UCL 2022-23 Lecture notes: minority shareholder action (3-lecture document) covering minority shareholder rights and shareholder litigation, and their legal, statutory, and practical limitations. Explores definitions and theories of control and fraud. Outlines the process of bringing a derivative c...
Minority Shareholders’ Rights and Shareholder Litigation
Readings: Pettet, Lowry and Reisberg’s Company Law (5th edition), chapter 11 pages 258-271 only
(section 11.1 ‘Introduction: shareholder litigation generally’ to and including section 11.3 ‘Deficiencies in
the common law and the approach to reform’)
17.1 SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION: CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW.............................................2
Personal vs. corporate claims: Ways shareholders can claim.................................................2
Defining derivative claims........................................................................................................2
No reflective loss rule.............................................................................................................. 3
Decisions extending the “no reflective loss” principle in Prudential.....................................3
Risks w derivative claims, considerations................................................................................5
17.2 THE RULE IN FOSS V HARBOTTLE..................................................................................5
Foss v Harbottle...................................................................................................................... 5
The ‘rule’ in Foss v Harbottle...................................................................................................7
17.3 EXCEPTION TO THE RULE IN FOSS V HARBOTTLE.......................................................7
Four purported exceptions: Edwards v Halliwell [1950]...........................................................7
Defining “control”..................................................................................................................... 8
Defining Fraud: negligence + benefit (Daniels v Daniels [1978])...........................................10
Ratification........................................................................................................................ 11
Requirement to show a prima facie case (for ratification).................................................11
Additional restrictions............................................................................................................ 12
Independent organ restriction................................................................................................12
Other restrictions................................................................................................................... 12
Interests of justice exception?...........................................................................................13
17.4 PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS WITH THE COMMON LAW CLAIM.......................................13
Information asymmetry.......................................................................................................... 13
Why not just sell?.................................................................................................................. 13
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 14
18.1 LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION (1996)...................................................................14
Background to reform:........................................................................................................... 14
1. Old-fashioned and unclear................................................................................................15
2. Wrongdoer control............................................................................................................. 15
3. Negligence........................................................................................................................ 15
4. Prima facie case................................................................................................................ 15
18.2 REFORMING THE DERIVATIVE CLAIM (ss 260-269 CA 2006).......................................15
Do we need to reform the derivative claim?...........................................................................15
Codifying the derivative claim: pt.11 CA 2006.......................................................................16
Key differences................................................................................................................. 16
Defining the derivative claim: s 260(1), CA 2006...................................................................17
Extending the scope of the claim: s 260(3) CA 2006........................................................17
Wrongs committed prior to membership: s 260(4) CA06..................................................17
Former and shadow directors: s 260(5), CA 06................................................................18
Government’s initial response to industry fears.....................................................................18
2-stage permission................................................................................................................ 19
First stage requirements...................................................................................................19
, Second stage requirements..............................................................................................19
Combining the two stages…..................................................................................................20
Stage two: when must permission be refused (s 263(2) CA 2006)...................................20
Stage two: what to take into account when giving permission (s 263(3) CA 2006)...........20
Stage two: return of Smith v Croft (No. 2) - in considering whether to give permission.....20
Reflections on s263 CA 2006?.........................................................................................21
18.3 JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTORY CLAIM............................................21
Lessons from Franbar and Sinclair........................................................................................23
Shareholders successful?.................................................................................................23
Wrongdoer control................................................................................................................. 26
17.1 SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION: CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW
Differentiating between personal and corporate actions
- Judicial consideration: difficult to let go of some stuff
Personal vs. corporate claims: Ways shareholders can claim
Personal: rights that the shareholders have that have been breached
If those have been breached, shareholder can just issue litigation in the usual way
● Right to vote (Pender v Lushington)
● Right to object to class rights variation
Derivative claim: corporate claim, vests in the company itself
Corporate claims
● Breach of directors’ duties
● Misappropriation of corporate property
Who has the right to act on behalf of the company?
● The board (art 3; John Shaw & Sons v Shaw)
○ (directors wont issue proceedings against themselves)
● Shareholders (art 4)
○ In some circumstances, but the bar is v high
● Implications in governance
○ If directors know it is difficult for a claim 2 be issued, those duties r not going to
be performing that prophylactic effect we r talking about (the deterrence)
○ Company has a right in action they r unable to enforce
Note: not always a bad decision not to litigate!
Defining derivative claims
Derivative claim:
● Mechanism by which minority shareholder(s) can initiate an action to enforce the
company’s rights where directors are in breach
○ Deriving from the rights of the company (gotem)
, ○ Does NOT create liability/entitlement. Procedural device for the court 2 do justice
for the company
○ A pleading of necessity to avoid a ‘wrong going without redress’ (Smith v Croft)
● Important: Bc the proceedings are issued in the name of the company → any
benefit flows to the company and not the shareholder bringing the claim
○ Considerations:
■ Floodgate of litigation if we made the derivative claim easier
■ Taking directors’ time away from managing the company
■ Shareholders’ incentive for doing that? Not rly an opportunistic action,
rather restoring the company itself
○ ‘Procedural device for enabling the court to do justice to a company’ (Nurcombe
v Nurcombe)
○ Company will be joined to proceedings for relief purposes
No reflective loss rule
● [a shareholder cannot] recover damages merely because the company in which he is
interested has suffered damage. He cannot recover a sum equal to the diminution in the
market value of his shares, or equal to the likely diminution in dividend, because such a
‘loss’ is merely a reflection of the loss suffered by the company. Prudential Assurance
Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] Ch 204
● Shareholder can’t recover the loss bc: the company recovers the loss → the
shareholder is then made whole
○ However, shareholder loss is not recognised as a separate loss to the company,
cannot recover the mere reflective loss
● Not double recovery: shareholders know they invest on the basis that they can only
influence company decision-making through internal mechanisms (voting rights, GMs)
○ thus the only way to address concerns is to utilise the internal processes.
Decisions extending the “no reflective loss” principle in Prudential
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] – endorsed Prudential but Lord Millett adopted an
expanded, policy-based approach, justifying the rule on the need to avoid double recovery.
● Facts: solicitors acted for W Homes Ltd to exercise option to acquire land
○ Delay in solicitors actions, significant delay in land being conveyed to the
company (4y)
○ In 4y, things happened leading to significant loss incurred by W Homes: collapse
of property market
○ Settled midway through lengthy litigation, but problem was:
■ Solicitors also acted for majority acted for Johnson in a personal
capacity + for Johnson’s various companies → raises questions
about who solits r acting for in any given situations
● Args
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller mlee. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £13.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
