), Sphera Franchise Group SA and BK Brasil
SA are forecast to achieve strong growth in EBITDA in the next 2 years reflecting the opportunity to roll
out new stores in their target geographies and rising disposable incomes in these markets. The historic
and forecast year 1 trading multiples for these companies are therefore relatively high;
§
Collins Food Limited is a close comparable to RBD in so far that it primarily operates KFC restaurants in
Australia;
§
the multiples are based on closing share prices as at 14 November 2018. The share prices and the
multiples do not include a premium for control. Shares in listed companies normally trade at a discount
to the underlying value of the companies as a whole;
§
the companies selected have varying financial year ends. The data presented above is the most recent
annual historical result plus the subsequent forecast year; and
§
there are considerable differences between the operations and scale of the comparable companies
when compared with RBD. In addition, care needs to be exercised when comparing multiples of New
Zealand companies with internationally listed companies. Differences in regulatory environments,
share market and broader economic conditions, taxation systems and accounting standards hinder
comparisons.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
34
7 Merits of the Global Valar Offer
7.1 The value of the Global Valar Offer
The value of the Offer can be assessed with reference to a number of factors:
§
Grant Samuel’s assessment of the value of RBD. In Grant Samuel>s opinion the full underlying value of
RBD shares is in the range of $8.1 5 to $8.9 2 per share as set out in Section 6. This value represents the
value of ac-uiring 100% of the e-uity in RBD and therefore includes a premium for control. In Grant
Samuel>s opinion the offer price under a takeover offer where the offeror will gain control should be
within, or exceed, the proBrated full underlying valuation range of the company. The Offer price of
$9.45 per share is above Grant Samuel’s assessed value range for RBD shares. The diagram below
compares the Offer price with Grant Samuel>s assessed value range for RBD shares and the RBD share
price immediately prior to the announcement of the Offer;
GLOBAL VALAR OFFER VERSUS GRANT SAMUEL VALUATION RANGE AND PRE OFFER SHARE PRICE
(NZ$ PER SHARE)
§
the premium implied by the Offer. The Offer represents a premium of 24.3% relative to the closing
price of $7.60 per share on 17 October 2018 being the last trading day prior to the announcement of
the Offer and a premium of 22.9% over the volume weighted average share price (VWAP) over the 30
trading days prior to the announcement of $7.69 per share. Over the longer term the Offer represents
a 23.1% premium to the 6Bmonth WAP. The premium for control is close to the average premium of
control generally observed in successful takeovers of other listed companies. Since the announcement
of the Offer at a price of $9.45 per share, RBD shares have traded in the range of $8.12 to $8.72 per
share; and
§
comparable company and comparable transaction data. The Offer implies multiples of 13.9 times
historical EBITDA and 13.7 times forecast EBITDA for F19. Grant Samuel>s analysis suggests the
historical and forecast EBITDA multiples implied by the Offer are attractive when compared to the
multiples implied by the prices paid for controlling shareholdings in international fast food franchisee
businesses.
$9.45
$8.15
$8.92
$7.60
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
LowHigh
Offer PriceGrant Samuel valuationPre offer share price
(17 Oct 2018)
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
35
7.2 The timing and circumstances surrounding the Offer
The Offer follows an unsolicited approach from Finaccess Capital. RBD commenced negotiating a transaction
with Finaccess Capital culminating in the announced form of the Offer. Finaccess Capital is familiar with the
fast food restaurant industry. It has a majority shareholding in AmRest Holdings BV, which operates
franchised and owned fast food restaurant chains in Central and Eastern Europe including Pizza Hut and KFC.
7.3 Outcomes of the Global Valar Offer
The Offer is su bject to several key conditions. For the Offer to be successful, more than 50.01% of the total
number of voting securities in RBD must be accepted into the Offer. The possible outcomes of the Offer are:
Global Valar achieves acceptances less than 50.01%
In this circumstance no shares will be acquired by Global Valar and the shareholding structure of RBD will be
unchanged. If Global Valar is not successful in achieving the 50.01% minimum threshold at its current offer
price it may or may not choose to increase the offer price. If Global Valar chooses to increase its current
offer price while the Global Valar Offer is still open the increased value will be available to all shareholders
even if they have already accepted the current offer price. Any increased price would also be available to
the locked up shareholders.
Global Valar achieves acceptances greater than 50.01% but less than 75%
In these circumstances assuming the Offer becomes unconditional:
§ Global Valar will proceed to acquire all of the shares that have been accepted into the Global Valar Offer.
Accepting shareholders will not be subject to scaling or pro-rata adjustment of their acceptances. Global
Valar will become the cornerstone shareholder in RBD with a shareholding of between 50.01% and 75%.
The final percentage owned by Global Valar will be a function of the level of acceptances from all
shareholders. The liquidity of RBD shares will be reduced, and the free float will be reduced. The closer
the Global Valar shareholding approaches the 75% limit, the more the liquidity in RBD shares will
contract;
§ At a shareholding of between 50.01% and 75% Global Valar would have effective but not absolute
control of RBD. Global Valar would be able to control the Board and therefore key decisions affecting
the business such as strategy, dividend policy, appointment of Directors, acquisitions and divestments
and capital programmes. W ith a shareholding greater than 50% Global Valar would be able to dictate
the outcome of ordinary resolutions put to shareholders, unless it is disqualified from voting under NZX
Listing Rules. It would not be able to control but would have significant influence over special
resolutions (those resolutions requiring 75% of votes cast in respect of the resolution). Special
resolutions often relate to transformational events such as major transactions or changes to the
constitution. There are protections for minority shareholders in the NZX Listing Rules and the
Companies Act; and
§ RBD must continue to have at least two independent directors on the board of RBD. Global Valar will
be able to determine the identities of those independent directors. At the time of the preparation of
this report, Finaccess Capital have given no information as to whom the independent directors will be.
Global Valar receives acceptances greater than 75%
In these circumstances, assuming the Offer becomes unconditional, Global Valar is not permitted to acquire
more than 75% of the issued shares in RBD under the construct of the Global Valar Offer. In the case of
excess acceptances, Global Valar is required under Rule 12 of the Takeovers Code to take up from each
offeree the lesser of:
§ 75% of a shareholders shares accepted into the Offer; and
§ all of the shares in respect of which the shareholder has accepted into the Offer.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
36
If the number of shares acquired under this mechanism is less than the total percentage sought (75% in this
case), then Global Valar will acquire further shares from accepting shareholders pro rata to the total shares
accepted into the Offer by accepting shareholders.
If the Global Valar Offer is successful at any level over the 75% threshold (recognising that it is highly unlikely
that acceptances representing exactly 75% will be received), RBD shareholders who accept the Global Valar
Offer for their entire shareholding will not be able to sell all of the accepted shares into the Global Valar Offer
as excess acceptances will be scaled back. The table below shows examples of various levels of total
acceptances to the Global Valar Offer, and the implications for accepting shareholders:
NUMBER AND % OF SHARES ACCEPTED INTO THE GLOBAL VALAR OFFER THAT WOULD BE ACQUIRED BY GLOBAL
VALAR
The table above shows that if acceptances in respect of greater than 75% of RBD’s shares then a shareholder
who accepts shares into the Global Valar Offer will only have certainty that 75% of their shares would be
acquired under the Global Valar Offer. The level of scaling increases as the overall acceptance level increases
e.g. if all RBD shareholders accept the Global Valar Offer for all of their shares, Global Valar will only acquire
75% of each shareholder’s shares.
All shareholders are treated equally in a partial offer regardless of their shareholding. Accordingly, there is
no certainty at this stage what proportion of shares an accepting shareholder will be able to sell if the Global
Valar Offer is successful. In that circumstance accepting shareholders would end up with small and
potentially uneconomic parcels of shares. This is a less appealing feature of partial offers generally.
Under a partial offer the actual premium over the closing price before the Offer was announced is less as not
all shares will be accepted into the Offer. Assuming 75% of shares are accepted into the Offer and the share
price after the Offer closes reverts to the 1 month VWAP (calculated prior to the offer being announced), the
wei ghted average share price is $9.01 wh ich is a premium of only 18.6% over the $7.60 pre -Offer closing
share price.
If the 75% acceptance threshold is met in the last 5 working days of the Offer period, the Offer period is
automatically increased by 10 working days .
% OF SHARES THAT ARE
TENDERED INTO THE OFFER
% OF SHARES TENDERED
INTO THE OFFER THAT WILL
BE ACQUIRED BY GLOBAL
VALAR POST SCALING
EXAMPLE:
NUMBER OF SHARES THAT
WILL BE ACQUIRED BY
GLOBAL VALAR UNDER THE
OFFER, ASSUMING A
SHAREHOLDER HAS AND
TENDERS 1,000 RBD SHARES
EXAMPLE:
NUMBER OF SHARES
OWNED AFTER THE GLOBAL
VALAR OFFER HAS CLOSED,
ASSUMING A SHAREHOLDER
HAS AND TENDERS 1,000
SHARES
50.01% 100.00% 1,000 -
55.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
60.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
65.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
70.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
75.00% 100.00% 1,000 -
80.00% 93.75% 938 62
85.00% 88.24% 882 118
90.00% 83.33% 833 167
95.00% 78.95% 789 211
100.00% 75.00% 750 250
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
37
As the Global Valar Offer is a partial offer there is no certainty what proportion of each accepting
shareholder’s shares in RBD will be bought if the Global Valar Offer is successful. All that is certain is that
if the Offer becomes unconditional, shareholders will be able to sell at least 75% of the shares they
currently own if they accept all their shares into the Global Valar Offer and the Global Valar Offer is
accepted by shareholders at 50.01% or greater of the issued shares in RBD. Given that excess acceptances
will be scaled down it is almost certain that if the Global Valar Offer achieves acceptances greater than
75%, accepting shareholders who accept for more than 75% of their holdings will not be able to sell all
their shares into the Global Valar Offer. This lack of certainty is problematic for communications with
shareholders but is in line with the rules of the Takeovers Code.
