Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Company Law > 6) Minority Shareholder Remedies > Flashcards

6) Minority Shareholder Remedies Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

MA 3

A

Directors are responsible for the day-to-day running of the company and have the authority necessary to act on the company’s behalf in this regard.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

s21 CA 2006

A

Certain key decisions require shareholder approval.
Eg Amending the company’s articles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

s188 CA 2006

A

Granting a director a long-term service contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

s197 CA 2006

A

Making a loan to a director

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

s168 CA 2006

A

Removing a director from office

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Ordinary Resolution

A

Over 50% in favour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Special Resolution

A

75%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Principle of the Majority Rule

A

Directors and shareholders act by majority rule.
Pervades company law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

CA 2006 - minority shareholders

A
  • Have certain limited remedies where the management of the company causes prejudice and loss
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Historically minority shareholders’ only remedy

A

Petition the court for the company to be wound up as just and equitable to do so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Introduction of action for unfair prejudice

A
  • Sought to provide minority shareholders with a better remedy
  • Initially set out in s459 CA 1985
  • Now s994 CA 2006
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

S994(1)

A
  • A member of a company may applyto the court by petition for an order…on the ground:
  • Company’s affairs are conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to interest of members generally, or some at least.
  • Or that would be prejudicial
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

To succeed with a petition under s 994(1)

A

Petition must establish
unfairly prejudicial conduct arising from an act or omission of the company.
Or made on the company’s behalf.
* Must be by the company, not individuals
* Relate to affairs of company, not personal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Re Legal Costs Negotiators Ltd 1999

A
  • 4 = shareholders, directors and employees.
  • Fourth individual dismissed as employee - resigned as director.
  • Petitioned under s 459 to transfer his shares to them
    CoA rejected petition, as the majority could prevent any prejudice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Re Home & Office Fire Extinguisher Ltd 2012

A
  • Overlap between the requirement that conduct relates to company affairs and not personal disputes, where disputes make it impossible for parties to continue working together.
  • Brother attacked with hammer - ordered to sell his shares in company
    Breach that the company would act properly and in good faith
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Re City Branch Group Ltd, Gross v Rackind 2005

A
  • Conduct of a subsidiary regarded as falling within the affairs of a company.
  • Especially where the directors are the same
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Petitioner must prove

A

That their interests in their capacity as members have been unfairly prejudiced as a result of conduct on the part of the company
Construed widely

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

De Bovey Hotel Ventures Ltd

A

Members have an interest in the value of shares
* May be able to bring a claim if can show value has been seriously jeopardies
* by action of company & is unfair

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Gamelstaden Fastigheter B Baltic Partner Ltd 2007

A
  • Member had provided a loan to the company
  • Issue was whether petition should be struck out where company was insolvent and relief sought.
    Interests extend to members who are a creditor - distinction artificial.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Unfair prejudice case

A

O’Neill v Phillips 1999

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

O’Neil v Philips

A
  • Petitioner employed by company. Was awarded 25% of company and made director.
  • Following decline after sole director, retired director used voting rights to appoint himself MD.
  • Petitioner issued a petition for unfair prejudice based on legit expectation of receiving 50% profits.
    **HoL held no unfair prejudice, 50% never formalised and relied on petitioner running business((
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Hoffmann LJ - O’Neill v Phillips

A

Fairness for the purposes of s994 must be viewed in context of a commercial relationship - that set out in the articles.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Re Tobian Properties Ltd 2012

A

Arden LJ
Unfairly prejudicial = two elements
* Unfairness
* prejudice
Cannot be unbound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Following O’Neill v Phillips to establish unfair prejudice against

A

Petitioner must prove
* Breach of Contract (Articles; or shareholders agreement)
* Breach of some fundamental understanding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

How will court address claims of unfair conduct

A
  • Look into conduct in accordance with articles
  • Consider scope for “fundamental understandings”
  • Unfairness tested - looking whether the majority acting in a manner which equity would have regard as contrary to good faith
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Unfairness tested

A

Majority had acted in a manner equity would regard as contrary to good faith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Is unlawful conduct unfairly prejudicial

A
  • Not necessarily
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Examples of unfairly prejudicial conduct

