Loading...

Messages

Proposals

Stuck in your homework and missing deadline? Get urgent help in $10/Page with 24 hours deadline

Get Urgent Writing Help In Your Essays, Assignments, Homeworks, Dissertation, Thesis Or Coursework & Achieve A+ Grades.

Privacy Guaranteed - 100% Plagiarism Free Writing - Free Turnitin Report - Professional And Experienced Writers - 24/7 Online Support

Re bird precision bellows ltd

19/11/2021 Client: muhammad11 Deadline: 2 Day

Company Law LLM
University College London

The “Unfair Prejudice” Petition
Seminar Objectives:

1. To critically understand the statutory regime for protection of minority shareholders against “unfair prejudice”

2. To explore the remedies available to minority shareholders under the regime

3. To briefly look at the regime for shareholders to petition for just and equitable winding up of the company under s122(1)(g), Insolvency Act.

Essential Reading

Pettet ch 11, Hannigan ch 19; Gower and Davies ch20; Kershaw ch 16

Sealy and Worthington where specified

Roadmap for Discussion
Contents

1 Roadmap for Discussion

1 Protection of Minority Shareholders

1 The Unfair Prejudice Remedy

1 How is the Petition Carried Out

1 A. Petitioners under s. 994

2 B. Respondents under s. 994

2 C. In what Capacity Must the Petitioner be complaining?

2 D. In what Capacity Must the Respondent be acting?

2 E. Must the Petitioner come with Clean Hands?

2 F. Funding the s. 994 Action

2 What Is Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct?

3 Where There Is No Quasi Partnership

3 Quasi-Partnership

4 Section 996 Remedial Orders

4 Valuation of Shares

5 Other Orders

5 Just and Equitable Winding Up

5 When has s122(1)(g) been applied?

5 Relationship with s994

Protection of Minority Shareholders
Under our theoretical framework of company law it was posited that one function of company law is to reduce oppression risk. This risk flows from majority rule which is accepted in the decision-making processes in the organs of the company. Consider how minority shareholders are protected in (a) private companies and (b) in publicly traded companies.

There are two main statutory remedies that shareholders can use to deal with oppression, usually in a private company, to wit, the s.994 Companies Act 2006 remedy and the s 122(1)(g) Insolvency Act 1985 remedy.

The Unfair Prejudice Remedy
This is provided for under s994, Companies Act 2006. This remedy is a personal remedy for the minority shareholder and is not on behalf of the company, like in the derivative claim. It can relate to how the minority shareholder is treated, as well as how affairs are conducted in the company generally. S994 is very wide and we will examine its elements.

How is the Petition Carried Out
A. Petitioners under s. 994
(a) a member or members;

(b) a person to whom shares have been transmitted by operation of law;

(c) the Secretary of State.

Hence a former member and an unregistered transferee of shares have no locus standi: Re a Company [1986] 2 All ER 253 and Re Quickdome Ltd [1988] BCLC 370

B. Respondents under s. 994
(a) Controlling shareholders and/or directors

(b) The company (usually on a nominal basis)

C. In what Capacity Must the Petitioner be complaining?
Re Alchemea Ltd [1998] BCC 964 but see different position in Wootliff v Rushton-Turner [2016] EWHC 2802

Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB v Baltic Partners [2007] UKPC 26

Shepherd v Williams [2010] EWHC 2375 (Ch)

D. In what Capacity Must the Respondent be acting?
Re Unisoft Group Ltd (No.3) [1994] 1 BCLC 609

E. Must the Petitioner come with Clean Hands?
Re London School of Electronics [1986] Ch 211, Sealy,

Shepherd v Williams [2010] EWHC 2375 (Ch)

Arrow Nominees Inc v. Blackledge [2001] BCC 591

Sprint Electric v Buyer’s Dream Ltd and Potamianos [2018] EWHC 1924 (claimant’s prevention of access by company to source code was poor conduct but did not prevent his exclusion from directorship from being established as unfairly prejudicial)

