Module 14: Shareholders and Minority Protection Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

If a wrong is done to a company?

A

Only company itself may bring an action for damages

Directors decide this

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

Foss v Harbottle 1843

A

Company itself to bring proceedings
Shareholders can’t sue as company only proper claimant in action
In GM must decide whether to bring proceedings

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

Two key principles from Foss v Harbottle 1843?

A

Proper claimant rule

Majority rule

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

4 Key exceptions to rule in Foss v Harbottle?

A

Illegal act- any member may apply to void
Special procedure
Membership rights deprived
Fraud on the minority- shown that belonged to company, passed to those, in control of company

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

Statutory derivative action can be brought in respect of an action?

A

Arising from an actual or proposed act or omission involving negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust by a director of the company

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

Statutory derivative action is wider than common law how?

A

CL claim can only be brought if director benefitted

CA 2006 does not require to show wrongdoing control majority of shares

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

Court will only grant derivative proceedings if?

A

Application discloses a prima facie case
Will grant permission by considering number of factors if has a prima facie case e.g. good faith, promote success of company, not to pursue, likely to be ratified, can pursue in own right?

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

Court must dismiss derivative proceedings if?

A

Director acted in accordance with duty to promote success of company
Omission yet to occur, authorised
Already occurred, authorised or ratified

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

Kleanthous v Paphitis 2011

A

P majority shareholder in Ryman, La Senza looking for buyer
Ryman decided not to invest
P bought La Senza, Ryman agreed to lend him money
K wanted to claim against Ryman
K not granted permission to bring derivative claim as directors approved the loan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Wishart v Castlecroft Securities Ltd 2009

A

Bad faith
Petitioner entitled to start derivative claim
Upheld on Appeal
Claimant granted indemnity in relation to expenses for 1st time in Scotland

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

Any member may may petition for a remedy for unfair prejudice under CA Section 994 on the grounds?

A

Affairs conducted in unfairly prejudicial manner

Actual or proposed omission would be so

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Appropriate remedy for unfairly prejudicial?

A

Regulate affairs
Desist with act
Not make alterations to articles without leave of court
Share to be bought out- most common

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Two most common applications under s994 are?

A

Discrimination against a minority- member as a member

Exclusion for Management

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

Other grounds on which petition may be based?

A

Failure to call a meeting
Provision of inadequate info on takeover bid
Payment of excessive director’s bonuses and pension contributions
Failure to pay dividend
Only members can present

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Tay Bok Choon v Tachansan Sdn Bhd 1987

A

Exclusion from management

Entitled to have company wound up

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Re German Date Coffee Co 1882

A

Destruction of the company’s substratum
Company formed with sole objective of obtaining patent to manufacture coffee from dates
Couldn’t get it
Just and equitable to wind up company

17
Q

Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd 1916

A

Deadlock
Couldn’t agree on how to manage, equal number of shares
No provision for breaking deadlock
Petition to wind up on just and equitable grounds granted

18
Q

Re Lundie Bros LTD 1965

A

Lack of probity of the directors

Ran company as if it were their own business

19
Q

Hyndman v RC Hyndman Ltd 2004

A

Breakdown of trust and confidence
Accounts not kept properly and directors lifestyles
Winding up on just and equitable grounds
If voluntarily petitioners interests would be further prejudice