7.4 Implications for RBD Shareholders if the Global Valar Offer is Successful
If the Global Valar Offer is successful at any level of shareholding between approximately 50.01% and 75%,
then RBD will remain a listed company with Global Valar owning a cornerstone shareholding and with
effective control over RBD. In these circumstances:
§ under the creep provisions of the Takeovers Code, Global Valar will be able to acquire up to a further 5%
per annum of the outstanding ordinary shares in RBD after one year following completion of the Offer
without making a further partial or full takeover offer for RBD;
§ Global Valar could if it wished, sell down some of its shareholding without the prior approval of RBD
shareholders. Global Valar could not sell its entire shareholding to another party unless either RBD
shareholders approve the transaction in advance or the other party makes a full or partial offer
conditional upon receiving acceptances of more than 50%;
§ the attraction of RBD as a takeover target could be impacted both positively and negatively if the Global
Valar Offer is successful. For any subsequent takeover offer for 100% of the company from another
party to be successful, it would require Global Valar to sell its current, or any increased shareholding, in
RBD to the new offeror; and
§ existing RBD shareholders are highly likely to retain a shareholding in RBD as a consequence of the
partial offer structure.
7.5 Other Merits of the Global Valar Offer
In assessing the other merits of the Global Valar Offer Grant Samuel considered the following factors:
§ Approximately 40.4% of the issued shares in RBD are owned by the top 10 shareholders. Interests
associated with Stephen Copulos have entered into a lock-in deed with Global Valar for their 8.52%
shareholding which requires them to accept the offer. Mr Copulos is a director of RBD. The decisions
of the other top shareholders on whether or not to accept the Global Valar offer could be instrumental
in determining whether Global Valar achieve the 50.01% minimum acceptance level ;
§ the Global Valar Offer is subject to a number of conditions, which may be waived at Global Valar’s
discretion. These discretionary conditions principally relate to material changes to the RBD business
and capital structure but also include the following specific condition:
%oa% a%ar otaining a%% neessar1 onsents re*uire uner the verseas Investment At 2005
an the verseas Investment egu%ations 2005 or %oa% a%ar to om)%ete the a*uisition o
the shares in aorane 0ith the er3 on terms that are usua% or the granting o suh onsents.
When and if all consents will be obtained is uncertain. The last date for the consents to be received is
20 working days after the Offer closes, unless otherwise agreed by RBD and Global Valar. If all the
necessary regulatory consents are not obtained either by the last date having passed or the relevant
regulator refusing to provide consent, the Offer will lapse and Global Valar will not acquire any shares
in RBD;
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
38
§ whether the Global Valar Offer is successful or not, the RBD share price will in all likelihood, fall below
the Offer price shortly after the Offer closes, reflecting both the success or not of the Offer itself and
the partial offer structure where not all shares held by shareholders are able to be sold into the Offer;
§ The Offer price of $ 9.45 implies a 24.3% premium to the share price on the day before the offer was
announced. As the offer is for only 75% of the shares on issue and assuming that all shareholders accept,
such that each shareholder will be left with 25% of their existing shareholding the actual premium is
less than 24.3% depending on the post offer share price:
IMPLIED PREMIA AT DIFFERENT POST OFFER SHARE PRICES
Post Offer Share Price $7.25 $7.50 $7.75
Implied Premium 17.1% 17.9% 18.8%
§ RBD has agreed to pay Global Valar a reimbursement sum of NZ$7 million (plus GST, if any), if:
• any director of RBD fails to recommend the Offer, makes adverse comments in relation to the Offer
or (other than Stephen Copulous) fails to accept the Offer, other than as a result of:
- Grant Samuel’s independent adviser report concluding that the consideration under the Offer
does not fall within or above its valuation range for the shares;
- a failure of any of the conditions in relation to Overseas Investment Office consent or Yum!
consent; or
- Global Valar breaching the pre-bid agreement.
• a competing transaction is announced prior to the closing of the Offer and is successfully
implemented within 12 months of that announcement;
• RBD, with the intention of undermining or frustrating the Offer, solicits or encourages a person to
acquire 10% or more of the shares and that person does not accept the Offer;
• the pre-bid agreement is terminated after Global Valar fails to match a superior proposal; or
• any of the Couplos interests fail to accept the Offer in accordance with the lock-in deed.
Global Valar is liable to pay a reverse break fee of NZ$7 million (plus GST, if any) to RBD if Global Valar
breaches its obligations to make payment to shareholders who accept the Offer.
§
it is not uncommon for takeover transactions to include a sharing of the “synergy” benefits from an
acquisition between the buyer and the seller. As Global Valar is a financial buyer there are no obvious
operating synergies that should eventuate if the Offer is implemented;
§ RBD shareholders who choose not to vote in favour the Offer may be expecting that Global Valar or
another bidder may make another offer at a higher price. There is no certainty regarding the ongoing
performance of RBD or that a subsequent offer from Global Valar will be forthcoming if the Offer is
rejected by RBD shareholders; and
§ the risks and benefits associated with an investment in RBD are outlined in Section 7.6 below. For those
shareholders wishing to have an equity investment in the fast food restaurant sector there are other
comparable public-market investment opportunities internationally.
7.6 Risks and Benefits of an investment in RBD
If the Offer does not meet the minimum 50.01% threshold RBD will remain as a listed company with no shares
acquired by Global Valar as a consequence of the Offer. If the Offer does meet the minimum 50.01% and the
conditions of the Offer are satisfied the Offer will be completed. In that circumstance shareholders in RBD
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
39
are highly likely to retain a shareholding in RBD, albeit owning smaller shareholdings. The outlook for RBD
with or without Global Valar as a cornerstone shareholder is therefore very relevant to RBD shareholders in
deciding whether to support or reject the Offer. Grant Samuel makes the following observations in respect
of RBD:
§ RBD shareholders will continue to hold their shares and have exposure to the fast food sector and to a
company with a strong record of growth and with identified options to continue to expand in New
Zealand, Australia and the US;
§ the exposure brought by the Global Valar offer may attract new potential buyers. RBD is very heavily
exposed to Yum! through the Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco Bell franchises. Following the disposal of Starbucks
only the Carl’s Jr. franchise will not be under an agreement from Yum!. A bidder for RBD would have to
be confident that Yum! will give its approval to a new controlling shareholder. Finaccess Capital through
its AmRest subsidiary is a Pizza Hut and KFC franchisee in Europe;
§ the fast food market is highly competitive, particularly in pizza, which is primarily a take home/delivery
business and burgers. In New Zealand and to a lesser extent in Australia and the US, KFC has a strong
market position and accordingly enjoys better margins than Pizza Hut;
§ the strength of the KFC brand will underpin the earnings and growth of RBD in the foreseeable future;
§ RBD has identified possible acquisition opportunities in Australia and the US, which if successful would
underpin the strong growth in earnings experienced over the last two years; and
§ RBD has the opportunity to build KFC stores in Hawaii and is in discussion with Yum! about Taco Bell
stores in New Zealand and Australia
A consideration for RBD shareholders is whether, in time, an investment in RBD will yield a higher value
outcome than the Offer. The implied multiple of FY19 EBITDA of 13.1 times is relatively high when compared
with historic transactions of international fast food franchisees. As with any equity investment there are
risks associated with the market in which the company operates. The risks associated with an investment in
RBD include:
§
the fast food market is highly competitive and will remain so. Pizza Hut in New Zealand in particular
has suffered from margin pressure, in part from the larger Domino’s chain;
§
stock markets remain high despite some recent weakness in New Zealand and around the world. Whilst
no immediate corrections are likely, the gradual tightening of the US Federal Reserve Bank in the US
will inevitably lead to pressure on share prices. The Global Valar Offer is at a 24.3% premium to the
price of the RBD shares before the announcement of the indicative proposal to make the Offer;
§
RBD’s relationship with Yum! is a strength as its brands are strong and well supported. Against that,
Yum! as a franchisor is in a strong position to ensure that the franchise agreements are in its best
interest and do not overly enrich the franchisees. It also has significant influence as to who can become
a controlling shareholder of RBD; and
§
RBD has experienced strong growth through its acquisition strategy. On a go forward basis, there is a
risk that the number and quality of future acquisitions varies from RBD’s experience over recent years.
7.7 Other Factors
In Sections 2.2 of this report there is a short list of the operational and governance undertakings given to
both RBD and to Yum!. If the Global Valar Offer is successful, Global Valar will hold between 50.01% and
75.0% of RBD, and in doing so will have a large measure of control. The operational and governance
undertakings provided by Global Valar give remaining minority shareholders, when combined with the NZX
listing rules and the Companies Act, some comfort that Global Valar will continue to operate RBD in a similar
manner as currently.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
40
RBD is likely to be a less attractive investment proposition to institutional investors due to the much lower
levels of liquidity and a much diminished ability to influence the board of RBD which may be dominated by
Global Valar representatives.
If the Offer is successful, all of the RBD’s Australian carried forward revenue losses will be forfeited and it is
likely that all of, or the majority of, the RBD’s Australian carried forward capital losses will be forfeited. This
will mean those losses will not be available to set-off against future income or capital gains.