A
  • Exclusion from management
  • Mismanagement
  • Breach of director’s fiduciary duties
  • Excessive renumeration / refusal to pay dividends
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Cases re: Exclusion from Management

A
  • Tottenham Hotspur plc 1994
  • Re Compound Photonics Group Ltd 2022
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Exclusion from Management

A
  • Director may validly be removed from office by an OR under s168 CA 2006
  • Not the case that any removal = unfair prejudice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Re Tottenham Hotspur Plc, 1994

A

Venables CE of football club
Brought a petition claiming unfair prejudice after dismissed from office.
Held that he had no legitimate expectation of remaining in control = failed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Re Compound Photonics Group Ltd 2002

A
  • Two minority shareholders petitioned for unfair prejudice for termination of roles as directors.
  • Breached SA: good faith; majority shareholders not to determine commercial strategy.
  • CoA rejected the petition - Good Faith clause not so wide.
    Absence of express provision to entrench directors = lack of intention
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Mismanagement

A
  • Risk of poor management inherent to share ownership
  • Courts will not interfere in business decision making except when CoI.
  • When directors have abused their powers may amount to mismangement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Re Elgindata Ltd 1991

A

Courts will interfere when there is a clear conflict of interest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Mismanagement Cases

A
  • Re Macro (Ipswich) Ltd 1994
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Re Macro (Ipswich) Ltd 1994

A
  • Allegation of mismanagement over 40 years resulting in economic loss
  • Sole director neglected responsibilities - allowed theft from company by employees.
    Successfully argued substantial loss sufferred = unfair prejudice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Breach of directors’ fiduciary duties - cases

A
  • Re London School of Economics 1986
  • Re Little Olympian Each Ways ltd (No3) 1995
  • Re A Company (No 005287 or 1985) 1986
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Re London School of Economics 1986

A
  • Petition for UF succeeded
  • Those in control had misappropriated assets by diverting them to another business owned by them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Re Little Olympian Each-Ways No3, 1995

A
  • Directors sold business at substantial undervalue
  • Part of a wider transaction; directors received personal benefit.
    = UF
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Re A Company (No 005287 and 1985) 1986

A

Petition for UF succeeded as directors made secret profits

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Excessive remuneration and refusal to pay dividentds

A
  • Articles provide Directors renumeration should be determined by the GM
  • Practice delegated to the board
  • Court won’t interfere if honest
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Excessive remuneration and refusal to pay dividends
Case

A

Re a Company No 004415 of 1996

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Re a Company No 004415 of 1996

A

Court held renumeration and dividend
* not justified by “objective commercial criteria”
* UF to shareholders who are not directors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Who may bring a claim for UF?

A

Unfair prejudice claim can be brought by a “member” of the company
s994(1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

s994(1)

A

Unfair prejudice claim can be brought by a “member” of the company

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

S112

A

Defines a “member” as subscirber to the company’s memorandum; name is entered onto register of members.

  • Can be broadly interpreted in some circumstances
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Who may bring a claim for unfair prejudice - cases

A
  • Harris v Jones 2011
  • Blunt v Jackson 2013
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Harris v Jones 2011

A
  • Court held a person whom shares had been transferred
  • But had not been registered as a member
  • Had the right to bring an s994 petition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Blunt v Jackson 2013

A
  • Judge noted court had power to retrospectively amend register of members.
  • Allowed a person agreed to become a 50% shareholder and had worked for low wages - although not registered
  • to succeed based on exclusion from management
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Where do remedies for UF come from.

A

s996 (2)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Remedies - s996(1)

A

Courts make such order has thinks fit for giving relief in respect of matters complained of.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

s 996(2)

A

Remedies list:
* Regulate conduct of company’s affairs in future
* Require company to refrain or do an act
* Authorise civil proceedings
* Require a company not to alter articles
* Provide for purchase of shares by any member of the company

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Grace v Bigiolu 2005

A

Presumption that a court will grant and order for the purchase of the petitioners shares by the company or another shareholder
s99623

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Most common remedy for small private companies

A

Share purchase order
Small private companies have limited options to sell shares.
Court to determine a price that is fair in all circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

s755 CA 2006

A

Private companies are prohibited from offering shares to the public

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Re Bird Precision Bellows Ltd 1984

