Corporate litigation in the United Kingdom

Last updated

Corporate litigation in the United Kingdom is that part of UK company law which gives investors the right to sue the directors of a company, or vindicate another wrong to the company, particularly where the board of directors does not wish to act itself.

Contents

History

Litigation among those within a company has historically been very restricted in UK law. The attitude of courts favoured non-interference. As Lord Eldon said in the old case of Carlen v Drury , [1] "This Court is not required on every Occasion to take the Management of every Playhouse and Brewhouse in the Kingdom." If there were disagreements between the directors and shareholders about whether to pursue a claim, this was thought to be a question best left for the rules of internal management in a company's constitution, since litigation could legitimately be seen as costly or distracting from doing the company's real business. (etc)

The rule in Foss v Harbottle

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. A majority of shareholders would also have the default right to start litigation, [4] but the interest a minority shareholder had was seen as relative to the wishes of the majority. Aggrieved minorities could not, in general, sue. Only if the alleged wrongdoers were themselves in control, as directors or majority shareholder, would the courts allow an exception for a minority shareholder to derive the right from the company to launch a claim.

In practice very few derivative claims were successfully brought, given the complexity and narrowness in the exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle . This was witnessed by the fact that successful cases on directors' duties before the Companies Act 2006 seldom involved minority shareholders, rather than a new board, or a liquidator in the shoes of an insolvent company, suing former directors.

Derivative claim

Derivative claims are used by shareholders against directors alleged to have breached their duties of care or loyalty, exemplified in current litigation against BP executives for losses connected to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill catastrophe. Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling unit on fire 2010.jpg
Derivative claims are used by shareholders against directors alleged to have breached their duties of care or loyalty, exemplified in current litigation against BP executives for losses connected to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill catastrophe.

The new requirements to bring a "derivative claim" are now codified in the Companies Act 2006 sections 261-264. [5] Section 260 stipulates that such actions are concerned with suing directors for breach of a duty owed to the company. Under section 261 a shareholder must, first, show the court there is a good prima facie case to be made. This preliminary legal question is followed by the substantive questions in section 263. The court must refuse permission for the claim if the alleged breach has already been validly authorised or ratified by disinterested shareholders, [6] or if it appears that allowing litigation would undermine the company's success by the criteria laid out in section 172. If none of these "negative" criteria are fulfilled, the court then weighs up seven "positive" criteria. Again it asks whether, under the guidelines in section 172, allowing the action to continue would promote the company's success. It also asks whether the claimant is acting in good faith, whether the claimant could start an action in her own name, [7] whether authorisation or ratification has happened or is likely to, and pays particular regard to the views of the independent and disinterested shareholders. [8] This represented a shift from, and a replacement of, [9] the complex pre-2006 position, by giving courts more discretion to allow meritorious claims. Still, the first cases showed the courts remaining conservative. [10] In other respects the law remains the same. According to Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) , [11] minority shareholders will be indemnified for the costs of a derivative claim by the company, even if it ultimately fails.

Personal claims and reflective loss

While derivative claims mean suing in the company's name, a minority shareholder can sue in her own name in four ways. The first is to claim a "personal right" under the constitution or the general law is breached. [12] If a shareholder brings a personal action to vindicate a personal right (such as the right to not be misled by company circulars [13] ) the principle against double recovery dictates that one cannot sue for damages if the loss an individual shareholder suffers is merely the same as will be reflected in the reduction of the share value. For losses reflective of the company's, only a derivative claim may be brought. [14]

Amending articles

A company's articles may be demonstrated to have been amended in an objectively unjustifiably and directly discriminatory fashion. This residual protection for minorities was developed by the Court of Appeal in Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd , [15] where Sir Nathaniel Lindley MR held that shareholders may amend a constitution by the required majority so long as it is "bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole." This constraint is not heavy, as it can mean that a constitutional amendment, while applying in a formally equal way to all shareholders, has a negative and disparate impact on only one shareholder. This was so in Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd , [16] where the articles were changed to remove all shareholders' pre-emption rights, but only one shareholder (the claimant, Mr Greenhalgh, who lost) was interested in preventing share sales to outside parties. [17]

Just and equitable winding up

A drastic right of a shareholder, now under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 122(1)(g), to show it is "just and equitable" for a company to be liquidated. In Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd , [18] Lord Wilberforce held that a court would use its discretion to wind up a company if three criteria were fulfilled: that the company was a small "quasi-partnership" founded on mutual confidence of the corporators, that shareholders participate in the business, and there are restrictions in the constitution on free transfer of shares. Given these features, it may be just and equitable to wind up a company if the court sees an agreement just short of a contract, or some other "equitable consideration", that one party has not fulfilled. So where Mr Ebrahmi, a minority shareholder, had been removed from the board, and the other two directors paid all company profits out as director salaries, rather than dividends to exclude him, the House of Lords regarded it as equitable to liquidate the company and distribute his share of the sale proceeds to Mr Ebrahimi.