7.8 Likelihood of alternative offers
The prospect of an acquisition by Global Valar was announced on 18 October 2018. As noted earlier, the
Global Valar Offer may encourage other bidders to come forward if the Offer does not proceed for whatever
reason. To date, no alternative takeover offers or proposals have been forthcoming.
7.9 Acceptance or rejection of the Global Valar Offer
Deciding whether or not to accept the Offer is a matter for individual shareholders based on their own view
as to value and future market conditions, risk profile, liquidity preference, portfolio strategy, tax position and
other factors. In particular, taxation consequences will vary widely across shareholders. Shareholders will
need to consider these consequences and, if appropriate, consult their own professional adviser(s).
GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
30 NOVEMBER 2018
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
41
APPENDIX A - QUALIFICATIONS, DECLARATIONS AND CONSENTS
1. Qualifications
The Grant Samuel group of companies provides corporate advisory services in relation to mergers and
acquisitions, capital raisings, corporate restructuring and financial matters generally. One of the primary
activities of Grant Samuel is the preparation of corporate and business valuations and the provision of
independent advice and expert’s reports in connection with mergers and acquisitions, takeovers and capital
reconstructions. Since inception in 1988, Grant Samuel and its related companies have prepared more than
400 public expert and appraisal reports.
The persons responsible for preparing this report on behalf of Grant Samuel are Michael Lorimer, BCA, Simon
Cotter, BCom, MAppFin, F Fin, Christopher Smith, BCom, PGDipFin, MAppFin, and Jake Sheehan, BCom
(Hons). Each has a significant number of years of experience in relevant corporate advisory matters.
2. Limitations and Reliance on Information
Grant Samuel’s opinion is based on economic, market and other conditions prevailing at the date of this
report. Such conditions can change significantly over relatively short periods of time. The report is based
upon financial and other information provided by the directors, management and advisers of RBD. Grant
Samuel has considered and relied upon this information. Grant Samuel believes that the information
provided was reliable, complete and not misleading and has no reason to believe that any material facts have
been withheld.
The information provided has been evaluated through analysis, enquiry, and review for the purposes of
forming an opinion as to the underlying value of RBD. However in such assignments time is limited and Grant
Samuel does not warrant that these inquiries have identified or verified all of the matters which an audit,
extensive examination or “due diligence” investigation might disclose.
The time constraints imposed by the Offer are tight. This timeframe restricts the ability to undertake a
detailed investigation of RBD. In any event, an analysis of the merits of the Offer is in the nature of an overall
opinion rather than an audit or detailed investigation. Grant Samuel has not undertaken a due diligence
investigation of RBD. In addition, preparation of this report does not imply that Grant Samuel has audited in
any way the management accounts or other records of RBD. It is understood that, where appropriate, the
accounting information provided to Grant Samuel was prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting practice and in a manner consistent with methods of accounting used in previous years.
An important part of the information base used in forming an opinion of the kind expressed in this report is
the opinions and judgement of the management of the relevant enterprise. That information was also
evaluated through analysis, enquiry and review to the extent practicable. However, it must be recognised
that such information is not always capable of external verification or validation.
The information provided to Grant Samuel included projections of future revenues, expenditures, profits and
cash flows of RBD prepared by the management of RBD. Grant Samuel has used these projections for the
purpose of its analysis. Grant Samuel has assumed that these projections were prepared accurately, fairly
and honestly based on information available to management at the time and within the practical constraints
and limitations of such projections. It is assumed that the projections do not reflect any material bias, either
positive or negative. Grant Samuel has no reason to believe otherwise.
However, Grant Samuel in no way guarantees or otherwise warrants the achievability of the projections of
future profits and cash flows for RBD. Projections are inherently uncertain. Projections are predictions of
future events that cannot be assured and are necessarily based on assumptions, many of which are beyond
the control of management. The actual future results may be significantly more or less favourable.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
42
To the extent that there are legal issues relating to assets, properties, or business interests or issues relating
to compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, Grant Samuel assumes no responsibility and
offers no legal opinion or interpretation on any issue. In forming its opinion, Grant Samuel has assumed,
except as specifically advised to it, that:
§ the title to all such assets, properties, or business interests purportedly owned by RBD is good and
marketable in all material respects, and there are no material adverse interests, encumbrances,
engineering, environmental, zoning, planning or related issues associated with these interests, and that
the subject assets, properties, or business interests are free and clear of any and all material liens,
encumbrances or encroachments;
§ there is compliance in all material respects with all applicable national and local regulations and laws,
as well as the policies of all applicable regulators other than as publicly disclosed, and that all required
licences, rights, consents, or legislative or administrative authorities from any government, private
entity, regulatory agency or organisation have been or can be obtained or renewed for the operation
of the business of RBD, other than as publicly disclosed;
§ various contracts in place and their respective contractual terms will continue and will not be materially
and adversely influenced by potential changes in control; and
§ there are no material legal proceedings regarding the business, assets or affairs of RBD, other than as
publicly disclosed.
3. Disclaimers
It is not intended that this report should be used or relied upon for any purpose other than as an expression
of Grant Samuel’s opinion as to the merits of the Offer. Grant Samuel expressly disclaims any liability to any
RBD security holder who relies or purports to rely on the report for any other purpose and to any other party
who relies or purports to rely on the report for any purpose whatsoever.
This report has been prepared by Grant Samuel with care and diligence and the statements and opinions
given by Grant Samuel in this report are given in good faith and in the belief on reasonable grounds that such
statements and opinions are correct and not misleading. However, no responsibility is accepted by Grant
Samuel or any of its officers or employees to the extent allowed by law for errors or omissions however
arising in the preparation of this report, provided that this shall not absolve Grant Samuel from liability arising
from an opinion expressed recklessly or in bad faith.
Grant Samuel has had no involvement in the preparation of the Target Company Statement issued by RBD
and has not verified or approved any of the contents of the Target Company Statement. Grant Samuel does
not accept any responsibility for the contents of the Target Company Statement (except for this report).
4. Independence
Grant Samuel and its related entities do not have any shareholding in or other relationship or conflict of
interest with RBD or Global Valar that could affect its ability to provide an unbiased opinion in relation to the
Offer. Grant Samuel had no part in the formulation of the Offer. Its only role has been the preparation of
this report. Grant Samuel will receive a fixed fee for the preparation of this report. This fee is not contingent
on the outcome of the Offer. Grant Samuel will receive no other benefit for the preparation of this report.
Grant Samuel considers itself to be independent for the purposes of the Takeovers Code.
5. Information
Grant Samuel has obtained all the information that it believes is desirable for the purposes of preparing this
report, including all relevant information which is or should have been known to any Director of RBD and
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
43
made available to the Directors. Grant Samuel confirms that in its opinion the information provided by RBD
and contained within this report is sufficient to enable RBD security holders to understand all relevant factors
and make an informed decision in respect of the Offer. The following information was used and relied upon
in preparing this report:
5.1 Publicly Available Information
§ Takeover Notice lodged by Global Valar;
§ RBD’s Annual Reports for the financial years ended February 2015-2018 ;
§ RBD’s Full Year result presentation for the year to 26 February 2018 ;
§ RBD’s Interim Report for the seven periods to 10 September 2018;
§ RBD’s AGM presentation, dated 21 June 2018; and
§ RBD 1H18 Guidance announcement dated 28 September 2017.
5.2 Non Public Information
§ RBD’s monthly management accounts for the nine periods to 5 November 2018;
§ RBD’s Board Papers; and
§ Pre -bid agreement between Global Valar and RBD.
6. Declarations
RBD has agreed that it will indemnify Grant Samuel and its employees and officers in respect of any liability
suffered or incurred as a result of or in connection with the preparation of the report. This indemnity will
not apply in respect of the proportion of any liability found by a Court to be primarily caused by any conduct
involving gross negligence or wilful misconduct by Grant Samuel. RBD has also agreed to indemnify Grant
Samuel and its employees and officers for time spent and reasonable legal costs and expenses incurred in
relation to any inquiry or proceeding initiated by any person. Where Grant Samuel or its employees and
officers are found to have been grossly negligent or engaged in wilful misconduct Grant Samuel shall bear
the proportion of such costs caused by its action. Any claims by RBD are limited to an amount equal to the
fees paid to Grant Samuel.
Advance drafts of this report were provided to the directors and executive management of RBD. Certain
changes were made to the drafting of the report as a result of the circulation of the draft report. There was
no alteration to the methodology, evaluation or conclusions as a result of issuing the drafts.
7. Consents
Grant Samuel consents to the issuing of this report in the form and context in which it is to be included in the
Target Company Statement to be sent to security holders of RBD. Neither the whole nor any part of this
report nor any reference thereto may be included in any other document without the prior written consent
of Grant Samuel as to the form and context in which it appears.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
44
APPENDIX B – RECENT TRANSACTION EVIDENCE
A brief description of each of the transactions listed in Section 6 is outlined below:
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING FRANCHISEES OF INTERNATIONAL FAST FOOD BRANDS
ASIA PACIFIC REGION
28 KFC Stores in Australia / Collins Foods Limited
On 26 June 2017, Collins Foods Limited (CFL) announced that it had agreed to acquire 28 KFC restaurants in
Australia from Yum! for a purchase price of A$110.2 million. 14 of the restaurants were located in Tasmania,
8 in South Australia and 6 in Western Australia. For the year ended 20 February 2017 the acquisition portfolio
generated revenue of A$93.7 million and EBITDA of A$15.7 million. The purchase price implied multiples of
7.0 times EBITDA (after G&A expenses) and 6.5 times (before G&A expenses). It was reported that
depreciation was approximately 5% of sales. Applying this percentage implies the acquisition portfolio
generated EBIT of approximately A$11.0 million. The implied EBIT multiple has been estimated by Grant
Samuel at approximately 10.2 times. All of the stores acquired had been upgraded in line with Yum!’s latest
remodelling cycles. The acquisition increased CFL’s Australian KFC stores from 195 to 223 and provided it
with a presence in the South Australian and Tasmania geographies. The implied multiples of this transaction
were in line with similar transactions in Australia.
