Shareholder oppression

Last updated

Shareholder oppression occurs when the majority shareholders in a corporation take action that unfairly prejudices the minority. It most commonly occurs in non-publicly traded companies, because the lack of a public market for shares leaves minority shareholders particularly vulnerable, since minority shareholders cannot escape mistreatment by selling their stock and exiting the corporation. [1] The majority shareholders may harm the economic interests of the minority by refusing to declare dividends or attempting a squeezeout. The majority may physically lock the minority out of the corporate premises and even deny the minority the right to inspect corporate records and books, making it necessary for the minority to sue every time it wants to look at them. [2] An important concept in law pertaining to shareholder oppression is the "reasonable expectations" of the minority shareholder. [3] The "fair dealing" standard is also sometimes used by courts. [4]

The potential for shareholder oppression arguably increased when corporate law was changed to eliminate the common law right of minority shareholders to veto fundamental corporate changes such as mergers. [5] It has been said that the business judgment rule and notions of majority rule have allowed shareholder majorities to use the minority's investment without paying for it. [6] It has also been said, however, that it is difficult to determine how to deal with the rights of the minority shareholder without destroying the corporation, while still respecting the rights of the majority shareholder. [7]

The courts sometimes make oppression remedies available. An oppressed minority shareholder can ask the court to dissolve the corporation or hold the corporation's leaders accountable for their fiduciary responsibilities. [8] Another remedy sometimes used is the court-ordered purchase of shares. [9] As of 1997, the European Union still had not harmonized laws for dealing with shareholder oppression. [10] In the United Kingdom, the Companies Act 2006 governs remedies for minority shareholder oppression. [11] In Australia, section 232 of the Corporations Act sets out the grounds for the making of an order. [12] Contractual protections, such as buyout provisions in a shareholder agreement, have been cited as a potential alternative to statutory protections for minority shareholders. [13] Occasionally, the oppressive conduct may even justify the involuntary dissolution of the corporation in order to protect the minority shareholders. [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Board of directors</span> Type of governing body for an organisation

A board of directors is an executive committee that jointly supervises the activities of an organization, which can be either a for-profit or a nonprofit organization such as a business, nonprofit organization, or a government agency.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fiduciary</span> Person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with one or more other parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money or other assets for another person. One party, for example, a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to another party, who, for example, has entrusted funds to the fiduciary for safekeeping or investment. Likewise, financial advisers, financial planners, and asset managers, including managers of pension plans, endowments, and other tax-exempt assets, are considered fiduciaries under applicable statutes and laws. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance, and trust in another whose aid, advice, or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation, good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

<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 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>Foss v Harbottle</i> Case in English corporate law

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. This is known as "the proper plaintiff rule", and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the "derivative action", which allows a minority shareholder to bring a claim on behalf of the company. This applies in situations of "wrongdoer control" and is, in reality, the only true exception to the rule. The rule in Foss v Harbottle is best seen as the starting point for minority shareholder remedies.

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.

A shareholders' agreement (SHA) is an agreement amongst the shareholders or members of a company. In practical effect, it is analogous to a partnership agreement. It can be said that some jurisdictions fail to give a proper definition to the concept of shareholders' agreement, however particular consequences of this agreements are defined so far. There are advantages of the shareholder's agreement; to be specific, it helps the corporate entity to maintain the absence of publicity and keep the confidentiality. Nonetheless, there are also some disadvantages that should be considered, such as the limited effect to the third parties and alternation of the stipulated articles can be time consuming.

<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—

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.

<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>Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.</i>

Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, was a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on hostile takeovers.

D. Gordon Smith is the current dean of the J. Reuben Clark Law School of Brigham Young University (BYU). Smith has taught classes in business associations, contracts, corporate finance, law & entrepreneurship, and securities regulation.

<i>Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (in liq)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd is an Australian company law case concerning the adequacy of consideration paid for shares, as well as on the questions of duty of care and fiduciary duty owed by experts retained in such matters.

<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">South African company law</span> Regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act

South African company law is that body of rules which regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act. A company is a business organisation which earns income by the production or sale of goods or services. This entry also covers rules by which partnerships and trusts are governed in South Africa, together with cooperatives and sole proprietorships.

BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69 (CanLII), [2008] 3 SCR 560 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of the duties of corporate directors to act in the best interests of the corporation, "viewed as a good corporate citizen". This case introduced the principle of fair treatment as an organizing principle in Canadian corporate law.

Wilson v Alharayeri, 2017 SCC 39 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada which significantly extends the application of the oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act to include non-corporate parties.

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.

References

  1. ↑ Means, Benjamin (October 15, 2008), A Voice-Based Framework for Evaluating Claims of Minority Shareholder Oppression in the Close Corporation, vol. 97, Georgetown Law Journal, SSRN   1285204
  2. ↑ Meinhardt, J. Mark (2000–2001), Investor Beware: Protection of Minority Stakeholder Interests in Closely Held Limited-Liability Business Organizations: Delaware Law and Its Adherents, vol. 40, Washburn L.J., p. 288
  3. ↑ Matheson, John H.; Maler, R. Kevin (2006–2007), Simple Statutory Solution to Minority Oppression in the Closely Held Business, A, vol. 91, Minn. L. Rev., p. 657
  4. ↑ A Chernichaw (1994), Oppressed Shareholders in Close Corporations: A Market-Oriented Statutory Remedy, Cardozo L. Rev.
  5. ↑ Heglar, Robert B. (1989), Rejecting the Minority Discount, vol. 1989, Duke L.J., p. 258
  6. ↑ Spratlin, Arthur D. Jr. (1990), Modern Remedies for Oppression in the Closely Held Corporation, vol. 60, Miss. L.J., p. 405
  7. ↑ Grandfield, Cynthia S. (2001–2002), Reasonable Expectations of Minority Shareholders in Closely Held Corporations: The Morality of Small Businesses, The, vol. 14, DePaul Bus. L.J., p. 381
  8. ↑ Thompson, Robert B. (1992–1993), Shareholder's Cause of Action for Oppression, The, vol. 48, Bus. Law., p. 699
  9. ↑ Art, Robert C. (2002–2003), Shareholder Rights and Remedies in Close Corporations: Oppression, Fiduciary Duties, and Reasonable Expectations, vol. 28, J. Corp. L., p. 371
  10. ↑ Miller, Sandra K. (1997), Minority Shareholder Oppression in the Private Company in the European Community: A Comparative Analysis of the German, United Kingdom, and French Close Corporation Problem, vol. 30, Cornell Int'l L.J., p. 381
  11. ↑ DD Prentice (1988), The Theory of the Firm: Minority Shareholder Oppression: Sections 459-461 of the Companies Act 1985 (PDF), Oxford Journal of Legal Studies[ dead link ]
  12. ↑ "Corporations Act 2001, Sect. 232". Commonwealth Consolidated Acts. Australian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  13. ↑ Brownlee, Hunter J. (1994–1995), Shareholders' Agreement: A Contractual Alternative to Oppression as a Ground for Dissolution, The, vol. 24, Stetson L. Rev., p. 267
  14. ↑ Shapiro, Linda (1982). "Involuntary Dissolution of Close Corporations for Mistreatment of Minority Shareholders". Washington University Law Review. 60: 1119 – via Washington University Open Scholarship.
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.