Unfair prejudice

The most numerous type of case in company litigation involves unfair prejudice petitions in closely held businesses. Royal courts of justice.jpg
The most numerous type of case in company litigation involves unfair prejudice petitions in closely held businesses.

The drastic remedy of liquidation was mitigated significantly as the unfair prejudice action was introduced by the Companies Act 1985. Now under the Companies Act 2006 section 996, a court can grant any remedy, but will often simply require that a minority shareholder's interest is bought out by the majority at a fair value. The cause of action, stated in section 994, is very broad. A shareholder must simply allege they have been prejudiced (i.e. their interests as a member have been harmed) in a way that is unfair. "Unfairness" is now given a minimum meaning identical to that in Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd . A court must at least have an "equitable consideration" to grant a remedy. Generally this will refer to an agreement between two or more corporators in a small business that is just short of being an enforceable contract, for the lack of legal consideration. A clear assurance, on which a corporator relies, which would be inequitable to go back on, would suffice, unlike the facts of the leading case, O'Neill v Phillips . [19] Here Mr O'Neill had been a prodigy in Mr Phillips' asbestos stripping business, and took on a greater and greater role until economic difficulties struck. Mr O'Neill was then demoted, but claimed that he should be given 50 per cent of the company's shares because negotiations had started for this to happen and Mr Phillips had said one day it might. Lord Hoffmann held that the vague aspiration that it "might" was not enough here: there was no concrete assurance or promise given, and so no unfairness in Mr Phillips' recanting. Unfair prejudice in this sense is an action not well suited to public companies, [20] when the alleged obligations binding the company were potentially undisclosed to public investors in the constitution, since this would undermine the principle of transparency. However it is plain that minority shareholders can also bring claims for more serious breaches of obligation, such as breach of directors' duties. [21] Unfair prejudice petitions remain most prevalent in small companies, and are the most numerous form of dispute to enter company courts. [22]

International comparisons

United States

Germany

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ (1812) 1 Ves & B 154, 158
  2. ↑ e.g. Model Articles, art 3
  3. ↑ (1843) 67 ER 189
  4. ↑ cf Alexander Ward v Samyang [1975] 2 All ER 424 and Breckland Group Holdings Ltd v London & Suffolk Properties Ltd [1989] BCLC 100
  5. ↑ For highly instructive comparison in the US, see Joy v North , 692 F 2d 880 (1981). Another model for a derivative claim in the German Aktiengesetz § 148, whereby 1% of shareholders, or those holding at least €100,000 in shares, can bring a claim.
  6. ↑ See CA 2006 s 239, stipulating that a breach of duty can only be ratified by disinterested shareholders. It also appears that disinterested shareholders would not, however, be competent to ratify fraudulent behaviour, contrary to public policy.
  7. ↑ CA 2006 s 263(3)
  8. ↑ CA 2006 s 263(4), and see Smith v Croft (No 2) [1988] Ch 114
  9. ↑ The pre-2006 case law may still be indicative of the present law, however since according to CA 2006 s 260(2) a claim can only be brought "under this Chapter", the sole rules for derivative actions are contained in ss 260-264.
  10. ↑ e.g. Mission Capital plc v Sinclair [2008] EWHC 1339 (Ch) and Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel [2008] EWHC 1534 (Ch)
  11. ↑ [1975] QB 373
  12. ↑ e.g. Pender v Lushington (1877) 6 Ch D 70, cf Macdougall v Gardiner (1875) 1 Ch D 13
  13. ↑ See Prudential Assurance v Newman Industries Ltd [1982] Ch 204. The duty to not mislead arises from the law of tort, and negligent misstatement.
  14. ↑ See further, Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, Giles v Rhind [2002] EWCA Civ 1428, Gardner v Parker [2004] 2 BCLC 554
  15. ↑ [1900] 1 Ch 656
  16. ↑ [1951] Ch 286
  17. ↑ See also, Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co [1919] 1 Ch 290, Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co Ltd [1920] 1 Ch 154, Dafen Tinplate Co Ltd v Llanelly Steel Co (1907) Ltd [1920] 2 Ch 124, Shuttleworth v Cox Bros and Co (Maidenhead) [1927] 1 Ch 154, Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 and Citco Banking Corporation NV v Pusser's Ltd [2007] UKPC 13
  18. ↑ [1973] AC 360
  19. ↑ [1999] 1 WLR 1092
  20. ↑ See Re Blue Arrow plc [1987] BCLC 585
  21. ↑ e.g. Bhullar v Bhullar [2003] EWCA Civ 424
  22. ↑ e.g. O'Donnell v Shanahan [2009] EWCA Civ 751