13 KFC Stores in Australia / Collins Foods Limited
On 19 May 2016, CFL announced that it had agreed to acquire 13 KFC restaurants located around the New
South Wales and Victorian border from the Wright Group for A$25.46 million (plus acquisition costs). The
acquisition on a trailing basis was delivering A$4.3 million in EBITDA (before synergies). The purchase price
implies a multiple of 5.9 times historical EBITDA. The acquisition increased CFL’s KFC restaurants to 178 to
191. The implied multiple is in line with similar transactions in Australia.
42 KFC Stores in Australia / Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited
On 3 March 2016, RBD announced that it had agreed to acquire QSR Pty Limited (QSR), the largest KFC
franchisee in New South Wales with 42 stores for an enterprise value of A$82.4 million. QSR was generating
in excess of A$100 million in revenue p.a. and over A$15 million p.a. in EBITDA. The purchase price implied
a multiple of approximately 5.5 times EBITDA. The acquisition represented RBD’s first step into the
Australian market. The implied multiple is in line with similar transactions in Australia.
Burger King South Korea / Affinity Equity Partners
On 19 February 2016, Hong Kong based private equity firm Affinity Equity Partners disclosed that it had
agreed to acquire Burger King Korea Ltd from another private equity firm VIG Partners for KRW 210 billion
(equivalent to approximately US$171 million). For the 2015 year, Burger King Korea generated EBITDA of
KRW 18.4 billion (US$15.0 million). The purchase price implied a multiple of 11.4 times historical EBITDA. At
the end of 2015, Burger King Korea had approximately 236 stores.
SRS Korea Co., Ltd. / CVC Capital Partners Limited
On 7 May 2014, private equity firm CVC Capital Partners signed an agreement to acquire SRS KOREA Co. Ltd
(SRS) from DIP Holdings Co., Ltd for KRW 100 billion (equivalent to approximately US$98 million). SRS
operates KFC restaurants in South Korea. SRS’s historical EBITDA was approximately US$18 million and
historical EBIT was approximately US$11 million. The purchase price implies multiples of 5.4 times historical
EBITDA and 8.9 times historical EBIT. CVC Capital Partners has been an active investor in fast food restaurant
chains in Asia including the KFC and Pizza Hut chains in Malaysia.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
45
44 KFC Stores in Australia / Collins Foods Limited
On 28 November 2013, CFL announced that it had agreed to acquire Competitive Foods Pty Ltd (Competitive
Foods), a franchisee of 44 KFC restaurants in Australia (consisting 40 in Western Australia and 4 in the
Northern Territory), for A$55.6 million. CFL expected Competitive Foods to generate A$110 million in
revenue and between A$10.0 to $10.3 million of EBITDA in its 2014 financial year (before synergies). CFL
stated that it would invest A$25m in capital expenditure to upgrade the stores to the latest store formats
over a four-year period. The purchase price implied a multiple of 5.5 times forecast EBITDA (before synergies).
The slightly lower EBITDA multiple paid for Competitive Foods versus other transactions undertaken by CFL
is likely attributable to the restaurants requiring significant remodelling capital expenditure. The acquisition
consolidated CFL’s position as the largest KFC franchisee in Australia, increasing its number of KFC restaurants
from 125 to 169. The acquisition also provided an entry into the Northern Territory.
75% of Domino’s Pizza Japan / Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited
On 13 August 2013, Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (DPE) announced that it had agreed to acquire a 75%
interest in Domino’s Pizza Japan (DPJ) from Bain Capital for ¥12.0 billion and provide ¥9.0 billion of new debt
funding, implying an enterprise value of ¥25.0 billion (equivalent to approximately A$282 million). DPJ is the
Domino’s Pizza Master Franchisee for Japan and as at 30 June 2013 was the third largest pizza delivery chain
in Japan with 259 stores. The acquisition of DPJ provided DPE with a substantial store growth platform with
a long-term target of 600 stores in Japan. DPJ generated pro-forma revenue of approximately A$252 million
and pro-forma EBITDA of approximately A$28 million for the financial year to 31 March 2013. The purchase
price implied a multiple of 10.4 times historical EBITDA.
PT Fast Food Indonesia / Dyviacom
On 24 April 2013, PT Dyviacom Intrabumi Tbk (Dyviacom) agreed to acquire a 35.84% stake in PT Fast Food
Indonesia Tbk (KFC Indonesia) for IDR 2 trillion (equivalent to approximately US$188 million). At the time of
this transaction KFC Indonesia had approximately 450 stores. The t ransaction price implied multiples of 15.3
times forecast EBITDA and 25.8 times forecast EBIT. As at 31 December 2017 its store network had grown to
628. KFC Indonesia remains listed on the Indonesian stock exchange and is currently trading at multiples of
6.5 times forecast EBITDA and 17.6 times forecast EBIT. The relatively high implied multiples of the 2013
transaction may be explained by the strong historical growth achieved by KFC Indonesia. Since 2013, growth
has slowed down, potentially explaining why the current trading multiples are lower.
SRS Korea Co., Ltd. / DIP Holdings Co., Ltd.
On 14 September 2014 DIP Holdings Co., Ltd (DIP) agreed to acquire the remaining 49.1% stake in SRS Korea
Co., Ltd. (SRS) for KRW 81 billion (equivalent to approximately US$137 million). SRS operates KFC stores in
South Korea. The purchase price implied multiples of 5.3 times historical EBITDA and 7.7 times historical
EBIT.
Crust Gourmet Pizza Bars / Retail Food Group Limited
On 23 August 2012, Retail Food Group Limited (RFG) announced that it had agreed to acquire Crust Gourmet
Pizza Bars (Crust). Established in Sydney in 2001, Crust had 119 outlets at the time of the acquisition
(predominantly in the states of New South Wales and Victoria ). The transaction followed RFG’s acquisition
of Pizza Capers Gourmet Kitchen brand in April 2012 which has 118 outlets (primarily in Queensland). The
purchase price for Crust was equivalent to 7.0 times adjusted FY13 EBIT.
Pizza Capers Pty Limited / Retail Food Group Limited
On 28 February 2012, RFG announced that it had agreed to acquire the gourmet pizza chain Pizza Capers Pty
Ltd (Pizza Capers) for A$30 million. Established in 1996, Pizza Capers had 110 outlets at the time of the
acquisition (predominantly in the state of Queensland). The purchase price was based on a multiple of 7.0
times forecast FY13 EBIT.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
46
KFC Malaysia / CVC Capital
On 14 December 2011, Johor Corporation and CVC Capital Partners offered to acquire KFC Holdings Malaysia
Bhd (KFC Malaysia) for MYR 3.2 billion (approximately US$1.0 billion). KFC Malaysia operates KFC restaurants
in Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and India. At the time of the acquisition it owned 644 KFC stores plus 102
stores under the Keai A1amas and asaas brands. Keai A1amas is a chain of restaurants that offer
chicken roasters and light chicken based snacks. asaas is a chain of restaurants that offer Asian cuisines.
The purchase price implied multiples of 9.6 times historical EBITDA and 13.8 times historical EBIT.
QSR Brands Malaysia / CVC Capital
In conjunction with the acquisition of KFC Malaysia, Johor Corporation and CVC Capital Partners acquired
QSR Brands Bhd (QSR Brands) for MYR 1.96 billion (approximately US$620 million). QSR Brands owns and
operates i22a ut stores, primarily in Malaysia. The purchase price implied multiples of 7.0 times historical
EBITDA and 10.3 times historical EBIT.
Burger King NZ / The Blackstone Group
On 17 October 2011, The Blackstone Group (Blackstone) announced that its private equity funds had agreed
to acquire Antares Restaurant Group (Antares) in New Zealand from Anchorage Capital Partners. Antares
has the exclusive franchise development rights for the Burger King brand in New Zealand with 75 restaurants
at the time of the acquisition. For the year ended 31 December 2012 (the first full year post acquisition),
Burger King NZ generated EBITDA of NZ$19.6 million and EBIT of NZ$13.5 million on total revenue of
NZ$174.9 million. It was disclosed in the financial statements that the purchase price was NZ $104.4 million.
At the time of the acquisition, Antares had net debt of NZ $50.7 million which was assumed by the purchaser.
The purchase price implies multiples of 7.9 times 2012 EBITDA and 11.5 times 2012 EBIT.
UK & EUROPE:
Nordic Service Partners Holding AB / LGT Capital Partners
On 29 February 2016, an investor group made a tender offer to acquire the 70.85% stake they did not already
own in Nordic Service Partners Holdings AB (NSP) for approximately SEK 180 million (equivalent to ̃US$55
million). NSP operates restaurants under the Burger King3 TI Fria1s, and KFC brands in Sweden and
Denmark. The purchase price implied multiples of 6.0 times forecast EBITDA and 16.7 times forecast EBIT
(based on the average broker estimate).
Joey’s Pizza / Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited
On 16 December 2015, DPE announced the acquisition of oe17s i22a, the largest pizza delivery chain in
Germany, for €79 million (including earnout payments). oe17s i22a was founded in 1988 and had 212 stores
at the time of the acquisition, comprising 209 franchise stores and 3 corporate owned stores. Joey’s Pizza
generated network sales of €135 million and pro-forma underlying EBITDA of €6.0 million. Forecast network
sales and pro forma underlying EBITDA for the 2015 financial year were €143 million and €7.0 million
respectively. The purchase price implied multiples of 11.3 times forecast pro forma EBITDA. The stores were
subsequently rebranded to Domino7s i22a. The relatively high purchase price multiple reflected the
complementary nature of the store network to DPE’s existing operations in Germany.