A
  • Unfair to impose a discount on the shares to represent limited voting power since mainly being forced to sell
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Why is the valuation of shares difficult

A
  • Value of shares may have changed considerably between when petition to court was made and the date of judgment
  • See Abbington Hotel Ltd 2011
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Abbington Hotel Ltd 2011

A
  • Starting point for date of valuation of shares is the date of the judgment
  • Court is free to choose a date that is most appropriate **Date should be that which best remedies the unfair prejudice held*
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

O’ Neill v Phillips 1999 - valuation

A
  • If offer is made on expert valuation
  • Respondent may be entitled to have petition for UF struck out
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

McCallum-Toppin 2019

A

Estate of deceased director succeeded with a UF claim.
Majority
* Deprived dividends; paid large salaries
* Used as personal piggy bank - borrowed in excess of £1 mill.
Majority ordered to buy out at a fair, undiscounted value

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Re Sprintroom, 2019

A
  • Breach of duty by a director who incorrectly claimed the IP was vested to him personally rather than company.
  • Did not preclude remedy as 40% shareholder for exclusion by management, and undervalued share offer.
    Balancing payment ordered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Historically just and equitable winding up….

A

Was the only remedy available to an aggrieved minority shareholder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

s122(1)9g) Insolvency Act 1986

A

A company may be wound up by the court if the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that it be wound up

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Remedy of winding up a company comes from….

A
  • Law of partnership
  • Courts of equity had jurisdicition to dissolve partnership where relationship between members had broken down
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Just and equitable winding up is a….. remedy

A
  • Draconian
  • Remedy of last resort
  • Where possible will find alternative remedies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

The Companies Act 1980 introduced the remedy of unfair prejudice

A

Now Unfair prejudice is used more commonly in resolution of shareholder disputes than just equitable winding up.

67
Q

Consequences of equitable winding up petition

A

Any disposition of shares, alteration of status of the company… made after commencement of winding up is void.
section 127 IA 1986

68
Q

Section 127 IA 1986

A

Disposition of the company’s property and transfer of shares, alteration of status of members after winding up commences will be VOID

69
Q

On notice of just and equitable winding up….

A
  • Banks freeze accounts
  • Payments may be set aside by the liquidator when wound up
70
Q

Ground for petition for “just and equitable winding up” - Case

A

Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries 1973

71
Q

Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries 1973

A
  • Court have wide discretionary jurisdiction - consider cases individually
  • Usually where relationships have broken down
72
Q

Three examples of where relationships between directors and shareholders has broken down….

A
  • Deadlock (Where parties are not able to reach a decision)
  • Justifiable loss of confidence in management
  • Exclusion from management
73
Q

Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd

A

A rug business run as a partnership for 10 years.
* Company est to take over the business.
* Another person joined shareholder - E became minority.
* E was voted off board, retained shares - no dividend paid - all paid to directors.
* Found it was just and equitable to wind up, as the company was a quasi partnerhsip

74
Q

Grounds for petition

A
  • Substratum failed
  • Fraud
  • Deadlock
  • Justifiable loss of confidence in management
  • Exclusion from participation in small company - when relationship based on mutual confidence
75
Q

Grounds for petition: Substratum has failed

A
  • Commercial object of the company has failed or been fulfilled (less important now following 31(1) CA 2006 where objectives are unrestricted.
    Re German Date Coffee Co 1882
76
Q

Re German Date Coffee Co 1882

A

The company was registered with the object of a German patent for date coffee.
* Not granted, but swedish one was.
* Wound up on the basis the substratum of the company was gone**

77
Q

Grounds for Petition: Fraud

A
  • Where a company has been formed to perpetrate fraud and winding up represents best way for shareholders to recoup investment
    ** Re Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons 1897**
78
Q

Re Thomas Edward Brinsmead & Sons 1897

A
  • Three men employees of renowned piano manufacturing company
  • Made company to pass off piano as made by John Brinsmead * Sons.
    Fraudulent therefore just and equitable
79
Q

Grounds for petition: Deadlock

A
  • Rare for a total deadlock.
  • Chairman generally has casting vote.
  • When deadlock does occur, court may order winding up
    Re Yenidje Tobacco Ltd 1916
80
Q