Note- poor conduct can affect remedy- cf Boughtwood v Oak [2010] EWCA Civ 23; Interactive Technology Corp v Ferrester & Ors [2016] EWHC 2896

F. Funding the s. 994 Action
Corbett v Corbett [1998] BCC 93

Re a Company, ex p Johnson [1992] BCLC 701

What Is Unfairly Prejudicial Conduct?
The starting point: The principles upon which the court decides that conduct is unjust, inequitable or unfair were stated by Lord Wilberforce in Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd and others [1972] 2 All ER 491, 499ff (on what is now section 122(1)(g) of the Insolvency Act). These principles have guided the courts in their approach to s 459:

“The foundation of it all lies in the words ‘just and equitable’ and, if there is any respect in which some of the cases may be open to criticism, it is that the courts may sometimes have been too timorous in giving them full force. The words are a recognition of the fact that a limited company is more than a mere judicial entity, with a personality in law of its own: that there is room in company law for recognition of the fact that behind it, or amongst it, there are individuals, with rights, expectations and obligations inter se which are not necessarily submerged in the company structure. That structure is defined by the Companies Act 1948 and by the articles of association by which shareholders agree to be bound. In most companies and in most contexts, this definition is sufficient and exhaustive, equally so whether the company is large or small. The ‘just and equitable’ provision does not, as the respondents suggest, entitle one party to disregard the obligation he assumes by entering a company, nor the court to dispense him from it. It does, as equity always does, enable the court to subject the exercise of legal rights to equitable considerations; considerations, that is, of a personal character arising between one individual and another, which may make it unjust, or inequitable, to insist on legal rights, or to exercise them in a particular way.”

See Hoffmann LJ (as he then was) in Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc [1995] 1 BCLC 14, 17ff. But Harrison’s case raised issues with the interpretation of what the petitioner’s ‘legitimate expectations’ are. Finally, see Lord Hoffmann in O’Neill v Phillips [1999] BCC 600 .

What are the 2 limbs of unfair prejudice?

Where There Is No Quasi Partnership
The breach of provisions in the constitution forms the basis of the petition.

See Brett v Migrant Solutions et al [2016] EWHC 523 (Ch)

Moxon v Litchfield & Ors 2013] EWHC 3957 (Ch)

Quasi-Partnership
Many petitioners try to establish quasi-partnerships as the scope for looking at conduct is wider. What is a quasi-partnership?

Wider scope of ‘understandings’ and ‘arrangements’- Cobden Investments v RWM Langport [2008] EWHC 2810

Birdi v Specsavers [2015] EWHC 2870 (Ch)

Factors the court looks for in establishing a quasi-partnership, but often these are not difficult to satisfy. Consider Sprint Electric v Buyer’s Dream Ltd and Potamianos [2018] EWHC 1924

-whether a quasi-partnership depends on relations from the outset of the business, and can a subsequent buyer of a large stake claim that there is a quasi-partnership?

-intensity of involvement such as in management and day-to-day operational tasks

-restrictions on transferability of shares

-this decision is mostly upheld on appeal see Prescott v Potamianos [2019] EWCA Civ 932 on the quasi partnership point and the s996 buyout order, see below for further coverage.

See application in Brown v Bray & anor [2019] EWHC 2304 (where elements of setting up the business together as equals in shareholding and in undertaking management roles were important, although parties entered into formal agreements such as shareholder agreements later)

Cf Michel v Michel [2019] EWHC 1378 on a quasi partnership being a ‘personal’ rather than a company phenomenon. Hence, a company characterised as quasi-partnership when certain persons were shareholders together could cease to be so characterised when the shareholding structures change.

Family companies are not always quasi-partnerships, see Dinglis v Dinglis [2019] EWHC 1644

Examples of Unfair / prejudicial Conduct
These examples show a range of what may be unfair prejudicial, from conduct vis a vis the company as a whole, as well as conduct that is targeted at minority/particularly affects the minority.

· Breaches of directors’ duty, Dinglis v Dinglis [2019] EWHC 1644

· Exclusion and removal from the board without a reasonable offer for the petitioner’s shares: What counts as a reasonable offer?

