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 ...
Smith v Croft (No 2) [1988] Ch 114 is a UK company law case concerning derivative claims. Its principle that in allowing a derivative claim to continue the court will have regard to the majority of the minority's views has been codified in Companies Act 2006 , section 263(4).
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.
Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064 is a UK labour law and UK company law case about the internal organisation of a trade union, or a company, and litigation by members to make an executive follow the organisation's internal rules.
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.
Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 (and the eponymous "rule in Foss v Harbottle"), and; Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; He was also the judge at first instance in Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28.
1843 in United States case law (1 P) Pages in category "1843 in case law" ... Forster v Wilson; Foss v Harbottle; H. Henderson v Henderson This page was ...
Burland v. Earle (1901) was the fraud in the exception to the contract rules since 1843 in Foss v. Harbottle (1901). Noakes Co v. Rice (1901) and Bradley v. Carritt (1903) were cases about the collateral benefits in mortgage laws. In Ruben v. G. Fingall Cons (1906) it was established the effects of a forged certificate on a company.