Pizza Sprint / Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited
On 14 October 2015, DPE announced the acquisition of i22a )rint, an independent pizza chain operating in
western France with 89 stores (77 franchised and 12 corporate owned) for initial consideration of €31.5
million plus a further €3.5 million in cash payable in instalments over 18 months based on the satisfaction of
certain criteria. i22a )rint generated normalised EBITDA of approximately €3.5 million in its 2015 financial
year. The acquisition was highly complementary to DPE’s store network in France and increased its store
count from 254 to 330. The purchase price implied a multiple of 10 times historical normalised EBITDA. The
stores were subsequently rebranded to Domino7s i22a.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
47
AmRest Holdings SE / Finaccess Mexico
On 24 July 2015, Finaccess Mexico, SA de CV (Finaccess) signed an agreement to acquire a 31.71% stake in
AmRest Holdings SE (AmRest) from private equity firm Warburg Pincus for approximately £190 million.
AmRest operates and manages quick service restaurants, primarily in Eastern Europe. As at 31 December
2015, AmRest operated 904 stores comprising 464 KFC stores, 77 Pizza Hut stores, 100 Starbucks stores, 41
Burger King stores, 193 La Tagliatella (Tag) stores, 25 Blue Frog stores and 4 KABB stores. Tag specialises in
Italian cuisines (i.e. pastas and pizzas).
The purchase price implied an enterprise value of approximately £770 million and multiples of 11.5 times
historical EBITDA and 10.3 times forecast EBITDA.
On 12 July 2016, Finaccess agreed to acquire an additional 34.3% stake in AmRest for PLN1.55 billion
(approximately £143 million). The purchase price implied an enterprise value of approximately £1.25 billion
and multiples of 13.5 times historical EBITDA and 12.0 times forecast EBITDA.
Food Service Project, S.L. / Alsea, S.A.B. De C.V.
On 1 August 2014, listed fast food operator Alsea, S.A.B. De C.V. (Alsea) and private equity fund Allia Capital
Partners (Allia) agreed to acquire Food Services Project, S.L. (Grupo Zena) for an enterprise value of €260
million. Alsea acquired a 71.8% stake and Allia acquired the remaining 28.2% stake. In the 12 months to
June 2014 Grupo Zena’s sales were €264 million and its EBITDA was €32 million. At the date of the acquisition
Grupo Zena operated 427 restaurants in Spain under the Domino’s Pizza (127 stores), Burger King (60 stores)
and four of its own brands (240 stores). The purchase price implied a multiple of 8.1 times historical EBITDA
and 10.1 times historical EBIT.
Restauravia Grupo Empresarial S.L. / AmRest Holdings SE
On 11 February 2011, AmRest Holdings SE and the management of Restauravia Grupo Empresarial S.L.
(Restauravia) agreed to acquire Restauravia for approximately €198 million. At the time of the acquisition
Restauravia operated 100 restaurants under its own casual dining brands including the Italian concept
Tagliatella (Tag) and 30 KFC stores in Spain. The company generated revenue of €99 million and normalised
EBITDA of €23.9 million. The purchase price implied a multiple of 7.4 times historical EBITDA. At the time
of the acquisition KFC was underpenetrated in Spain compared to other international fast food brands such
as McDonald’s and Burger King.
THE AMERICAS:
Pacific Island Restaurants Inc. / Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited
On 26 October 2016, RBD announced that it had agreed to acquire Pacific Island Restaurants, Inc. (PIR), the
franchisee of 37 Taco Bell and 45 Pizza Hut stores in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan, for US$105 million (equivalent
to approximately NZ$150 million). The purchase price implied a multiple of 7.6 times EBITDA for the 12
months to September 2016. The acquisition provided RBD with an entry into the Hawaiian market and an
opportunity to execute an investment programme to progressively refresh PIR’s stores to improve
profitability. At the time of the acquisition Taco Bell had a 91% share of the Hawaii QSR Mexican food market
and Pizza Hut had a 43% share of the QSR pizza market. During 2015, PIR generated total sales of US$121
million, store level EBITDA of US$18.3 million and consolidated EBITDA of US$13.0 million.
Bra zil Fast Food Corp / Controlling Shareholders
On 14 January 2015, the controlling shareholders made a bid to acquire the remaining 25% stake in Brazil
Fast Food Corp. (Brazil Fast Food) for US$36.8 million. Brazil Fast Food operates quick service restaurants in
Brazil. At the date of the acquisition it was the second largest chain in Brazil with 1,257 points of sale
operating under the Bob’s, Yoggi, Doggis, KFC and Pizza Hut brand names. The purchase price implied
multiples of 8.1 times historical EBITDA and 10.1 times historical EBIT.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
48
Morgan’s Foods Inc. / Apex Restaurant Management, Inc.
n 31 March 2014, Apex Restaurant Management, Inc. signed an agreement to acquire Morgan’s oods Inc.
for US$20.3 million. At the date of the acquisition Morgan’s oods operated 73 stores under the KFC, Taco
Bell and Pizza Hut brands in the states of Illinois, Missouri, hio, Pennsylvania, est irginia and ew York.
The purchase price implied multiples of 7.7 times historical BITDA and 14.4 times historical BIT.
NPC Restaurant Holdings, LLC / Olympus Growth Fund
n 7 ovember 2011, private equity fund lympus Growth und and the management of PC International,
Inc. entered into an agreement to acquire PC Restaurant Holdings,
C (NPC) for US$755 million. At the
date of the transaction, PC was the largest franchisee of any restaurant concept in the US with 1,153 Pizza
Hut stores across 28 states. The purchase price implied multiples of 7.5 times historical BITDA and 13.7
times historical BIT.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
49
APPENDIX C – COMPARABLE LISTED COMPANIES
SUMMARY
A summary of the comparable listed companies is outlined below:
SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES
COMPANY NAME STORES BY BRAND (%)
PRIMARY INTERNATIONAL
BRAND(S)
PRIMARY GEOGRAPHIES
(% OF STORES)
TOTAL
STORES
16
Asia Pacific
Collins Foods Limited
KFC (95%)
Sizzler (5%)
Australia (82%)
Europe (13%)
Asia (5%)
277
Domino’s Pizza
Enterprises Limited
Domino’s (100%)
Europe (44%)
Australia and New
Zealand (34%)
Japan (22%)
2,393
PT Sarimelati Kencana
Tbk
Pizza Hut (100%) Indonesia (100%) 397
PT Fast Food
Indonesia Tbk
KFC (100%) Indonesia (100%) 628
PT Map Boga
Adiperkasa Tbk
Starbucks (84%)
Other brands (16%)
Indonesia (100%) 384
KFC Holdings Japan
Limited
KFC (100%) Japan (100%) 1,155
Yum! China Holdings
Inc.
KFC (69%)
Pizza Hut (27%)
Other brands (4%)
China (100%) 7,980
Berjaya Food Berhad
Starbucks (70 %)
Kenny Rogers (22%)
Jollibean (8%)
Malaysia (100%) 372
UK & Europe
AmRest Holdings SE
KFC (40%)
Pizza Hut (23%)
Starbucks (18%)
Other brands (20%)
Poland (28%)
Spain (15%)
Germany (14%)
Russia (11%)
France (10%)
Czech Republic (8%)
Other (9%)
Hungary (5%)
1,802
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16
Store numbers are based on most recent disclosures by companies in their Annual Reports or presentations, or corporate websites.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
50
DP Eurasia N.V Domino’s (100%)
Turkey (79%)
Russia (21%)
672
Domino’s Pizza Group
PLC
Domino’s (100%) UK (88%)
Europe (12%)
1,236
Ibersol
Pans & Roulette (28%)
Burger King (17%)
Pizza Hut (15%)
KFC (5%)
Other brands (35%)
Portugal (49%)
Spain (48%)
Italy & Angola (3%)
646
Sphera Franchise
Group S.A
KFC (63%)
Pizza Hut (34%)
Other brands (3%)
Romania (100%) 114
The Americas
Alsea, S.A.B. De C.V.
Domino’s (30%)
Burger King (19%)
Starbucks (28%)
Other (24%)
Mexico (68%)
Spain (16%)
Argentina (7%)
Colombia (4%)
Chile (4%)
Other (1%)
3,5 88
Prestige Holdings
Limited
KFC (47%)
Subway (38%)
Other brands (15%)
Trinidad and Tobago &
Jamaica (100%)
122
BK Brasil Operacao e
Assessoria a
Restaurantes S.A
Burger King (100%) Brazil (100%) 736
Arcos Dorados
Holdings Inc.
McDonalds (100%)
Brazil (42%)
Caribbean (16%)
Other Latin America
(42%)
2,1 95
Meritage Hospitality
Group Inc.
Wendy’s (98%)
Other brands (2%)
USA (100%) 254
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
51
A brief description of each of the companies listed in Section 6 is outlined below:
FAST FOOD FRANCHISEES – ASIA PACIFIC
Collins Foods Limited
Collins Foods Limited (CFL) operates fast food restaurants
under the KFC, Taco Bell and Sizzler brands in Australia,
Europe (The Netherlands I Germany), and Asia. As at 28
une 2018, CFL had 275 stores comprising 227 KFC stores
in Australia, 35 KFC stores in Europe, 14 Sizzler stores in
Australia and Asia and 1 Taco Bell in Brisbane. Of the 225
KFC Restaurants in Australia, 138 are located in
ueensland (61% of total), 47 in Western Australia (21%
of total), and the remaining 42 stores are located in other
Australian states (19% of total).
