| Rock Nominees Ltd v RCO (Holdings) plc | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | [2004] EWCA Civ 118 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | [2003] EWHC 936 (Ch), [2004] 1 BCLC 439, [2003] 2 BCLC 493 |
Rock Nominees Ltd v RCO (Holdings) plc [2004] EWCA Civ 118 is a UK company law case dealing with unfair prejudice under section 459 Companies Act 1985 (now section 994 Companies Act 2006). It was decided at first instance by Peter Smith J.
Rock Nominees Ltd was part of the business empire of Lord Ashcroft, a Conservative life peer. It is a company which holds shares on behalf of other companies. It had 201,300 shares for Gambier Holdings Inc. (a British Virgin Islands company) and 65,000 shares for Kiwi Ltd. (a Belize company) invested in RCO (Holdings) plc. Its stake made up 2.48%. RCO itself was in the cleaning, catering and security porterage business. In 2000, ISS (UK) Ltd took over RCO, acquiring 96.4% of the shares. It made one of RCO's subsidiaries transfer its shares to one of ISS's subsidiaries for £30,117,784. Rock Nominee's filed for a petition of unfair prejudice on the grounds that this was a transaction at an undervalue. It did not reflect the value to the purchaser of the synergies arising from the sale or the value of avoiding risk from a sale on the open market.
Peter Smith J, in a lengthy judgment held that the petition would be refused. Although some of the conduct by RCO constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, Rock Nominees had not discharged the burden of proof to show that the shares were transferred at an undervalue. The evidence suggested, including a report from a financial expert that Rock Nominees called, that the price did reflect a premium for "synergies". Moreover, Peter Smith J was inclined to draw adverse inferences from some of the murkier omissions in the evidence that Lord Ashcroft had given.
Euphemistically this practice — which I understand is a not unheard of practice in the City — is described as "greenmail". The proper word to my mind is blackmail. It is the kind of thing which brings the City into disrepute ... Where matters are dealt with in speculation and profits are made, which are then gathered offshore, when there is no merit and no exposure to the kind of risks associated with companies, that to my mind is not legitimate.
Potter LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ and Sir Swinton Thomas dismissed the appeal. They held that although the directors had breached their fiduciary duties, Rock Nominees had not suffered prejudice because the best price had been achieved. ROC could not have compelled ISS (UK) Ltd to pay more because only ISS (UK) Ltd was attracted by the potential cost saving. Furthermore, as majority shareholder ISS (UK) Ltd was able to place RCO in members' voluntary liquidation and at any time force a sale of assets on the open market.
For the full case see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/118.html
Greenmail or greenmailing is the action of purchasing enough shares in a firm to challenge a firm's leadership with the threat of a hostile takeover to force the target company to buy the purchased shares back at a premium in order to prevent the potential takeover.
Michael Anthony Ashcroft, Baron Ashcroft, is a British-Belizean businessman, pollster and politician. He is a former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. Ashcroft founded Michael A. Ashcroft Associates in 1972 and was` the 132nd richest person in the UK, as ranked by the Sunday Times Rich List 2021, with an estimated fortune of £1.257 billion.
Sir Patrick Elias, PC, is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal.
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.
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—
Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc [1995] 1 BCLC 14, [1994] BCC 475, is a UK company law case on an action for unfair prejudice under s.459 Companies Act 1985. It was decided in the Court of Appeal and deals with the concept of members of a business having their "legitimate expectations" disappointed. Vinelott J at first instance had denied the petition, and the Hoffmann LJ, Neill LJ and Waite LJ in the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
O'Donnell v Shanahan[2009] EWCA Civ 751 is a UK company law case concerning the strict prohibition on any possibility of a conflict of interest between a company director's duty to promote her company's success and her own gain.
Bhullar v Bhullar[2003] EWCA Civ 424, 2 BCLC 241 is a leading UK company law case on the principle that directors must avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest, particular relating to corporate opportunities. It was not decided under, but is relevant to, section 175 of the Companies Act 2006.
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.
Knowing receipt is an English trusts law doctrine for imposing liability on a person who has received property that belongs to a trust, or which was held by a fiduciary, having known that the property was given to them in breach of trust. To be liable for knowing receipt, the claimant must show, first, a disposal of his trust assets in breach of fiduciary duty; second, the beneficial receipt by the defendant of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the claimant; and third, knowledge on the part of the defendant that the assets he received are traceable to a breach of fiduciary duty.
Buckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Peskin v Anderson [2000] EWCA Civ 326 is a UK company law case concerning directors' duties under English law.
Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone [2001] EWCA Civ 1031 is a UK company law and UK insolvency law case concerning derivative claims.
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.
Oldham v Kyrris[2003] EWCA Civ 1506 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.
Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan [1994] EWCA Civ 33 is an English trusts law case about whether a beneficiary whose fiduciary breaches trust, may trace assets through an overdrawn account to its destination.
Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.
Sir Andrew Peter Leggatt, PC was a British judge who served as the Lord Justice of Appeal and as a member of the Privy Council. He was noted for his acerbic wit and precise, well-written judgements. As a barrister, his clients included Paul McCartney and Robert Bolt.
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.
Sir Jonathan Frederic Parker, PC is a retired British Lord Justice of Appeal.