Re Yenidje Tobacco Ltd 1916

A
  • Two tobacco manufacturers merged
  • Equal shareholders - two directors
  • Refused to communicate - only communicate via CoSec.
    Profitable but wound up
81
Q

Grounds for petition: Loss of confidence in management

A
  • When a quasi-partnership, may order to be wound up when lack of confidence.
  • Lack of probity in way company is run by the majority.
  • Driving minority out.
    Loch v John Blackwood Ltd 1924
82
Q

Loch v John Blackwood Ltd 1924

A

Majority shareholder in this company dominated board of directors
* Refused to declare dividends
* Call GM
* Publish accounts.
Aim was to induce minority to sell at undervalue = wound up

83
Q

Grounds for petition: Exclusion, when based on mutual confidence

A

Wilberforce L
* Basis of association was personal and mutual confidence.
* Understanding that all shareholders participate in management
* Restriction of transfer of interests preventing leaving
Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries

84
Q

Who can bring a petition

A

A “contributory”
Section 124(1) IA 1986

85
Q

Define a contributory

A

Any person liable to contribute to the assets of a company in the event of it being wound up
* Past or present nmember

86
Q

For a fully paid-up shareholder to bring a petition

A

Must show “tangible interest in the company
* On balance of probabilities
* Prove there will be surplus among shareholders after payment
Re Rica Gold Washing Co 1879

87
Q

Re Rica Gold Washing Co 1879

A

Must prove on a balance of probabilities that will be surplus post winding up.

88
Q

If cannot prove surplus assets (Re Rico Gold Washing Co)…. must….

A

Establish a tangible interest by showing they would achieve advantage or avoid/minimise disadvantage if wound up Re Chesterfield Catering Co 1977

89
Q

Re Chesterfield Catering Co 1977

A

Establish a tangible interest by showing they would achieve advantage or avoid/minimise disadvantage if wound up

90
Q

If petitioner’s own conduct was reason for breakdown….

A

this will be a relevant factor in deciding what order to make

91
Q

Can an individual member bring a claim when the board refuse to do s0?

A
  • Courts reluctant to interfere in internal management
  • Best left to directors
  • Elected, assumed to have greater commercial awareness.
92
Q

Carlen v Drury 1812

A

Court is not required in every Occassion to take the management of every Playhouse and Brewhouse in the kingdo

93
Q

Two types of shareholder actions relating to internal disputes

A
  • Personal claims
  • Derivative Claims
94
Q

Personal claims - define

A

Claims brought by members in relation to wrongs done to them person

95
Q

Derivative claims - define

A

Claims brought by members to vindicate a wrong done to the company

96
Q

Personal claim - Process

A
  • Personal or representative action
  • Statutory remedies (UP or JEW)
  • May also bring personal claim to enforce rights as shareholders
97
Q

s994 CA 2006

A

Unfair Prejudice

98
Q

s122 Insolvency Act 1986

A

JEW

99
Q

s33 CA 2006

A

Shareholders may bring a personal claim to enforce their rights as shareholders in the articles.

100
Q

Personal claims are not affected by..

A
  • Rule in Foss v Harbottle
  • Statutory procedure in CA 2006
101
Q

Derivative claims were orginally dealt with by courts…

A

In accordance with Foss v Harbottle

Now there is a statutory procedure.

102
Q

Derivative Claim

A

A derivative claim is a claim brought by a member in respect of a cause of action vested in the company seeking relief on behalf of the company

103
Q

Exceptions to Foss v Harbottle

A
  • Act complained of is Ultra vires or illegal
  • Matter could be validly done by special majority
  • Or non compliance with special procedure.
  • Personal and individual rights have been infringed
  • Fraud on the minority - wrongdoers are in control
104
Q

Academic debate as to exceptions to Foss v Harbottle

A
  • True exceptions, or separate rights of action?
  • View is only “fraud on the minority” is a true exception
  • Others = sue for breach of personal rights
105
Q

Edwards v Haliwall 1950

A
  • Proper claimant = company itself
  • Internal management principle - wrong might be binding
106
Q

Statutory rules only affect claims for wrongs done….

A
  • To the company
  • By directors
    s260(3)
107
Q

Disadvantage of derivative claims

A

Relief gained is only awarded to the company, not the individual bringing proceedings

108
Q

Advantage of derivative claim

A
  • Allow individual members to “right a wrong” on behalf of the company
  • When company itself does not
109
Q

Under statutory procedure, a derivative claim may be brought….