CFL>s priorities are growing its core KFC business in
Australia and Europe through new builds and ac-uisitions
of existing independent franchisees, and continuing to
test the viability of the Taco Bell brand in Australia.
CFL is trading at multiples of 9.5 times forecast EBITDA
and 14.3 times forecast EBIT.
STORES (AS AT 4 OCTOBER 2018)
Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited
Domino>s Pi66a Enterprises Limited (DPE) operates fast food
restaurants under the Domino’s brand in Australia, New
Zealand, apan and Europe (Belgium, France, The Netherlands
and Germany). As at 01 uly 2018, DPE had 2,393 stores
consisting 1,942 franchised stores (81%) and 451 corporate
owned stores (19 %). 819 stores (36%) were located in
Australia and New Zealand, 1,054 stores are in Europe and
520 stores are in apan.
DPE is trading at very high multiples of historical and forecast
year 1 earnings. This is because substantial investment in the
rollout of new outlets and geographic expansion in Europe
and apan should result in substantial future earnings growth
.
The scope for growth in apan and Europe is substantial. DPE
is the largest franchisee of the Domino’s brand globally. The
Domino’s brand has been outperforming the Pizza Hut brand
internationally in regards to new store openings.
STORES (AS AT 01 JULY 2018)
Europe
1054
44%
Australia and
New Zealand
819
34%
apan
520
22%
FC
Australia
227
82%
FC
Europe
35
13%
Other
15
5%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
52
PT Sarimelati Kencana Tbk
PT Sarimelati Kencana Tbk (Sarimelati Kencana)
operates fast food restaurants under the Pizza Hut brand
in Indonesia. As at 31 December 2017, the company had
397 outlets. Sarimelati Kencana recently listed on the
Indonesian stock exchange (in June 2018). Approximately
60% of its stores are restaurant format and 40% are
delivery format. Pizza Hut has a dominant share of the
quic k service pizza market in Indonesia.
Sa rimelati Kencana is trading at multiples of 6.8 times
forecast EBITDA and 11.5 times forecast EBIT.
STORES (AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2017)
PT Fast Food Indonesia Tbk
PT Fast Food Indonesia Tbk (KFC Indonesia) operates
fast food restaurants under the KFC brand in Indonesia.
As at 31 December 2017, KFC Indonesia operated 628 KFC
restaurants. KFC Indonesia’s EBITDA margin of 6.0% is low
relative to other listed KFC businesses which are achieving
closer to 12%.
Fast Food Indonesia is trading at multiples of 7.8 times
forecast EBITDA and 21.2 times forecast EBIT. This is lower
than its peers on an EBITDA multiple basis but broadly in line
on an EBIT multiple basis.
STORES (AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2017)
Java
377
60%
Sumatera
119
19%
Other
131
21%
Pizza Hut
Delivery
160
40%
Pizza Hut
Restaurant
237
60%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
53
PT Map Boga Adiperkasa
PT Map Boga Adiperkasa (Map Boga) operates 384 fast
food restaurants under the Starbucks, Pizza Marzano,
Krispy Kreme, Cold Stone Cremery and Godiva brands in
Indonesia. 84% of its stores (322) are under the Starbucks
brand.
Map Boga is trading at multiples of 10.9 times historical
EBITDA and 19.9 times historical EBIT. The company is not
followed by any brokers and therefore forecast earnings
are not calculable. Map Boga has achieved consistent
growth in earnings over the past 5 years. The current
trading multiples likely reflect expectations for further
stronger growth in earnings in future periods. The
Starbucks brand has grown strongly in Asian markets.
STORES (AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2017)
KFC Holdings Japan Limited
KFC Holdings Japan Limited (KFC Japan) operates fast food
restaurants under the KFC brand in Japan. There are
currently 1,155
17
stores in Japan.
KFC Japan is trading at a multiple of 12.6 times historical
EBITDA. KFC Japan’s EBITDA margin was just under 4% in
2017, well below its peers in Australia and New Zealand
which are achieving close to ̃12%. KFC Japan’s EBITDA
declined in 2017 as a result of lower store sales. The current
trading multiple likely reflects expe ctation for future
improvement in margins the higher levels. As the company is
not followed by any brokers forecast earnings multiples are
not calculable.
STORES (AS AT 15 NOVEMBER 2018)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17
Source: Yum Brands Inc. website
Starbucks
322
84%
Other
62
16%
KFC
1,155
100%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
54
Yum! China Holdings
Yum! China Holdings (Yum! China) operates
approximately 7,980 fast food restaurants under the KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, East Dawning and Little Sheep brands
in China. Just under 70% of stores are under the KFC
brand and 27% under the Pizza Hut brand. Yum! Chi na
was split off from Yum! in November 2016.
East Dawning is a quick service restaurant brand
specialising in Chinese cuisine. Little Sheep is a hot pot
restaurant.
Yum! China is currently trading at multiples of 9.4 times
forecast EBITDA and 13.5 times forecast EBIT. These
multiples are broadly in line with its peers.
STORES (AS AT 15 NOVEMBER 2018)
Berjaya Food Berhad
Berjaya Food Berhad (Berjaya) operates fast food
restaurants under the Starbucks, Kenny Rogers Roasters
(KRR) and Jollibean brands in Malaysia, Indonesia and
Singapore. Two thirds of stores are under the Starbucks
brand.
Ber yjaya is currently trading at multiples of 7.6 times
forecast EBITDA and 12.5 times forecast EBIT. The
current trading multiples reflect broker expectations for
strong growth due to substantial capital investment in the
store network.
STORES (AS AT 30 APRIL 2018)
KFC
5,488
69%
Pizza Hut
2,195
27%
Other
300
4%
Jollibean
31
8%
KRR
81
22%
Starbucks
260
70%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
55
FAST FOOD FRANCHISEES – UK & EUROPE
AmRest Holdings SE
AmRest Holdings SE (AmRest) operates fast food
restaurants, primarily under the KFC, Pizza Hut, Burger King
and Starbucks brands in Central and Eastern Europe and
China. AmRest currently has 1,802 stores comprising 716
KFC stores, 406 Pizza Hut stores, 55 Burger King stores, 317
Starbucks stores, 242 La Tagliatella stores, 52 Blue Frog
stores and 4 Kabb stores.
La Tagliatella is an Italian restaurant chain specialising in
pastas and pizzas. Blue Frog is specialises in a menu that is
based on American cuisine. Kabb is a bistro bar specialising
in sandwiches, grilled meat, pasta and rice dishes.
AmRest’s historical forecast year 1 trading multiples are
high due to expectations for strong growth in earnings
driven by strong investment in store network expansion.
STORES (AS AT 15 NOVEMBER 2018)
DP Eurasia N.V
DP Eurasia N.V (Domino’s Pizza Eurasia) operates fast
food restaurants under the Domino’s brand in Turkey and
Russia. As at 30 June 2018, Domino’s Pizza Eurasia had
672 stores comprising 521 in Turkey, 142 in Russia, 6 in
Azerbaijan and 3 in Georgia.
Domino’s Pizza Eurasia is currently trading at multiples of
11.6 times forecast EBITDA and 17.1 times forecast EBIT.
The historical and forecast multiples are high, reflecting
broker expectations for strong growth in the emerging
economies of Turkey and Russia as the Domino’s store
network is expanded in these countries.
STORES (AS AT 30 JUNE 2018)
Pizza Hut
406
22%
KFC
716
40%
Starbucks
317
18%
La Tagliatella
242
13%
Other Brands
brands
121,
7%
Turkey521
79%
Russia
142
21%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
56
Domino’s Pizza Group PLC
Domino’s Pizza Group PLC (Domino’s UK) operates fast
food restaurants under the Domino’s brand in the UK and
Europe. As at 31 December 2017, 88% of stores were in
the UK and the remainder across Ireland, Norway, Iceland,
Switzerland and Sweden.
Domino’s Pizza UK also has a 33% investment in Domino’s
Pizza Germany. DPE owns the other 67% shareholding in
this company.
Domino’s Pizza UK is trading at multiples of 13.3 times
forecast EBITDA and 15.6 times forecast EBIT. The current
trading multiples are relatively high, likely reflecting
expectations for strong growth in earnings driven
primarily by same store sales growth.
STORES (AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2017)
Ibersol, S.G.P.S., S.A
Ibersol, S.G.P.S., S.A (Ibersol) operates fast food
restaurants under a diverse range of brands including Pizza
Hut and KFC stores in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Angola. As
at 31 December 2017, Ibersol had a total of 646 stores
comprising 147 Pans & Roulette stores, 110 Burger King
stores, 95 Pizza Hut stores, 31 KFC stores and 263 stores
under the company’s other owned brands.
Ibersol is currently trading at a multiple of 6.1 times
forecast EBITDA and 11.1 times forecast EBIT. The trading
multiples are broadly in line with its peers. Moderate
growth is forecast by brokers over the next 3 years.
STORES (AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2017)
UK
1,045
88%
Non -UK
147
12%
Pizza Hut
97
15%
Pans &
Roulette
147
23%
Other
Brands
263
41%
Burger King
110
17%
KFC
29
4%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
57
Sphera Franchise Group S.A
Sphera Franchise Group S.A (Sphera) operates fast
food restaurants under the KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and
Paul brands in Romania, Italy and Moldova.
Approximately 63% of stores are under the KFC brand and
34% are under the Pizza Hut brand.
