Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The board of directors invariably holds the right to sue in the company's name as a general power of management. [2] So if wrongs were alleged to have been done to the company, the principle from the case of Foss v Harbottle, [3] was that the company itself was the proper claimant, and it followed that as a general rule that only the board could bring claims in court.
Unfair prejudice actions have generated an enormous body of cases, many of which are called "Re A Company", with only a six-digit number and report citation to distinguish them. They have become a substitute for the more restrictive conditions on a "derivative action", as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle . [ 1 ]
Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373 is a UK company law case, concerning the rules to bring a derivative claim.The updated law, which replaced the exceptions and the rule in Foss v Harbottle, is now contained in the Companies Act 2006 sections 260-264, but the case remains an example of the likely result in the old and new law alike.
An oppression remedy, intended to operate as an alternative to winding up a company, was adopted as s. 210 of the Companies Act 1948, [8] which declared: . 210. (1) Any member of a company who complains that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to some part of the members (including himself) or, in a case falling within [s. 169(3)], the Board of Trade, may make ...
Justice Leech in the High Court held that, while beneficiaries of a pension fund corporation could bring derivative claims, the Court of Appeal decision in Harris v Microfusion and the rule in Foss v Harbottle meant that the claimants had to show they suffered loss reflected by a loss to the company, and that the directors 'benefited themselves from the breach of duty'. [6]
This was a contentious opinion, and most academic treatises view the law to be that in fact a majority shareholder may by ordinary resolution bring litigation. This is seen to follow implicitly from the rule in Foss v Harbottle, and the House of Lords judgment in Alexander Ward v Samyang. [1]
The issue which the court had to resolve was whether the creditors of a company could claim against a third party who had asset-stripped the company, or whether their claims were barred by the fact that the company was proper plaintiff under the rule in Foss v Harbottle and thus their claim should be barred as reflective loss. [5]