Company Law shareholders Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Company Law sh arholders - Case Study ExampleRemedies available to Samantha be bringing action section 994 (old459) of the Companies Act meant for Minority Shareholders petitions against the directors mis decree etc. and also a differential coefficient action.From time immemorial, minority shareholder has been discouraged to take action against the directors on the grounds of company world run on majority concept and on the basis of action if any should be interpreted only by the Company on the directors and not the shareholder in individual capacity. In Foss v Harbottle1, it was observed by the motor inn that minority should rather take necessary action through the congenital forum of company meetings. Wigram VC stated that in view of the majority rule, any unlawful conduct of the directors was satisfactory of being ratified by the majority and that it was not possible for the court to intervene. The only exception to the rule as observed by Jenkins LJ in Edwards v Halliwel l(1950)2, could be that the minority shareholder should show that the directors criminate of fraud were actually in control of the company rather than merely maintaining that majority could not legitimately ratify the wrong acts of the directors.3 In Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd4, the minority shareholder Ebrahimi sued on the basis oppression of minority and winding up on just and equitable grounds. The second one was accepted by the court holding that individuals rights should be respected and the rights were not necessarily submerged by the artificial corporate entity context.The minority shareholder Samantha is of the opinion that the purchase of the property of Pastry Products for 450,000 by Filo Ltd is prejudicial to its interests and now she has learnt that both the directors are together holding 44%(each 22%) of shares of that company and the proceeds of the sale of the property have been employ for payment of that companys dividends. Regulation 81(a) of Table A of Articles Filo Ltd has adopted, governs removal of directors along with other regulations from 81(b) to (e). Regulation 81(a) says the office of a director shall be vacated if-(a) he ceases to be a director by virtue of any proviso of the Act or he becomes prohibited by law from being a director5 Besides, a director enjoys immunity as per regulation 118 which indemnifies every director against liability incurred by authority of defence to any civil or criminal proceedings in case of judgment or reliefs in his favour. On the other hand a person conducting shareholder litigation has to meet be from his own sources in case of the derivative claim being rejected by the court. As per the naked as a jaybird Acts section 172 which came into force from October 1, 2007, directors must promote the success of the company for the benefit of the members as a only6 as against the earlier parallel provision that they should act in the best interests of the company. Government has beautiful th at to promote the success means long-term increase in value though this is subject to being confronted by a competing definition from potential litigants. Under Section 175 of the new Act, director has art to avoid conflict of interests. There should not be a situation involving exploitation of any property, information, or opportunity whether or not they are advantageous to the company. The acquisitioning of the property by Filo Limited from Pastry Products in which both of the directors hold 44% of shares falls under this section. Further it has been stated that