Sphera is currently trading at multiples of 10.7 times
forecast EBITDA and 14.9 times forecast EBIT. Earnings
are forecast to grow strongly in future periods driven by
continued expansion of the store network.
STORES (AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2017)
FAST FOOD FRANCHISEES – THE AMERICAS
Alsea, S.A.C De C.V
Alsea, S.A.C De C.V (Alsea) operates fast food
restaurants under the Domino’s Pizza, Burger King,
Starbucks and various other brands in Mexico, Spain,
Columbia, Argentina and Brazil. Alsea has 3,588 stores
across four business segments:
• Fast service restaurants. 1, 740 stores under the
Domino’s Pizza and Burger King Brands
• Coffee Shops. 1,003 Starbucks branded stores.
• Casual Dining. 568 stores under various brands.
• Family Restaurant. 277 stores under the VIPs brand.
Alsea is trading at multiples of 8.4 times forecast EBITA
and 14.5 times forecast EBIT. The current trading
multiples reflect expectations for further strong growth in
earnings.
STORES (AS AT 15 NOVEMBER 2018)
KFC
72
63%
Pizza Hut
39
34%
Other
3
3%
Starbucks
Coffee
Shops
1,003
28%
Fast Service
1,740
48%
Family
Restaurants
277
8%
Casual
Dining
568
16%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
58
Prestige Holdings Limited
Prestige Holdings Limited (Prestige) operates fast food
restaurants under the KFC, Pizza Hut, Subway, TGI Fridays
and Starbucks brands in Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica.
Just under 50% are under the KFC brand and 38% are
under the Subway brand.
Prestige is currently trading at multiples of 6.5 times
historical EBITDA and 12.4 times forecast EBIT. Over the
past 5 years Prestige’s operating earnings have declined
due to contracting margins. This may explain the
relatively low trading multiples. The company is not
followed by any brokers and therefore forecast earnings
multiples are not calculable.
STORES (AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2017)
BK Brasil Operacao e Assessoria a Restaurantes S.A
BK Brasil Operacao e Assessoria a Restaurantes S.A
(BK Brazil) operates fast food restaurants under the
Burger King brand in Brazil. As at May 2018, BK Brazil had
736 stores comprising 594 owned restaurants and 142
franchised restaurants.
BK Brazil is currently trading at multiples of 12.2 times
forecast EBITDA and 28.2 times forecast EBIT. The current
trading multiples reflect broker expectations for strong
growth in earnings as the Burger King brand has grown
strongly throughout Brazil which is a largely undeveloped
market for the Burger King brand.
STORES (AS AT SEPTEMBER 2018)
KFC
57
47%
Subway
47
38%
Other
18
15%
Owned
594
81%
Franchiees
142
19%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
59
Arcos Dorados Holdings Inc.
Arcos Dorados Holdings Inc. (Arcos Dorados) operates
fast food restaurants under the McDonalds brand in 20
Latin American and Caribbean countries and territories.
As at 30 September 2018, the company operated 2,195
restaurants comprising ̃930 in Brazil, ̃ 520 in North Latin
America (Costa Rica, Mexico and Panama), 350 in the
Caribbean and 390 in Southern Latin America (Argentina,
Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay).
Arcos Dorados is currently trading at multiples of 6.9 times
forecast EBITDA and 11.9 times forecast EBIT.
STORES (AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2018)
Meritage Hospitality Group Limited
Meritage Hospitality Group Limited (Meritage)
operates fast food restaurants under the Wendy’s brand
in the USA. As at 31 December 2017, Meritage operated
249 Wendy’s restaurants and 5 casual dining restaurants
under other brands. The company’s restaurants are
located across 16 states. Meritage has expanded in recent
years as a result of the acquisition of existing Wendy’s
stores throughout the USA. It is trading at multiples of
10.4 times historical EBITDA and 16.3 times historical EBIT.
STORES (AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2017)
Brazil
929
42%
North Latin
America
519
24%
South Latin
America
390
18%
Caribbean
350
16%
Wendy's
249
98%
Other
5
2%
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
60
APPENDIX D – VALUATION METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS
Capitalisation of Earnings
Capitalisation of earnings or cash flows is most appropriate for businesses with a substantial operating history
and a consistent earnings trend that is sufficiently stable to be indicative of ongoing earnings potential. This
methodology is not particularly suitable for start-up businesses, businesses with an erratic earnings pattern
or businesses that have unusual expenditure requirements. This methodology involves capitalising the
earnings or cash flows of a business at a multiple that reflects the risks of the business and the stream of
income that it generates. These multiples can be applied to a number of different earnings or cash flow
measures including EBITDA, EBITA, EBIT or net profit after tax. These are referred to respectively as EBITDA
multiples, EBITA multiples, EBIT multiples and price earnings multiples. Price earnings multiples are
commonly used in the context of the share market. EBITDA, EBITA and EBIT multiples are more commonly
used in valuing whole businesses for acquisition purposes where gearing is in the control of the acquirer.
Where an ongoing business with relatively stable and predictable earnings is being valued Grant Samuel uses
capitalised earnings or operating cash flows as a primary reference point. Application of this valuation
methodology involves:
§ estimation of earnings or cash flow levels that a purchaser would utilise for valuation purposes having
regard to historical and forecast operating results, non-recurring items of income and expenditure and
known factors likely to impact on operating performance; and
§ consideration of an appropriate capitalisation multiple having regard to the market rating of
comparable businesses, the extent and nature of competition, the time period of earnings used, the
quality of earnings, growth prospects and relative business risk.
The choice between the parameters is usually not critical and should give a similar result. All are commonly
used in the valuation of industrial businesses. EBITDA can be preferable if depreciation or non-cash charges
distort earnings or make comparisons between companies difficult but care needs to be exercised to ensure
that proper account is taken of factors such as the level of capital expenditure needed for the business and
whether or not any amortisation costs also relate to ongoing cash costs. EBITA avoids the distortions of
intangible amortisation. EBIT can better adjust for differences in relative capital intensity.
Determination of the appropriate earnings multiple is usually the most judgemental element of a valuation.
Definitive or even indicative offers for a particular asset or business can provide the most reliable support for
selection of an appropriate earnings multiple. In the absence of meaningful offers, it is necessary to infer the
appropriate multiple from other evidence.
The primary approach used by valuers is to determine the multiple that other buyers have been prepared to
pay for similar businesses in the recent past. However, each transaction will be the product of a unique
combination of factors, including:
§ economic factors (e.g. economic growth, inflation, interest rates) affecting the markets in which the
company operates;
§ strategic attractions of the business - its particular strengths and weaknesses, market position of the
business, strength of competition and barriers to entry;
§ rationalisation or synergy benefits available to the acquirer;
§ the structural and regulatory framework;
§ investment and sharemarket conditions at the time; and
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
61
§ the number of competing buyers for a business.
A pattern may emerge from transactions involving similar businesses with sales typically taking place at prices
corresponding to earnings multiples within a particular range. While averages or medians can be determined
it is not appropriate to simply apply such measures to the business being valued. The range will generally
reflect the growth prospects and risks of those businesses. Mature, low growth businesses will, in the
absence of other factors, attract lower multiples than those businesses with potential for significant growth
in earnings. The most important part of valuation is to evaluate the attributes of the specific business being
valued and to distinguish it from its peers so as to form a judgement as to where on the spectrum it
appropriately belongs.
An alternative approach in valuing businesses is to review the multiples at which shares in listed companies
in the same industry sector trade on the sharemarket. This gives an indication of the price levels at which
portfolio investors are prepared to invest in these businesses. Share prices reflect trades in small parcels of
shares (portfolio interests) rather than whole companies and it is necessary to adjust for this factor. To
convert sharemarket data to meaningful information on the valuation of companies as a whole, it is market
practice to add a “premium for control” to allow for the premium which is normally paid to obtain control
through a takeover offer. This premium is typically in the range 20- 35%.
The premium for control paid in takeovers is observable but caution must be exercised in assessing the value
of a company or business based on the market rating of comparable companies or businesses. The premium
for control is an outcome of the valuation process, not a determinant of value. Premiums are paid for reasons
that vary from case to case and may be substantial due to synergy or other benefits available to the acquirer.
In other situations premiums may be minimal or even zero. It is inappropriate to apply an average premium
of 20 -35% without having regard to the circumstances of each case. In some situations there is no premium.
There are transactions where no corporate buyer is prepared to pay a price in excess of the prices paid by
institutional investors through an initial public offering.
Acquisitions of listed companies in different countries can be analysed for comparative purposes, but it is
necessary to give consideration to differences in overall sharemarket levels and ratings between countries,
economic factors (economic growth, inflation, interest rates) and market structures (competition etc.) and
the regulatory framework. It is not appropriate to adjust multiples in a mechanistic way for differences in
interest rates or sharemarket levels.
The analysis of comparable transactions and sharemarket prices for comparable companies will not always
lead to an obvious conclusion as to which multiple or range of multiples will apply. There will often be a wide
spread of multiples and the application of judgement becomes critical. Moreover, it is necessary to consider
the particular attributes of the business being valued and decide whether it warrants a higher or lower
multiple than the comparable companies. This assessment is essentially a judgement.
Discounted Cash Flow
Discounting of projected cash flows has a strong theoretical basis. It is the most commonly used method for
valuation in a number of industries, and for the valuation of start-up projects where earnings during the first
few years can be negative. DCF valuations involve calculating the net present value of projected cash flows.
