DOCSLIB.ORG

Shareholder Remedies Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shareholder Remedies Consultation 226-425-21 THE LAW COMMISSION SHAREHOLDER REMEDIES CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART 1: OVERVIEW 1 Terms of reference 1.2 1 Scope of the project 1.4 1 Structure of the paper 1.15 6 Scottish Law Commission 1.19 6 Acknowledgments 1.20 7 SECTION A: THE PERSONAL ACTION PART 2: A SHAREHOLDER’S PERSONAL RIGHTS ARISING FROM THE COMPANY’S CONSTITUTION 8 Introduction 2.1 8 The company constitution 2.2 8 The section 14 contract and how it differs from other contracts 2.6 9 Membership rights 2.15 12 Internal irregularities 2.21 14 Transactions outside the company’s powers 2.29 17 Restraining future transactions 2.29 17 Past transactions 2.30 17 Challenging resolutions to amend the articles of association 2.31 17 Identifying enforceable personal rights in the articles 2.39 20 PART 3: OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A SHAREHOLDER CAN BRING A PERSONAL ACTION 22 Introduction 3.1 22 Statutory rights 3.2 22 Shareholder agreements 3.3 22 Introduction 3.3 22 Advantages 3.4 23 Contents 3.6 23 Disclosure of agreements 3.8 24 Enforceability 3.9 24 Conclusion 3.17 26 SECTION B: THE DERIVATIVE ACTION PART 4: A SHAREHOLDER’S RIGHT TO BRING AN ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY 27 Introduction 4.1 27 The majority rule and proper plaintiff principles 4.2 27 Fraud on the minority 4.7 29 Fraud 4.9 30 Wrongdoer control 4.12 31 iii Paragraph Page When fraud and control must be shown 4.17 33 “Independent organ” does not wish the action to proceed 4.18 34 Ultra vires transactions 4.19 35 Is the transaction ultra vires? 4.21 35 No need to show fraud on the minority 4.25 36 “Independent organ” does not wish the action to proceed 4.27 37 Breaches of special resolution procedures 4.30 38 Conclusion 4.35 40 PART 5: RESTRICTIONS ON MEMBERS’ ABILITY TO BRING ACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY 41 Introduction 5.1 41 Ratification 5.2 41 Ultra vires acts 5.3 42 Acts outside the powers of the board 5.4 42 Acts in breach of fiduciary duty 5.6 42 Inequitable conduct of the minority shareholder 5.18 46 Availability of other adequate remedies 5.19 47 Companies in liquidation 5.20 47 PART 6: PROCEDURE AND COSTS IN RESPECT OF ACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY 48 Introduction 6.1 48 Types of action 6.2 48 Determining standing as a preliminary issue 6.6 49 RSC, O 15, r 12A 6.7 50 Costs orders 6.10 51 General principles 6.10 51 Costs in derivative actions 6.11 52 Conditional fees 6.15 53 SECTION C: UNFAIR PREJUDICE REMEDY PART 7: INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY OF SECTIONS 459-461 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1985 55 Introduction 7.1 55 History of sections 459-461 7.5 56 PART 8: RELATIONSHIP WITH JUST AND EQUITABLE WINDING UP 62 Background 8.1 62 Who may petition 8.3 62 Grounds for a petition 8.5 63 Relief under section 122(1)(g) where an alternative remedy is available 8.13 66 Pleading section 122(1)(g) and section 459 in the alternative 8.18 69 Reasons for pleading in the alternative 8.18 69 Effect of pleading winding up in the alternative — section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 8.19 70 1990 practice direction 8.22 71 iv Paragraph Page PART 9: SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNFAIR PREJUDICE REMEDY 72 Introduction 9.1 72 Meaning of “affairs are being or have been conducted” 9.3 73 What constitutes “the company’s affairs” 9.5 73 Parent companies 9.9 74 Shareholder agreements 9.14 75 Meaning of “interests” 9.17 76 Meaning of “unfairly prejudicial” 9.21 77 Conduct of petitioner 9.28 80 Meaning of prejudicial 9.30 81 Meaning of “some part of the members or members generally (including at least himself)” 9.31 81 Review of the effect of different allegations brought under section 459 9.33 82 Exclusion from management 9.34 82 Failure to provide information 9.35 83 Increase of issued share