Croly v Good [2010] EWHC 1 (Ch)

Shepherd v Williams [2010] EWHC 2375 (Ch)

But see Dinglis v Dinglis [2019] EWHC 1644- exclusion is unfair only if based on mutual understanding of equitable constraint on majority shareholder’s power.

· Excessive Remuneration or breach of remuneration agreement: Anderson v Hogg [2002] BCC 923, Interactive Technology Corp v Ferrester, above,

· Domineering conduct and improper seizure of power on Board, see Boughtwood v Oak [2009] EWHC 176 (Ch)

· Improper allotment of shares: Re a Company (No 005134 of 1986) ex p Harries [1989] BCLC 383, Dilution through a rights issue: Re a Company (No 002612 of 1984) (1986) 2 BCC 99,453; [1985] BCLC 80

· Self-dealing by directors and majority shareholders: Re a Company, ex p Burr [1992] BCLC 724

· Misappropriation of corporate assets: Re London School of Electronics Ltd [1986] Ch 211; Clark v Cutland [2003] EWCA 810

· Non-payment of dividends or the payment of very low dividends: Re Sam Weller & Sons Ltd [1990] Ch 682, Routledge v Skerritt [2019] EWHC 573; Lucy McCallum-Toppin v McCallum-Toppin and AMT Coffee [2019] EWHC 46 (Ch)

· Serious mismanagement: Re Elgindata Ltd [1991] BCLC 959 Sealy 569,; See also Re Macro (Ipswich) Ltd [1994] 2 BCLC 354

But see McKillen v Misland Investments Ltd [2012] EWHC Ch for what is NOT unfairly prejudicial conduct.

Section 996 Remedial Orders
The buyout of the petitioner’s shares is usually ordered.

Dalby v Bodilly [2004] EWHC 3078. Note there are several issues wrt such an order, such as how the buy-out is valued and when it is dated. If a minority’s stake in a private company is offered on the market, it would be usually subject to a market discount to reflect the relatively weak character of a minority stake. But a s996 buy-out order can be valued at the court’s discretion to do fairness to the situation at hand. Further, the date of the valuation can be adjusted in order to achieve fairness too.

Valuation of Shares
With or without Discount

Re Bird Precision Bellows [1984] Ch 419, upheld in [1986] Ch 658; Sealy

Re Apollo Cleaning Services Ltd [1999] BCC 786

Re Planet Organic Ltd [2000] 1 BCLC 366

Also see Moxon v Litchfield, above

Date of Order

Re OC (Transport) Services Ltd [1984] BCLC 251; also Croly v Good, Shepherd v Williams, above

Other considerations

North Holdings Ltd v. Southern Tropics Ltd [1999] BCC 746

Re Benfield Greig Group plc [2002] BCC 256

Doughty Hanson & Co Ltd v Roe [2007] EWHC 2212 (Ch) (04 October 2007)

Hemmati, P.; Mitchell, C., “Section 461 Share Buy-outs: Principles of Valuation” (2003) 14 KCLJ 199

Other Orders
-An order regulating the conduct of the company’s affairs in the future: see Re HR Harmer Ltd [1958] 3 All ER 689; Sealy (this case is on s 996 & CA 1985, s. 459’s predecessor (s 210, CA 1985).

- An order analogous to a prohibitory or mandatory injunction on the company: Re Whyte, Petitioner (1984) 1 BCC 99, 044; Re a Company (No 002612 of 1984) [1985] BCLC 80

-An order authorising a derivative suit: see s. 996(2)(c) and Lowe v Fahey [1996] 1 BCLC 262; noted Gray (1997) 18 Co. Lawyer 121, Clark v Cutland [2004] 1 WLR 783

Just and Equitable Winding Up
This remedy pre-dates the s994 remedy and was resorted to by individuals who sought to wind up the company when personal relations have fallen apart in the business.

