enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Foss v Harbottle - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foss_v_Harbottle

    Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company, the proper claimant is the company itself.

  3. List of Supreme Court of Judicature cases - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Supreme_Court_of...

    Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, 67 ER 189; Hadley v. Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 (Exch) (23 February 1854), High Court (England and Wales) Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works [1856] EWHC J65 (Exch) (6 February 1856), High Court (England and Wales) Raffles v. Wichelhaus [1864] EWHC J19 (Exch) (20 January 1864), High ...

  4. Corporate litigation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_litigation_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.

  5. Richard Lane (architect) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lane_(architect)

    Lane was one of the defendant architects in the landmark case Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189, which established the precedent that where a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company, the proper claimant is the company itself.

  6. Unfair prejudice in United Kingdom company law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_prejudice_in_United...

    Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461, 67 ER 189; Boughtwood v Oak Investment Partnership XII, Ltd Partnership [2010] EWCA Civ 23; US corporate law; New York Business Corporation Law section 1104-a, the holders of 20 per cent of voting shares of a non-public corporation may request that the corporation be wound up on grounds of oppression. Donahue v.

  7. Smith v Croft (No 2) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Croft_(No_2)

    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).

  8. Joseph Adshead - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Adshead

    Adshead was one of the defendant directors in the landmark case Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189, which established the precedent that where a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company, the proper claimant is the company itself. Adshead became a member of Manchester Corporation, serving as Alderman for St. Anne's Ward.

  9. Anguillan company law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anguillan_company_law

    Accordingly, minority shareholders who are prejudiced in this have to rely upon the common law exceptions to the rule set in Foss v Harbottle, [20] or seek a winding-up of the company on just and equitable grounds. The directors owe their duties to the company itself, and not to the individual members. [21]