A
  • By any member - s260(1)
  • Brought against any director /person, including former - s 260(3) (5)
  • Grounds for bringing claim - act or omission, actual or proposed, neg, defailt breach - 260 (3)
110
Q

s260(1) CA 2006

A

A claim may be brought by any member

111
Q

s260(3) C3A 2006

A

The grounds for bringing claim:
act or omission, actual or proposed, involving negligence, default, breach of duty or trust by a director.

112
Q

s260(4) CA 2006

A

Immaterial whether the cause of action arose before or after the claimant became a shareholder

113
Q

Application process ofr derivative claim

A

1) Applicant has case for permission to continue derivative claim?
2) Full permission hearing - may order company & applicant to provide evidence.
s261-263

114
Q

Stage 1

A
  • Dismiss cases that stand no chance
  • Can bypass stage if company concedes
  • Or where court prepared to hear both stages.
115
Q

Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel 2008

A

Parties can bypass stage where the defendant concedes there is a case,

116
Q

Stimpson v Southern Landlords Association 2009

A

Court may be prepared to hear first and second stages for permission together

117
Q

Re Severn Holdings 2011

A

Combining both stages, criticised for bypassing filter mechanism.

118
Q

Stage 2

A

Full permission hearing
* S263
* Sets out absolute and discretionary bars to granting permission to continue a derivative claim

119
Q

Absolute bars to continue the claim

A
  • s 263(2) permission refused:**
  • Person acting in accordance with s172
  • action authorized by company
  • Ratified by company.
120
Q

Discretionary bars when granting permission to continue derivative claim

A

Section 263(3) consider
* Acting in good faith?
* Promoting success of company
* Authorised by company
* Ratified by company
* Company decided not to pursue claim
* Rise to personal action

121
Q

Other considerations when court looking to grant permission to continue claim

A
  • s263(4)
  • Particular regard to any evidence as to views of members who have no personal interest in the matter
    Smith v Craft No2
122
Q

Approach of the courts

A
  • Presume to dismiss derivative unless exception applies.
  • Concern for floodgates
  • Courts case manage stage 1
123
Q

Substantial disincentives of derivative claim

A
  • Members do not recover damages
  • Paid to company if successful
  • Courts cliams aresubstantial
124
Q

Mission Capital v Sinclair 2008

A
  • 2 directors = shareholder
  • Dismissed and service contracts terminated.
  • Company brought a claim against them
  • They brough counter claim seeking reinstatement * DC
  • Court refused as notional director acting with their duty wouldn’t continue claim
  • Claimants could bring UF claim
125
Q

s172 CA 2006

A

Directors’ duty to promote success of the company

126
Q

Franbar Holdings v Patel 2008

A
  • Disag about way company was managed and Shareholders Agreement.
  • Shareholder brought claim of breach of SA
  • Notional director would not attach importance
  • Unfair prejudcie claim
127
Q

Iesini v Westrip Holdings Ltd 2009

A
  • Directors did not breach duties - no derivative claim
  • S1: evidence filed by applicant
  • S2: Need something moreS
128
Q

Stainer v Lee 2010

A
  • Court granted limited permission to continue DA to end of disclosures
  • Subject to various conditions eg costs.
  • Court considered strength would be clearer after disclosures.
129
Q

Cullen Investments Ltd v Brown 2015

A
  • Granted permission to continue claim to trial
  • Director exploited corp opportunity for own benefit
  • Shareholder assumed financial risks of litigation
  • Rejected that a director in accordance with duty would have supported claim.
130
Q

Bridge v Daley 2015

A
  • Refused permission for DC
  • Claimant acting in good faith
  • Allegations unsubstantiated
  • Majority of shareholders and independent board did not support
    Better under s994
131
Q

Cost of derivative claims

A
  • Cost = disincentive.
  • Rule 19.19 Civil Procedure Rules; allows company to indemnify claimant against liability
132
Q

Rule 19.19 Civil Procedure Rules

A
  • Pre-emptive costs order
  • Indemnify claimant against liability
    Wallersteiner v Moir No2 1975
133
Q

Wallersteiner v Moir No2, 1975

A

Pre emptive costs first awarded
* Indemnified provided acted reasonably.