S122(1)(g), Insolvency Act: ‘the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up’

When has s122(1)(g) been applied?
Re Westbourne Gallaries [1973] AC 360; Sealy

Re Yenidje Tobacco Co. [1916] 2 Ch 426, CA; Sealy

Harding & Walton v Edwards et al [2014] EWHC 247 (Ch)

Relationship with s994
Note s 125(2) & Fuller v Cyracuse Ltd [2001] B.C.C. 806 [2001] 1 B.C.L.C.

In Re a Company No.003843 of 1986 (1987) 3 BCC 624, Millett J said at pp. 631-632:

'it is now manifestly unreasonable for the petitioners to continue to press for a winding-up order. That would give them a financial remedy only, but it would be a financial remedy which would inevitably result in a later payment of a lesser sum than could be obtained from the offer that has been made. For authority that the court will intervene in a situation like the present to stay the proceedings once an offer to buyout has been made, see Re a Company (No. 002567 of 1982) [1983] 1 WLR 927, a decision of Vinelott J.'

Also see recent affirmations of the above reluctance to apply s122(1)(g) in

Fulham Football Club v Richards [2011] EWCA 855;

Badyal v Badyal [2018] EWHC 68

Further Reading

· Reece-Thomas and Ryan, “Section 459, Public Policy and Freedom of Contract: Parts I and II” (2001) 22(6) Company Lawyer 177 and 22(7) Company Lawyer 198

· Hirt, “In what circumstances should breaches of directors’ duties give rise to a remedy under ss. 459 – 461 of the Companies Act 1985” (2003) 24(4) Company Lawyer 100

· Chiu, Iris H-Y, “Contextualising Shareholders’ Disputes: A Way to Reconceptualise Minority Shareholders’ Remedies” (2006) Journal of Business Law 312

Homework is Completed By:

Writer Writer Name Amount Client Comments & Rating
Instant Homework Helper

ONLINE

Instant Homework Helper

$36

She helped me in last minute in a very reasonable price. She is a lifesaver, I got A+ grade in my homework, I will surely hire her again for my next assignments, Thumbs Up!

Order & Get This Solution Within 3 Hours in $25/Page

Custom Original Solution And Get A+ Grades

  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • Proper APA/MLA/Harvard Referencing
  • Delivery in 3 Hours After Placing Order
  • Free Turnitin Report
  • Unlimited Revisions
  • Privacy Guaranteed

Order & Get This Solution Within 6 Hours in $20/Page

Custom Original Solution And Get A+ Grades

  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • Proper APA/MLA/Harvard Referencing
  • Delivery in 6 Hours After Placing Order
  • Free Turnitin Report
  • Unlimited Revisions
  • Privacy Guaranteed

Order & Get This Solution Within 12 Hours in $15/Page

Custom Original Solution And Get A+ Grades

  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • Proper APA/MLA/Harvard Referencing
  • Delivery in 12 Hours After Placing Order
  • Free Turnitin Report
  • Unlimited Revisions
  • Privacy Guaranteed

6 writers have sent their proposals to do this homework:

Financial Assignments
Smart Accountants
Top Rated Expert
Homework Tutor
Instant Assignments
WRITING LAND
Writer Writer Name Offer Chat
Financial Assignments

ONLINE

Financial Assignments

I am a professional and experienced writer and I have written research reports, proposals, essays, thesis and dissertations on a variety of topics.

$40 Chat With Writer
Smart Accountants

ONLINE

Smart Accountants

After reading your project details, I feel myself as the best option for you to fulfill this project with 100 percent perfection.

$20 Chat With Writer
Top Rated Expert

ONLINE

Top Rated Expert

I have worked on wide variety of research papers including; Analytical research paper, Argumentative research paper, Interpretative research, experimental research etc.

$44 Chat With Writer
Homework Tutor

ONLINE

Homework Tutor

As per my knowledge I can assist you in writing a perfect Planning, Marketing Research, Business Pitches, Business Proposals, Business Feasibility Reports and Content within your given deadline and budget.

$18 Chat With Writer
Instant Assignments

ONLINE

Instant Assignments

I am an academic and research writer with having an MBA degree in business and finance. I have written many business reports on several topics and am well aware of all academic referencing styles.

