Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appraisal rights were included in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 in accordance with the Department of Trade and Industry's stated objectives of enhanced protection for minority shareholders and development of the Act in line with international company law trends. However, appraisal rights are traditionally underutilised in other jurisdictions where they have existed for many years, most notably the United States and Canada. The reason for this is that they can be complex, expensive and time-consuming to enforce. Furthermore, as a result of the often uncertain outcome of appraisal rights litigation, there is an argument to be made that the enforcement of these rights is open to abuse and that they may be used to stifle legitimate deal activity. Given the challenges and complexity of appraisal rights enforcement, South African courts (and legal practitioners) will have to look to foreign jurisdictions for guidance as to how to interpret and apply this novel, foreign concept. Fortunately it seems that the Act does allow for this. Recently there has been a spate of appraisal rights litigation amidst renewed levels of merger activity in the United States which poses some interesting questions around the proper use of appraisal rights and the attitude of the courts in this regard. Although South African courts have not yet heard any appraisal rights disputes it seems clear that, because this remedy is so complex and internationally relevant, we should keep abreast of legal developments in foreign jurisdictions which may ultimately impact on the understanding, interpretation and application of appraisal rights in the South African context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".