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquidation</span> Winding-up of a company

Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end. The assets and property of the business are redistributed. When a firm has been liquidated, it is sometimes referred to as wound-up or dissolved, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.

A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party. Often, the third party is an insider of the corporation, such as an executive officer or director. Shareholder derivative suits are unique because under traditional corporate law, management is responsible for bringing and defending the corporation against suit. Shareholder derivative suits permit a shareholder to initiate a suit when management has failed to do so. To enable a diversity of management approaches to risks and reinforce the most common forms of corporate rules with a high degree of permissible management power, many jurisdictions have implemented minimum thresholds and grounds to such suits.

<i>In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation</i> Legal case and corporate law precedent

In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959, is a civil action that came before the Delaware Court of Chancery. It is an important case in United States corporate law and discusses a director's duty of care in the oversight context. It raised the question regarding compliance, "what is the board's responsibility with respect to the organization and monitoring of the enterprise to assure that the corporation functions within the law to achieve its purposes?" Chancellor Allen wrote the opinion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 561 is a leading English company law case concerning a director's duty of care and skill, whose main precedent is now codified under Section 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The case was decided under the older Companies Act 1985.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom company law</span> Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

Unfair prejudice in United Kingdom company law is a statutory form of action that may be brought by aggrieved shareholders against their company. Under the Companies Act 2006 the relevant provision is s 994, the identical successor to s 459 Companies Act 1985. 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. Though not restricted in such a way, unfair prejudice claims are primarily brought in smaller, non-public companies. This is the text from the Act.

s 994 Petition by company member

(1) A member of a company may apply to the court by petition for an order under this Part on the ground—

(2) The provisions of this Part apply to a person who is not a member of a company but to whom shares in the company have been transferred or transmitted by operation of law, as they apply to a member of a company.

(3) In this section, and so far as applicable for the purposes of this section in the other provisions of this Part, "company" means—

O'Neill v Phillips[1999] UKHL 24 is a UK company law case on an action for unfair prejudice under s.459 Companies Act 1985. It is the only case thus far in the House of Lords on the provision and it deals with the concept of members of a business having their "legitimate expectations" disappointed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom insolvency law</span> Law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. Insolvency means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is liquidated, meaning that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the EU Insolvency Regulation, and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

Directors' duties are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors' duties are analogous to duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries, and by agents to principals.

<i>Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd</i>

Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 is a United Kingdom company law case on the rights of minority shareholders. The case was decided in the House of Lords.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States corporate law</span> Overview of United States corporate law

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has attempted to do the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

<i>Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)</i> 2009 UK legal case

Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens[2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords.

<i>Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd</i>

Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd[2004] EWHC 1056 (Ch) is a UK company law case, which concerns a claim for unfair prejudice and raised the question of barring a claim if attempted to recover for reflective loss. The case is a notable precedent because it makes clear that a nominee shareholder is also a legitimate petitioner for unfair prejudice.

<i>Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)</i>

Wallersteiner v Moir [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.

<i>Smith v Croft</i> (No 2)

Smith v Croft [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).

<i>Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone</i>

Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone [2001] EWCA Civ 1031 is a UK company law and UK insolvency law case concerning derivative claims.

Directors' duties in the United Kingdom bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company.

The oppression remedy in Canadian corporate law is a powerful tool available in Canadian courts, unique in breadth and scope compared to other examples of the oppression remedy found elsewhere in the world.

<i>McGaughey and Davies v USS Ltd</i>

McGaughey and Davies v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd and Directors [2023] EWCA Civ 873 is a UK company law, climate litigation, and pension law case, seeking permission for a derivative claim to enforce duties of the directors of the UK university pension fund, USS Ltd. The case was first to sue for directors of a major UK corporation to divest fossil fuels, and is the first case of beneficiaries of a pension corporation bringing a derivative claim for breaches of directors' statutory duties.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.