$40 Chat With Writer
WRITING LAND

ONLINE

WRITING LAND

I am an elite class writer with more than 6 years of experience as an academic writer. I will provide you the 100 percent original and plagiarism-free content.

$45 Chat With Writer

Let our expert academic writers to help you in achieving a+ grades in your homework, assignment, quiz or exam.

Similar Homework Questions

Managing organizational change a multiple perspectives approach ppt - Carbon dioxide flame test - Amazon com gp buy addressselect handlers display html hasworkingjavascript 1 - Nursing - Perth 190 visa requirements - The pleasures of eating by wendell berry - Fox group holdings pty ltd - Risk management - Reasons why cell phones should be allowed in class - Ns bluescope lysaght sabah sdn bhd - Powerpoint presentation - Managerial accounting edition by balakrishnan sivaramakrishnan and sprinkle - Computerized payroll system features - The necklace worksheets pdf - Graduate certificate in mathematics - Report for consulting management course based on proposal that introduce someone as consultant to solve the issues of mentioned company - Mathew peck travelling scholarship - Flowchart symbol for process - 18 24 36 lcm - Workshop-2 Vocabulary - English_Journal Assignments_week4 - Math 221 statistics for decision making week 6 lab answers - Contrast the approaches taken by H&M - Understanding and managing organizational behavior sixth edition - Dame clare tickell review - High peak polling stations - Classification alternative techniques in data mining - Mass vs weight physics worksheet - Advantages and disadvantages of budgeting - Sunshine coast council bins - Evidence-base Practice - Cloud Computing - Ritz carlton competition - Assessment 1 Instructions: Capstone Project Summary - ?same-day 0833173182 NORTHAM ABORTION CLINIC // PILLS,,,, - Majak daw migration story - Brecon beacons visitor centre - Project PPT.. Deadline is 8/9/2020 5 pm CST - Riba quality management toolkit - Mazda capital services overnight payoff address - Geometry trig word problems worksheet - Persuasive essay topic sentence starters - Core principles of project management - Which type of transformer is used in battery charger - Download the file below - " now presenting" - Was the treaty of versailles fair - Shadow health focused exam anxiety - Mark twain corn pone opinions summary - Pragmatic paradigm mixed methods - Precipitation reaction general formula - Topic 6 insolation and the seasons answers - C&c equipment rental hawley pa - Burton and garran hall - Portsmouth teaching school alliance - COMMUNICATION THEORY - How to calculate population density per square mile - Wwf social media platforms - Is 121 a triangular number - Goaty goat tying dummy for sale - Romeo and juliet act 4 and 5 questions - Why did freedmen assert that they were owed land - Damien 1978 movie sequel crossword - Island biogeography and biodiversity homework answers - How much heat is required to convert 422 g of liquid h2o at 23.5 °c into steam at 150 °c? - Commedia dell'arte characters list - Local safeguarding children's board hampshire - The civically engaged reader pdf - Chcece003 questions and answers - Celf 5 index scores - What is not a function of the skeletal system - Cemex acquisitions - 1-7 Assignment: Writing Notes - Mama said there'd be days like this chords - Hw - Designer behind dolly girl perfume crossword - Have u seen the rain - How much is squatty potty worth - Instantaneous velocity using limits - Classical argument position paper - Simple write up form - Methods for evaluating innovation projects - How to compute deposit in transit and outstanding check - 6.02 x10 23 calculator - Cost benefit analysis of milgram study - St james episcopal church warrenton va - Of what value is a simple stain - Toward a new interior an anthology of interior design theory - Statistics - 4004 w 17th street los angeles - Critical path method solved examples - The western jeans company purchases denim from cumberland textile mills - Child development theorists cheat sheet - 301 new york times argumentative essay - Ka acid dissociation constant - Kogan 142l chest freezer review - The great gatsby analytical essay - Aiphone lem 1dl wiring diagram - DSM 5 Social Work Discussion Question - 8 2 2 project 3 multimedia presentation submission