Derivative suit

Last updated

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 (procedural and substantive) to such suits.

Contents

Purpose and difficulties

Under traditional corporate business law, shareholders are the owners of a corporation. However, they are not empowered to control the day-to-day operations of the corporation. Instead, shareholders appoint directors, and the directors in turn appoint officers and/or relatively less powerful executives to manage day-to-day operations.

Derivative suits refer to one or more shareholders bringing an action (lawsuit) in the name of the corporation against a party or parties allegedly causing harm to the latter. If the directors, officers, or employees of the corporation are not willing to file an action, a shareholder may first petition them to proceed. If such petition fails, they may take it upon themself to bring an action on behalf of the corporation. Any proceeds (damages and interest in English law) of a successful action are awarded to the corporation and not to the shareholder(s) as the controlling claimant.

Procedure

In most jurisdictions, a shareholder must satisfy various requirements to prove that he has a valid standing before being allowed to proceed. The law may require the shareholder to meet qualifications such as the minimum value of the shares and the duration of the holding by the shareholder; to first make a demand on the corporate board to take action; or to post bond, or other fees in the event that he does not prevail.

Derivative suits in the United States

In the United States, corporate law is based on state law. Although the laws of each state differ, the laws of the states such as Delaware, New York, California, and Nevada where corporations often incorporate, institute a number of barriers to derivative suits.

Generally in these states, and under the American Bar Association guidelines, the procedure of a derivative suit is as follows. First, eligible shareholders must file a demand on the board. [1] The board may either reject, accept, or not act upon the demand. If after a period of time the demand has been rejected or has not been acted upon, shareholders may file suit. [2] If the board accepts the demand, the corporation itself will file the suit. If rejected, or not acted upon, the shareholder must meet additional pleading requirements. [3] On the requirements being met by the shareholder, the board may appoint a “special litigation committee” which may move to dismiss. [3] If the special litigation committee makes a required showing, the case will be dismissed. If the committee fails to make a showing, the shareholder suit may proceed. [4]

This model approach is followed to a greater or lesser degree among various states. In New York, for example, derivative suits must be brought to secure a judgment "in [the corporation's] favor." [5] Delaware has different rules in regards to demand and bond requirements too.

The famous case of Shaffer v. Heitner , which ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court, originated with a shareholder derivative suit against Greyhound Lines.

Derivative suits in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, an action brought by minority shareholder(s) could only in exceptional circumstances be upheld under the doctrine of Foss v Harbottle in 1843 as to who is the "proper claimant/plaintiff". Exceptions involve ultra vires and, similarly, fraud on minority. According to Blair and Stout's Team Production Theory of Corporate Law, the purpose of such permissible suits is never to protect the shareholders, but to protect the corporation itself. Thus highly irregular emoluments or share reward schemes to the board of directors themselves or their personal extrinsic interests lend themselves to such suits. Creditors may bring an action, if a corporation inextricably faces insolvency.

Sections 302 to 306 of the Companies Act 2006 provides no new statutory class of suits but must be followed, setting out the required standard procedure. [6] In England and Wales, this entails a prima facie case must be shown stage. This preliminary case avoids wasted time and costs. In Scotland where there had been even less clear rules on shareholder actions on behalf of the company, particularly procedurally, alike sections assist.

A confirmation of the statutory procedure being in almost all cases applicable first occurred in the leading reported case of:

Derivative suits in continental Europe

Derivative shareholder suits are extremely rare in continental Europe. The reasons probably lie within laws that prevent small shareholders from bringing lawsuits in the first place. Many European countries have company acts that legally require a minimum share in order to bring a derivative suit. Larger shareholders could bring lawsuits, however, their incentives are rather to settle the claims with the management, sometimes to the detriment of the small shareholders. [7] [8]

Derivative suits in New Zealand

In New Zealand these can be brought under the Companies Act 1993 section 165 only with the leave of the court. It must be in the best interest of the company to have this action brought so benefits to company must outweigh the costs of taking action.

Derivative suits in India

In India, derivative suits are brought under the clauses of oppression and mismanagement.

See also

Related Research Articles

A class action, also known as a class-action lawsuit, class suit, or representative action, is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a member or members of that group. The class action originated in the United States and is still predominantly an American phenomenon, but Canada, as well as several European countries with civil law, have made changes in recent years to allow consumer organizations to bring claims on behalf of consumers.

A banking licence is a legal prerequisite for a financial institution that wants to carry on a banking business. Under the laws of most jurisdictions, a business is not permitted to carry words like a bank, insurance, national in their name, unless it holds a corresponding licence. Depending to their banking regulations, jurisdictions may offer different types of banking licences, such as

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Limited liability partnership</span> Partnership in which some or all partners (depending on the jurisdiction) have limited liabilities

A limited liability partnership (LLP) is a partnership in which some or all partners have limited liabilities. It therefore can exhibit elements of partnerships and corporations. In an LLP, each partner is not responsible or liable for another partner's misconduct or negligence. This distinguishes an LLP from a traditional partnership under the UK Partnership Act 1890, in which each partner has joint liability. In an LLP, some or all partners have a form of limited liability similar to that of the shareholders of a corporation. Unlike corporate shareholders, the partners have the power to manage the business directly. In contrast, corporate shareholders must elect a board of directors under the laws of various state charters. The board organizes itself and hires corporate officers who then have as "corporate" individuals the legal responsibility to manage the corporation in the corporation's best interest. An LLP also contains a different level of tax liability from that of a corporation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corporate law</span> Body of law that governs businesses

Corporate law is the body of law governing the rights, relations, and conduct of persons, companies, organizations and businesses. The term refers to the legal practice of law relating to corporations, or to the theory of corporations. Corporate law often describes the law relating to matters which derive directly from the life-cycle of a corporation. It thus encompasses the formation, funding, governance, and death of a corporation.