This methodology is able to explicitly capture the effect of a turnaround in the business, the ramp up to
maturity or significant changes expected in capital expenditure patterns. The cash flows are discounted using
a discount rate, which reflects the risk associated with the cash flow stream. Considerable judgement is
required in estimating future cash flows and it is generally necessary to place great reliance on medium to
long -term projections prepared by management. The discount rate is also not an observable number and
must be inferred from other data (usually only historical). None of this data is particularly reliable so
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
62
estimates of the discount rate necessarily involve a substantial element of judgment. In addition, even where
cash flow forecasts are available the terminal or continuing value is usually a high proportion of value.
Accordingly, the multiple used in assessing this terminal value becomes the critical determinant in the
valuation (i.e. it is a “de facto” cash flow capitalisation valuation). The net present value is typically extremely
sensitive to relatively small changes in underlying assumptions, few of which are capable of being predicted
with accuracy, particularly beyond the first two or three years. The arbitrary assumptions that need to be
made and the width of any value range mean the results are often not meaningful or reliable.
Notwithstanding these limitations, DCF valuations are commonly used and can at least play a role in providing
a check on alternative methodologies, not least because explicit and relatively detailed assumptions need to
be made as to the expected future performance of the business operations.
Industry Rules of Thumb
Industry rules of thumb are commonly used in some industries. These are generally used by a valuer as a
“cross check” of the result determined by a capitalised earnings valuation or by discounting cash flows, but
in some industries rules of thumb can be the primary basis on which buyers determine prices. Grant Samuel
is not aware of any commonly used rules of thumb that would be appropriate to value RBD. In any event, it
should be recognised that rules of thumb are usually relatively crude and prone to misinterpretation.
Realisation of Assets
Valuations based on an estimate of the aggregate proceeds from an orderly realisation of assets are
commonly applied to businesses that are not going concerns. They effectively reflect liquidation values and
typically attribute no value to any goodwill associated with ongoing trading. Such an approach is not
appropriate in RBD’s case.
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
63
APPENDIX E – INTERPRETATION OF MULTIPLES
Earnings multiples are normally benchmarked against two primary sets of reference points:
§
the multiples implied by the share prices of listed peer group companies; and
§
the multiples implied by the prices paid in acquisitions of other companies in the same industry.
In interpreting and evaluating such data it is necessary to recognise that:
§
multiples based on listed company share prices do not include a premium for control and are therefore
often (but not always) less than multiples that would apply to acquisitions of controlling interests in
similar companies. However, while the premium paid to obtain control in takeovers is observable
(typically in the range 20-35%) it is inappropriate to simply add a premium to listed multiples. The
premium for control is an outcome of the valuation process, not a determinant of value. Premiums are
paid for reasons that vary from case to case and may be substantial due to synergy or other benefits
available to the acquirer. In other situations premiums may be minimal or even zero. There are
transactions where no corporate buyer is prepared to pay a price in excess of the prices paid by share
market investors;
§
acquisition multiples from comparable transactions are therefore usually seen as a better guide when
valuing 100% of a business but the data tends to be less transparent and information on forecast
earnings is often unavailable;
§
the analysis will give a range of outcomes from which averages or medians can be determined but it is
not appropriate to simply apply such measures to the company being valued. The most important part
of valuation is to evaluate the attributes of the specific company being valued and to distinguish it from
its peers so as to form a judgement as to where on the spectrum it belongs;
§
acquisition multiples are a product of the economic and other circumstances at the time of the
transaction. However, each transaction will be the product of a unique combination of factors, including:
• economic factors (e.g. economic growth, inflation, interest rates) affecting the markets in which the
company operates;
• strategic attractions of the business – its particular strengths and weaknesses, market position of the
business, strength of competition and barriers to entry;
• the company’s own performance and growth trajectory;
• rationalisation or synergy benefits available to the acquirer;
• the structural and regulatory framework;
• investment and share market conditions at the time, and
• the number of competing buyers for a business;
§
acquisitions and listed companies in different countries can be analysed for comparative purposes, but
it is necessary to give consideration to differences in overall share market levels and rating between
countries, economic factors (economic growth, inflation, interest rates), market structure (competition
etc.) and the regulatory framework. It is not appropriate to adjust multiples in a mechanistic way for
differences in interest rates or share market levels;
§
acquisition multiples are based on the target’s earnings but the price paid normally reflects the fact that
there were cost reduction opportunities or synergies available to the acquirer (at least if the acquirer is
a “trade buyer” with existing businesses in the same or a related industry). If the target’s earnings were
APPENDIX B: INDEPENDENT ADVISER’S REPORT
64
adjusted for these cost reductions and/or synergies the effective multiple paid by the acquirer would
be lower than that calculated on the target’s earnings;
§
while EBITDA multiples are commonly used benchmarks they are an incomplete measure of cash flow.
The appropriate multiple is affected by, among other things, the level of capital expenditure (and
working capital investment) relative to EBITDA. In this respect:
• EBIT multiples can in some circumstances be a better guide because (assuming depreciation is a
reasonable proxy for capital expenditure) they effectively adjust for relative capital intensity and
present a better approximation of free cash flow. However, capital expenditure is lumpy and
depreciation expense may not be a reliable guide. In addition, there can be differences between
companies in the basis of calculation of depreciation; and
• businesses that generate higher EBITDA margins than their peer group companies will, all other
things being equal, warrant higher EBITDA multiples because free cash flow will, in relative terms,
be higher as capital expenditure is a smaller proportion of earnings.
97
Glossary
TermDefinition
AmRestAmRest Holdings S.E.
ASXthe Australian Securities Exchange
Copulos InterestsStephen Copulos, Eyeon QSR Pty Limited, Eyeon No 2 Pty Limited, Copulos
Superannuation Pty Ltd, PC Nab Pty Limited, Eyeon Investment Pty Limited and
Copulos Foundation Pty Ltd
Directors or Directora director of Restaurant Brands
Finaccess CapitalFinaccess Capital S.A. de C.V., the parent company of Global Valar
Global ValarGlobal Valar S.L., an indirect subsidiary of Finaccess Capital
Independent AdviserGrant Samuel & Associates Limited
Independent Adviser’s Reportthe report prepared by the Independent Adviser on the merits of the Offer under
Rule 21 of the Takeovers Code
Independent DirectorsIndependent Directors of Restaurant Brands for the purposes of the NZX
Listing Rules, being on the date of this Target Company Statement: Ted van Arkel,
Victoria Taylor, Hamish Stevens and David Beguely
NZX NZX Limited
Offerthe partial takeover offer made by Global Valar under the Takeovers Code for
75% of the Restaurant Brands Shares
Offer DocumentGlobal Valar’s Offer Document dated 10 December 2018 which sets out the full
terms and conditions of the Offer
Offer PriceNZ$9.45 cash in respect of each Restaurant Brands Share
Restaurant Brands Restaurant Brands New Zealand Limited or, where the context requires,
the Restaurant Brands group
Restaurant Brands Share
or Share
a fully paid ordinary share in the capital of Restaurant Brands
Senior ManagerRussel Creedy, Restaurant Brands’ Chief Executive Officer, and Grant Ellis,
Restaurant Brands’ Chief Financial Officer, being the persons that the Board has
determined are senior managers for the purposes of the disclosures contained in
this Target Company Statement
Shareholdereach person registered in Restaurant Brands’ Share register as a holder of
Restaurant Brands Shares
GLOSSARY
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement98
TermDefinition
Superior Proposala bona fide, unsolicited competing transaction (broadly, a proposal to acquire
20% or more of the Shares or all or a material part of the business and/or assets
of the Restaurant Brands group) that the Board, acting in good faith and after
taking account of written advice from its external financial and legal advisers,
determines:
• is reasonably capable of being valued and implemented taking into account
all aspects of the competing transaction (including any timing considerations,
conditions precedent and the identity of the proponent); and
• would, if completed substantially in accordance with its terms, be more
favourable to the Shareholders (as a whole) than the Offer taking into account
all terms and conditions of the competing transaction (including consideration,
form of consideration, conditionality, funding, certainty and timing)
Takeovers Code the Takeovers Code recorded in the Takeovers Regulations 2000 (New Zealand),
as amended, including any applicable exemption granted by the Takeovers Panel
Takeover NoticeGlobal Valar’s notice of intention to make a partial takeover offer for Restaurant
Brands dated 26 November 2018
Target Company Statementthis document together with its appendices
Yum! Franchisorscertain subsidiaries of Yum! Brands Inc which are franchisors of the KFC,
Pizza Hut and Taco Bell brands
Related companyhas the meaning set out in section 2(3) of the Companies Act read as if a
reference to a “company” was a reference to any body corporate wherever
incorporated and, in respect of Global Valar, also means any other person which
is directly or indirectly controlled by Global Valar or any person under common
control with Global Valar
GLOSSARY
99
DIRECTORY
Directory
Board of DirectorsTed van Arkel (Chairman)
Stephen Copulos
David Beguely
Hamish Stevens
Victoria Taylor
Independent Adviser
Grant Samuel & Associates Limited
Legal Adviser
Harmos Horton Lusk Limited
Financial AdviserMacquarie Capital (New Zealand) Limited
Share RegistryComputershare Investor Services Limited
Registered OfficeLevel 3, Building 7
Central Park
666 Great South Road
Penrose, Auckland 1640
Postal Address
PO Box 22-749
Otahuhu
Auckland
Contact Phone Number
+ 64 9 525 8700
Website
http://www.restaurantbrands.co.nz/
Restaurant Brands Target Company Statement100
LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN
102
LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN
www.restaurantbrands.co.nz
Data sourced from publicly available filings. Our datasets may not be complete. Automated analysis can produce errors. If you believe any data on this page is incorrect, please contact us at hello@nzxplorer.co.nz. For informational purposes only. Not investment advice.