capital 9.36 83 Alteration of articles of association 9.39 85 Diversion of company business and misappropriation of assets 9.40 85 Excessive remuneration and non payment of dividends 9.41 86 Mismanagement 9.44 87 Effect of pre-emption articles on a petitioner’s ability to bring proceedings under section 459 9.49 89 Instances of the involvement of shareholders of public companies in section 459 proceedings 9.53 91 PART 10: REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 461 93 Introduction 10.1 93 Discretion 10.2 93 Conduct relevant to relief 10.3 94 Section 461(2)(a) 10.4 94 Section 461(2)(b) 10.6 95 Section 461(2)(c) 10.8 96 Section 461(2)(d) 10.10 96 The concept of “fairness” 10.11 97 Basis of valuation 10.13 97 Date of valuation 10.18 99 Adjustments to valuation 10.21 100 Expert evidence 10.23 101 Type of order 10.24 101 Other orders 10.26 102 PART 11: PROCEDURAL MATTERS 104 Introduction 11.1 104 The petition and procedural rules 11.6 106 Parties to the proceedings 11.12 109 Who may petition 11.12 109 Who should be joined as a party 11.15 109 Third party proceedings 11.19 110 Advertisement of petitions 11.21 111 Strike out applications 11.23 112 v Paragraph Page Costs 11.26 113 No indemnity for costs 11.26 113 Costs of the respondents 11.27 113 Recent developments 11.29 114 SECTION D: OUTLINE OF OTHER STATUTORY REMEDIES PART 12: THE COMPANIES ACT 1985 116 Introduction 12.1 116 Substantive remedies 12.2 116 Application by Secretary of State for unfair prejudice remedy 12.3 116 Requisition of meetings and resolutions 12.9 118 Challenges to resolutions 12.11 120 Miscellaneous shareholder remedies 12.19 123 Access to information 12.24 125 Constitution and registers 12.25 125 Accounts 12.28 127 Directors’ remuneration 12.34 129 PART 13: THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 133 Voluntary winding up 13.2 133 Compulsory winding up 13.3 134 Right of liquidator to recover company assets 13.8 135 Power of investigation 13.9 136 Summary remedy for misfeasance 13.10 136 Wrongful or fraudulent trading 13.11 136 Transactions at an undervalue 13.14 137 Transactions defrauding creditors 13.15 138 SECTION E: REFORM PART 14: DEFICIENCIES IN THE PRESENT LAW AND THE APPROACH TO REFORM 139 Problems in the current law 14.1 139 Problems in actions on behalf of the company 14.1 139 Problems in the remedy for unfairly prejudicial conduct, sections 459-461 14.5 140 Remedies for breaches of contract in the articles of association 14.7 141 Guiding principles for resolving the problems identified 14.10 142 PART 15: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 146 Introduction 15.1 146 Summary of possible reform package 15.2 146 PART 16: A NEW DERIVATIVE ACTION 149 Introduction 16.1 149 The need for a derivative action 16.3 149 Availability of the new derivative action 16.7 152 Should the new procedure prescribe the wrongs in respect of which the action is available? 16.8 153 vi Paragraph Page Type of duty 16.9 153 Should the new procedure be available for breaches of duty by others apart from directors? 16.10 154 Partial abrogation of the rule in Foss v Harbottle 16.12 155 Notice to the company 16.15 156 Consideration by the court 16.18 158 Issues relevant to the grant of leave 16.20 159 Threshold test on the merits 16.21 159 Summary of approach to derivative actions in foreign jurisdictions 16.23 161 Applicant’s good faith 16.27 162 Interests of the company 16.32 164 That the wrong has been, or may be, approved by the company in general meeting 16.35 165 The views of an independent organ 16.38 166 The availability of alternative remedies 16.39 167 Advantages and disadvantages of express list of criteria 16.42 167 Additional qualifying requirement 16.45 168 Court’s power to appoint an independent expert 16.46 169 Remedy 16.48 169 Multiple derivative actions 16.51 171 PART 17: CASE MANAGEMENT BY THE COURTS OF SHAREHOLDER PROCEEDINGS 172 Introduction 17.1 172 Proposals in the Woolf Report 17.3 172 Introduction to our provisional recommendations for case management 17.5 173 Case management of derivative actions 17.6 174 Stage at which discretion to grant leave to continue a derivative action will be exercised 17.6 174 Power to direct the company to convene a meeting of the shareholders 17.7 174 Costs indemnity orders 17.8 174 Addition or substitution of applicant 17.9 175 Leave of the court for compromise or abandonment of derivative actions 17.10 175 Case management of all shareholder proceedings 17.11 176 Preliminary issues 17.11 176 Security for costs 17.13 176 Power to dismiss claim or part of claim or defence which has no realistic prospect of success 17.16 177 Adjournment to facilitate alternative disposal arrangements 17.17 178 Determination of how facts are to be proved 17.18 178 Exclusion of issues from determination 17.19 178 PART 18: A NEW ADDITIONAL UNFAIR PREJUDICE REMEDY FOR SMALLER COMPANIES 180 Introduction 18.1 180 Suggested scheme for new remedy for smaller companies 18.4 180 PART 19: ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION 185 Introduction 19.1 185 Shareholder exit article for smaller private companies — draft regulation 19.3 186 Companies to which this regulation would apply 19.3 186 Circumstances that give rise to the exit rights 19.4 186 Exit provisions 19.7 187 vii Paragraph Page Arbitration — draft regulation 120 19.12 189 Valuation procedure — draft regulation 121 19.16 190 General 19.18 191 PART 20: OTHER REFORMS 192 Introduction 20.1 192 Reform to section 14 by clarification of the types of situations that may fall within the section 20.2 193 Other reforms relating to proceedings under sections 459-461 20.5 193 Clarification of section 459 by authoritative guidance 20.5 193 Amendment of section 459 to impose a limitation period on claims under the section 20.9 195 Amendment of section 459 to make it clear that it is specific conduct, rather than the affairs of the company overall, that has to be shown to be unfairly prejudicial 20.15 198 Amendment of section 459 to ensure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Boundary Issues
    documents that are not necessarily merger specific are The US example highlights the collaboration between the often the subject of these requests. There have been cases DOJ's civil and criminal sections. The fines in the European in which documents submitted pursuant to a request issued cases serve to remind companies that the exchange of in the context of a merger investigation have triggered commercially sensitive information may be forbidden by competition law concerns unrelated to the merger. competition rules. Similarly, the examples from the rest of the For example, when various franchise agreements were world emphasise the growing risks and implications following requested as part of a merger investigation,the Competition the submission of documents to antitrust authorities. Commission expressed concerns with exclusivity provisions Companies need to be increasingly aware of the risks contained in the agreements, claiming that they would ordinary course documents present, and implement proper have a restrictive effect on competition. The Competition document management procedures, as well as compliance Tribunal, the adjudicative body deliberating upon the programmes to ensure compliance with the relevant merger, noted that non-merger specific antitrust issues competition laws. Whilst easy to state, ongoing compliance cannot be investigated through the "back door of merger with competition law is the most straightforward way to control" but invited the Competition Commission to ensure that documents submitted for a merger review tell investigate its concerns separately. the story the merging parties want to be told. In a case involving a merger investigation of property funds, lease exclusivity provisions were raised by the Pou! Johnson is of counsel, Craig Lee is a partner, and Creighton Competition Commission as a concerning feature ofthe way Macy is a partner at Baker McKenzie in Brussels and Washington DC.
    [Show full text]
  • WPS 5-2013 the Rule in Foss V Harbottle Is Dead by Kershaw
    The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead; Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle David Kershaw LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 5/2013 London School of Economics and Political Science Law Department This paper can be downloaded without charge from LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers at: www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/wps.htm and the Social Sciences Research Network electronic library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2209061. © David Kershaw. Users may download and/or print one copy to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. Users may not engage in further distribution of this material or use it for any profit-making activities or any other form of commercial gain. The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead; Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle * David Kershaw Abstract: The proper plaintiff rule reflects the elemental legal principle that only the right-holder is entitled to enforce the right. At common law, as a corollary of this principle, only when the general meeting was incapable of acting in the corporate interest could a derivative action be brought. It followed from this principle that wrongdoer control of the shareholder meeting was a pre-requisite to derivative litigation. The Companies Act 2006 introduced what is considered to be a ‘new’ derivative action mechanism. Although the Act is silent about the wrongdoer control requirement, it is widely understood to have abolished it. Central to this understanding is the view that this is what Parliament intended, as supported by a view of the mischief of the Act and by several ministerial statements.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY IS the RULE in FOSS V HARBOTTLE SUCH an IMPORTANT ONE? Ioanna Mesimeri Advocate 1. Introduction a Company Has a Separate
    WHY IS THE RULE IN FOSS V HARBOTTLE SUCH AN IMPORTANT ONE? Ioanna Mesimeri Advocate 1. Introduction A company has a separate legal personality, distinct and separate from the members who compose it and so it can ‘sue and be sued in its own name’1. Decisions of a company are taken by the shareholders and the board members and represent the majority of the company2. Each company member is contractually bound by the company’s constitution which mandates that every member agrees to be bound by the majority’s decisions3. Courts have long been reluctant to get involved in the company’s internal management4 as long as directors are operating under the provisions of the Articles5. All the above principles coexist in the rule of Foss v Harbottle (1843)6. The principle of separate legal personality, the doctrine of majority rule, the statutory contract and the internal management principle are all translated in the Foss v Harbottle rule, the ‘rule of procedure governing locus standi’7. This rule is the basis of ‘common law jurisprudence regarding who may bring an action on behalf of the company’8 and although its existence dates back beyond 150 years, it still constitutes a significant part of the company law9. The rule is considered prudent as it recognises that it is pointless to bring an action to the courts for an issue that a company can resolve on its own, or a wrongdoing that can be settled within its own internal management10. Without the rule in Foss v Harbottle, there would occur a huge amount of superficial litigation which would threaten the normal performance of a company11.
    [Show full text]
  • Macfarlanes Insider Issue One - November 2020
    Macfarlanes Insider Issue one - November 2020 Welcome to Macfarlanes Insider, a newsletter which has been created to give you a better insight into the firm. The quarterly newsletter will be available on the Careers pages of the firm’s website and is designed to ensure you remain well briefed on life at Macfarlanes. This includes recent firm news and events, our key priorities, and employee Q&A’s, amongst other things. Good Work Standard The firm recently learnt that it has been awarded the Good Work Standard (GWS) at excellence level, the highest level possible. The Good Work Standard is the Mayor of London’s accreditation recognising the best employment practices in London businesses. The four pillars of the Standard are: fair pay and conditions; workplace wellbeing; skills and progression; and diversity and recruitment. By achieving the GWS, businesses signal their commitment to healthy, fair and inclusive workplaces. Macfarlanes Insider | November 2020 1 Recent news Race Fairness Commitment Macfarlanes is one of 15 initial law earners across the firm and in senior like “application to interview” and firm signatories to the Race Fairness business services roles. “interview to offer” rates for different Commitment (RFC). The firm is ethnic groups. committed to increasing the number of The RFC is data driven and Black and minority ethnic (BME) fee commits us to measuring things Reskilling the Recovery The firm has pledged to support campaign. The campaign will help helping to get Londoners into good small businesses recover from the London’s small businesses and quality jobs where they have the impact of the pandemic by donating their employees develop the skills chance to progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Law Firms 2019 Top Law Firms 2019
    Top Law Firms 2019 Top Law Firms 2019 In association with Sanlam Private Wealth In the hands of a wealthsmith, a humdrum retirement could turn into something more adventurous At Sanlam we understand the importance of ensuring each client’s pension reaches its maximum potential, providing them with the best foundations to enjoy their next chapter. To find out more please call Penny Lovell on 020 7382 0946, email [email protected] or visit www.sanlam.co.uk Advice • Planning • Management Winner Investment Performance High Growth Portfolios 2018 and 2019 The value of investments and the income from them can fall and you may get back less than you invested. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Sanlam Wealth is a trading name of Sanlam Private Investments (UK) Ltd which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales No.2041819. Registered Office: 16 South Park, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 1AN. Sanlam Wealth Planning UK Limited, registered in England and Wales 3879955, and English Mutual Limited, registered in England and Wales 6685913 (Registered Offices: St Bartholomew’s House, Lewin’s Mead, Bristol BS1 2NH). English Mutual Limited is an appointed representative of Sanlam Wealth Planning UK Limited. Top Law Firms Foreword Will Sidery elcome to the 2019 eprivateclient Top Law Firms report that recognises the leading private client editor eprivateclient W law firms in the UK. This year 43 firms have been included in the rankings and these firms reflect the wide variety of advice available to clients from not just the UK but international individuals and families too.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Finance and Management Issues in Company Law
    Corporate finance and management issues in company law Section C: Corporate management I Revised edition – 2008 A.J. Dignam J.P. Lowry This Study Guide was prepared for the University of London by: Alan Dignam, Reader in Corporate Law, School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London. John Lowry, Professor of Commercial Law and Vice Dean of the Faculty of Laws, University College London. This is one of a series of Study Guides published by the University. We regret that owing to pressure of work the authors are unable to enter into any correspondence relating to, or arising from, the Guide. If you have any comments on this Study Guide, favourable or unfavourable, please use the form at the back of this Guide. Publications Office The External System University of London Stewart House 32 Russell Square London WC1B 5DN United Kingdom www.londonexternal.ac.uk Published by the University of London Press © University of London 2009 The University of London does not assert copyright over any of the accompanying readings reproduced in this Study Guide, copyright in which is retained by the original publishers. However, a separate copyright vests in the format of these readings as a published edition and database rights may exist in their compilation. This copyright and any such database rights belong to the University of London. Printed by Central Printing Service, University of London All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. Contents Chapter 1
    [Show full text]
  • Business Law, Fifth Edition
    BUSINESS LAW Fifth Edition This book is supported by a Companion Website, created to keep Business Law up to date and to provide enhanced resources for both students and lecturers. Key features include: ◆ termly updates ◆ links to useful websites ◆ links to ‘ebooks’ for introductory and further reading ◆ ‘ask the author’ – your questions answered www.cavendishpublishing.com/businesslaw BUSINESS LAW Fifth Edition David Kelly, PhD Principal Lecturer in Law Staffordshire University Ann Holmes, M Phil, PGD Dean of the Law School Staffordshire University Ruth Hayward, LLB, LLM Senior Lecturer in Law Staffordshire University Fifth edition first published in Great Britain 2005 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom Telephone: + 44 (0)20 7278 8000 Facsimile: + 44 (0)20 7278 8080 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com Published in the United States by Cavendish Publishing c/o International Specialized Book Services, 5804 NE Hassalo Street, Portland, Oregon 97213-3644, USA Published in Australia by Cavendish Publishing (Australia) Pty Ltd 3/303 Barrenjoey Road, Newport, NSW 2106, Australia Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com.au © Kelly, D, Holmes, A and Hayward, R 2005 First edition 1995 Second edition 1997 Third edition 2000 Fourth edition 2002 Fifth edition 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Cavendish Publishing Limited, or as expressly permitted by law, or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bottom Line Law Firms but in 2016-17, That Revenue Notably Became Material for Many, in a Trend That Can Be Expected to Clifford Chance Accelerate
    aka ‘The Orange Rag’ State of the Industry 2017: Financial Results Revenue generated by alternative legal services in all its many guises may still be a drop in the ocean for big City The Bottom Line law firms but in 2016-17, that revenue notably became material for many, in a trend that can be expected to Clifford Chance accelerate. Clifford Chance in July posted double digit increases We spoke about the latest set of financial results in both revenue and profit per equity partners, with to senior management at law firms including Clifford turnover up by 11% to £1.54bn and PEP up by 12% to Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Herbert Smith an average of £1.38m. Freehills, Pinsent Masons, Macfarlanes and Mishcon de In announcing the results, managing partner Reya, all of which say they are winning business as a Matthew Layton said that the firm’s profit growth result of new delivery models. reflected increases in revenue but also efficiencies in Progress is being made in delivering better value to internal operations. clients, in automating routine legal services, in project Clifford Chance’s innovation strategy has two managing work and in using technology-led solutions distinct strands. The first focusses on best delivery – such as document review tools to create client efficiencies. using the right tools or resources to provide the best Taking that a step further, of the firms we spoke to, all value. Here the magic circle firm is transforming the way but Freshfields now have a deliberate focus on generating it delivers legal services by 1) using technology-based revenue through productising legal services or creating client solutions such as its partnership with Kira Systems adjacent business lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Just and Accountable Development
    Just and Accountable Development 2014 Annual Report & 2015 Review 38 COUNTRIES ISLP at Work 3 170 PROJECTS Letter from the Co-Presidents 4 Letter from the Executive Director 5 Natural Resources 6 Vulnerable Communities 6 Case Study: Kenya’s Kerio Valley 7 Investment, Trade & Tax 8 Economic & Social Development 8 Case Study: Liberia Boosts Small Businesses 9 Strengthening Media Freedoms 10 Supporting Civil Society 11 Law Firms and Barristers’ 57 Chambers Partnerships 12 LAW FIRMS Awards & Publications 12 Volunteers 13 10 LANGUAGES Donors 14 Financial Statements 14 Board of Directors and Staff 15 22,000 Law Firm Donors 16 PRO BONO HOURS 2 A GLOBAL IMPACT ISLP at Work ISLP’s mission is to foster just and accountable development which is sustainable, supportive of human rights, and strengthens the rule of law, by mobilizing our unique network of highly skilled and experienced pro bono lawyers to advise civil society and governments. NATURAL VULNERABLE CIVIL SOCIETY 25 RESOURCES COMMUNITIES SPACE COUNTRIES WITH ONSITE MISSIONS ECONOMIC ANTI- INVESTMENT, & SOCIAL CORRUPTION TRADE & TAX $9.5m DEVELOPMENT IN DONATED SERVICES 3 LETTERS Letter from the “ We cannot thank enough those of our many friends for generously Letter from the providing the financial, service, and moral support to permit us to Co-Presidents realize our dream.” Co-Presidents Dear Friends, would have worked in some 60 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe; and that we would have a widely–recognized record As the 2014 Annual Report goes to press, ISLP has completed a comprehensive strategic of significant accomplishment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Largest Commercial Law Firms in the UK Ranked by Revenue