A proxy fight, proxy contest or proxy battle is an unfriendly contest for the control over an organization. The event usually occurs when a corporation's stockholders develop opposition to some aspect of the corporate governance, often focusing on directorial and management positions. Corporate activists may attempt to persuade shareholders to use their proxy votes to install new management for any of a variety of reasons. Shareholders of a public corporation may appoint an agent to attend shareholder meetings and vote on their behalf. That agent is the shareholder's proxy.

Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977), is a United States corporate law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established that a defendant's ownership of stock in a corporation incorporated within a state, without more, is insufficient to allow that state's courts to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The case set forth a framework for evaluating when a defendant will be deemed to have minimum contacts with the forum state sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction to be consistent with due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–67 (text)(PDF), 109 Stat. 737 ("PSLRA") implemented several substantive changes in the United States that have affected certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation, and awards fees and expenses.

Directors and officers liability insurance is liability insurance payable to the directors and officers of a company, or to the organization itself, as indemnification (reimbursement) for losses or advancement of defense costs in the event an insured suffers such a loss as a result of a legal action brought for alleged wrongful acts in their capacity as directors and officers. Such coverage may extend to defense costs arising from criminal and regulatory investigations or trials as well; in fact, often civil and criminal actions are brought against directors and officers simultaneously. Intentional illegal acts, however, are typically not covered under D&O policies.

Companies in the Republic of Liberia are regulated by a variety of laws. The corporate laws of Liberia were promulgated over 50 years ago to provide an offshore jurisdiction for ship owners and the international financial community. The LISCR has been appointed by the government of Liberia as its agent to manage corporate registry and to act as the sole entity for foreign companies registered in Liberia. The LISCR is headquartered in Dulles, Virginia, US and has an office located in Zurich, Switzerland.

<i>Kabushiki gaisha</i> Company with limited liability established under Japanese law

A kabushiki gaisha or kabushiki kaisha, commonly abbreviated K.K. or KK, is a type of company defined under the Companies Act of Japan. The term is often translated as "stock company", "joint-stock company" or "stock corporation". The term kabushiki gaisha in Japan refers to any joint-stock company regardless of country of origin or incorporation; however, outside Japan the term refers specifically to joint-stock companies incorporated in Japan.

In corporate law in Commonwealth countries, an oppression remedy is a statutory right available to oppressed shareholders. It empowers the shareholders to bring an action against the corporation in which they own shares when the conduct of the company has an effect that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregards the interests of a shareholder. It was introduced in response to Foss v Harbottle, which had held that where a company's actions were ratified by a majority of the shareholders, the courts will not generally interfere.

The Model Business Corporation Act (MBCA) is a Model Act promulgated and periodically amended by the Corporate Laws Committee of the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association (Committee). The MBCA had been adopted by 36 states and other jurisdictions. The MBCA provides a modern body of statutory corporate law that is regularly updated by the Committee based on judicial decisions, recent legislative enactments and other legal and technological developments. It is a well-organized and clearly-written statute for business (stock) corporations that covers a number of areas, including formation, governance and director conduct and liability. The MBCA has been influential in shaping standards for United States corporate law.

<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.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statutory auditor</span> Auditor when appointed as mandated by law

Statutory auditor is a title used in various countries to refer to a person or entity with an auditing role, whose appointment is mandated by the terms of a statute.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian corporate law</span>

Canadian corporate law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Virgin Islands company law</span>

The British Virgin Islands company law is the law that governs businesses registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is primarily codified through the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004, and to a lesser extent by the Insolvency Act, 2003 and by the Securities and Investment Business Act, 2010. The British Virgin Islands has approximately 30 registered companies per head of population, which is likely the highest ratio of any country in the world. Annual company registration fees provide a significant part of Government revenue in the British Virgin Islands, which accounts for the comparative lack of other taxation. This might explain why company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the British Virgin Islands when compared to countries of similar size.

In re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litigation, 824 A.2d 917 is a US corporate law case, concerning the derivative suits in Delaware.

James Travis Laster is an American corporate lawyer and judge who has served as a Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery since 2009.

References

  1. ↑ MBCA § 7.42
  2. ↑ MBCA § 7.42(2)
  3. 1 2 MBCA § 7.44(d)
  4. ↑ MBCA § 7.44(a)
  5. ↑ Eisenberg v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 451 F.2d 267.
  6. ↑ Explanatory Notes on Companies Act 2006 pages 74&ff
  7. ↑ Kristoffel Grechenig & Michael Sekyra, No derivative shareholder suits in Europe: A model of percentage limits and collusion, International Review of Law and Economics (IRLE) 2011, vol. 31 (1), p. 16-20 (link).
  8. ↑ Why do Shareholder Derivative Suits Remain Rare in Continental Europe?, 37 BROOKLYN J. INT'L L. 843-892 (2012).
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.