Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Shareholder oppression occurs when the majority shareholders in a corporation take action that unfairly prejudices the minority. It most commonly occurs in non-publicly traded companies, because the lack of a public market for shares leaves minority shareholders particularly vulnerable, since minority shareholders cannot escape mistreatment by selling their stock and exiting the corporation. [1]
Because Foss v Harbottle leaves the minority in an unprotected position, exceptions have arisen and statutory provisions have come into being which provide some protection for the minority. By far and away the most important protection is the unfair prejudice action in ss. 994-6 of the Companies Act 2006 (UK) (s 232 Corporations Act 2001 in ...
National Minority Rights in Europe Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pentassuglia, G. 2002. Minorities in international law: an introductory study Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publications; Šmihula, D. 2008. "National Minorities in the Law of the EC/EU", Romanian Journal of European Affairs, Vol. 8 no. 3, pp. 2008, pp. 51–81. online
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
There are a number of reasons why the shareholders may wish to supplement (or supersede) the constitutional documents of the company in this way: a company's constitutional documents are normally available for public inspection, whereas the terms of a shareholders' agreement, as a private law contract, are normally confidential between the parties.
Find out if you qualify for any new 2023 grants for minority-owned small ... the company has given away $1.5 million in cash prizes to more than 100 small businesses. ... a free online platform ...
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions.
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the minority set-aside program of Richmond, Virginia, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.