    UK Top 50 2018-19 The largest commercial law firms in the UK ranked by revenue Rank Rank Revenue Change in Average PEP Change Total Change in total Total equity Change in total Revenue per Profit per lawyer Firm Leverage (2018-19) (2017-18) (£m) revenue (£k) in PEP partners partners partners equity partners lawyer (£k) (£k) 1 1 DLA Piper (1) 2111.0 2.8% 1,395 1.9% 1245.7 3.4% 401.0 -0.7% 570.3 151.0 8.2 2 2 Clifford Chance 1693.0 4.3% 1,620 1.3% 562 0.9% 394.0 0.5% 700.7 263.7 5.1 3 6 Linklaters 1628.7 6.9% 1,690 9.9% 464.2 0.9% 442.5 0.6% 692.7 319.7 4.3 4 4 Allen & Overy 1627.0 3.4% 1,660 1.2% 536 -0.4% 388.0 -0.3% 687.7 271.8 5.1 5 3 Hogan Lovells (1) 1577.0 -0.6% 1,029 2.9% 803 -3.9% 523.0 -5.9% 598.3 204.1 4.0 6 7 Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 1472.0 4.9% 1,839 5.5% 377 -4.3% 370.0 -5.6% 993.9 464.6 3.0 7 5 Norton Rose Fulbright (1) 1466.0 -3.9% 675 0.7% 1166.3 -3.8% 681.4 -4.6% 434.3 136.3 4.0 8 8 CMS (2) 1204.0 6.2% 582 1.4% 1041.5 -0.5% 601.9 0.7% 325.3 93.2 5.1 9 9 Herbert Smith Freehills 965.7 4.2% 949 11.4% 452 -2.6% 323.0 -0.6% 461.4 146.5 5.5 10 10 Eversheds Sutherland (3) 875.0 8.7% 865 2.4% 739 9.0% 198.8 4.1% 362.6 71.3 11.1 11 n/a Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (4) 669.0 n/a 627 n/a 544.2 n/a 280.7 n/a 469.6 123.5 4.1 12 12 Ashurst 641.0 13.7% 972 30.8% 392 4.8% 241.0 0.8% 453.0 165.5 4.9 13 13 Clyde & Co 611.0 10.8% 690 4.5% 430 5.7% 219.0 2.8% 355.2 87.8 6.9 14 11 Slaughter and May **(5) 590.0 3.3% 2,300 n/a 109 -2.7% 102.0 -3.8% 1092.6 434.4 4.3 15 15 Pinsent Masons 475.0 5.6% 620 -5.1% 447 4.4% 183.0 2.8% 302.4 71.2
    [Show full text]
  • Majority Rule and Minority Protections: Theoretical Frameworks and National Practice in the Shadow of the Eu: the Case of Ireland
    MAJORITY RULE AND MINORITY PROTECTIONS: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND NATIONAL PRACTICE IN THE SHADOW OF THE EU: THE CASE OF IRELAND DEIRDRE AHERN Associate Professor at Trinity College Dublin Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 2 II. THE IRISH COMPANY LAW LANDSCAPE ....................................................... 4 1. Sources of law ...................................................................................................... 4 2. Majorities and minorities within corporate decision-making ............................... 5 III. DIRECTORS’ DUTIES ....................................................................................... 7 1. The duty to act in the best interests of the company ............................................ 7 2. The duty to act only for purposes allowed by law ................................................ 8 3. Duties owed by directors to individual shareholders? .......................................... 9 IV. DERIVATIVE ACTIONS BY MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS ....................... 9 1. The company as primary litigator of wrongs........................................................ 9 2. The complex territory of derivative actions ....................................................... 10 3. Derivative actions for fraud on the minority ...................................................... 11 4. Derivative actions based on appeals to fairness and justice ............................... 14 5. Conclusions
    [Show full text]
  • Derivative Claims Under UK Company Law and Some Related Provisions of German Law by Frank Wooldridge and Liam Davies
    22419 Amicus 90 Summer text.qxd:Text 20/9/12 12:39 Page 5 Derivative claims under UK company law and some related provisions of German law by Frank Wooldridge and Liam Davies INTRODUCTORY REMARKS an action” and that the leave of the court should be The bringing of derivative claims by the shareholders of required to continue a derivative action. The Company an English or Welsh company used to be restricted by Law Reform Steering Group made a similar reason of the application of the common law rule in Foss v recommendation regarding a simplified procedure for such Harbottle [1843] 2 Hare 461 (the position was the same in actions. This recommendation was adopted in sections Scotland). According to this rule, which was subject to 260-264 of Part 11 of the Companies Act 2006. This Act exceptions, an individual shareholder could not bring an also provided that such derivative claims could be brought action on the company’s behalf against a director who was in relation to a cause of action vested in the company and in breach of his duties to the company. It was only possible seeking relief on its behalf only with the permission of the to bring such a claim if the wrongdoing was not ratifiable or treated as such. Where an unratifiable wrong could be court. The 2006 Act further provides that derivative claims identified, a derivative action by an individual shareholder may be brought by way of a petition under section 994, might not take place where the majority of the which is concerned with unfairly prejudicial conduct of the shareholders in general meeting decided not to sue the company’s affairs.
    [Show full text]