134
Q

Derivative claims - overlap with s994

A

Courts will be reluctant to grant permission to continue with derivative claim
Not an absolute bar.
Mission Capital Plc v Sinclair
Franbar Holdings v Patel

135
Q

Phillips v Fryer 2011

A
  • Appropriate cases discretion may be exercised the other way
  • Court may hear proceedings under s994 and 260 together
136
Q

Advantages - claim of under s994 rather than DC

A
  • Unfair prejudice
  • Easier to proceed
  • No permission requirement
  • Remedy for member not company.
137
Q

Derivative Action may be preferable to Unfair Prejudice

A
  • Where aim of claimant is not bought out, but for the company to benefit
    Clark v Cutland 2004
138
Q

s996(2)(c)

A

Gives the court power to direct claimants for Unfair Prejudice to bring a derivative claim.
Very rare

139
Q

Claims often brought on more than one ground

A

Paramount Powders (Baydal v Baydal) 2019

140
Q

Paramount Powders (Baydal v Baydal) 2019

A
  • 3 claims failed
  • Unfair prejudice
  • Just and Equitable winding up
  • Derivative claim
141
Q

Paramount Powders (Baydal v Baydal) 2019
Unfair Prejudice

A
  • Director directly competing against company through son’s company
  • No unfair prejudice remedy
    s172 and 175 CA 2006
142
Q

Paramount Powders (Baydal v Baydal) 2019

JEW

A
  • Failure of mutual trust and confidence
  • Did not come to equity to clean hands
  • Also would “leave field clear” for competitor
143
Q

Paramount Powders (Baydal v Baydal) 2019

DC

A
  • Claimed brother breached duty as director
  • Failed as had consented
144
Q

Shareholder contract or tort loss

A
  • Could also have claim for UF and JEW
145
Q

Alleged loss results in loss to company and shareholder

A
  • Only loss alleged to have been suffered by shareholder is
  • = reflection of the loss sustained by company.
146
Q

Courts will not allow shareholders to bring personal claims

A
  • Reflection of Foss v Harbottle
  • Can only claim for reflected loss sustained by the company.
147
Q

Prudential v Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2)

A

Shareholder cannot recover damages because the company he is interested to suffered damage.
* Loss is through the company, diminution of net assets of company.

148
Q

PERSONAL CLAIM
* Reflective Loss
* Further personal loss

A
  • Conduct = breach of legal duty owed personally (contract & tort)
  • Personal loss = separate and distinct
149
Q

Johnson v Gore Wood

A

Policy reason underlying the bar on personal claims for reflective loss is the need to protect creditors

150
Q

Rare case where shareholder was able to show additional loss on which to claim

A

Giles v Rhind

151
Q

Rights for Statutory Minority shareholders

A
  • Protection against alteration of constitution
  • Right to requisition a GM
  • Demand a poll vote
  • Enforce articles
152
Q

s21 CA 2006

A

Protection against alteration to the company’s constitution

153
Q

ss303-305 CA 2006

A

Right to requisition a GM

154
Q

s 321 CA 2006

A

Right to demand a poll vote

155
Q

s33 CA 2006

A

Right to enforce articles

156
Q

Protection against alteration to the company’s constitution

A
  • Protected against article alterations
  • SR =75% majority needed.
157
Q

Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd 1900

A

Shareholders must vote to amend articles in good faith

Not undermine substantive rights of minority.

158
Q

Russell v Northern Bank Development Corpn 1992

A

Shareholders can agree via SA how to exercise voting rights on a resolution to alter articles
= enforceable

159
Q

Right to requisition a GM

A
  • Requisition can be brought by shareholders holding not less than 5% of the voting paid-up capital
160
Q

s305

A

Shareholders may call GM meeting themselves if fail to convene a meeting

161
Q

s304

A

Directors fail to convene GM within 21 days
Hold GM within 28 days

162
Q

Right to demand a poll vote

A

1 vote per hand

163
Q

Section 321 provides that a poll vote may be demanded

A
  • Not less than 5 members having a right to vote
  • Members > 10% of all voting rights
  • Members > 10% paidup shares

Company Law (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions