19. The unfairly prejudicial remedy and the minority shareholder

The most important minority shareholder remedy is the unfairly prejudicial petition under Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), s 994. This chapter examines petitioning on the grounds of unfair prejudice; the boundaries to unfairly prejudicial conduct; the court’s power to grant relief; and petitioning for a winding-up order on the just and equitable ground under IA 1986, s 122(1)(g). The extensive case law on the section is considered in detail. The courts look to breaches of the terms on which the business should be conducted including breaches of the CA 2006, but also breaches of the agreements underlying the parties’ relationships. Such underlying commitments are most commonly found in quasi-partnerships. The chapter examines the quasi-partnership in detail. The remedy most commonly provided by the court is a purchase order and the chapter looks at the valuation issues around such orders. It also considers the alternative remedy of a winding up on the just and equitable ground.

Legal Protection of Minority Shareholders under Corporate Governance Process

In recent days, most of the corporate are failing in managing business effectively and the major cause for this is conflicts between majority and minority shareholders of the company which lead to direct or indirect destruction of business at the end. Even though, there are certain laws and provisions made for the sake of minority shareholders, those are enforced well and needs to make them as utmost safeguards to minority shareholders. In this paper, we will discuss the issues for conflict including rights of minority shareholders as well as roles and responsibilities of shareholders by analyzing possible solution for conflicts between majority and minority shareholder.

Minority shareholder treatment surrounding the Dell MBO

PurposeThis paper is a clinical examination of the October 2013 Management Buyout of Dell Inc. by founder Michael Dell and Silver Lake Partners for a total consideration of $13.88 per share. The proposed transaction was targeted by shareholders unhappy with the deal price and voting framework. Various shareholders went on to file an appraisal suit. Examining these events yields insights into shareholder rights issues in a major transaction.Design/methodology/approachThe paper examines events surrounding the acquisition including the negotiation process, go-shop period, shareholder activist demands for a higher price, shareholder voting and the subsequent appraisal trial and appeal.FindingsDespite suggesting Dell's board fulfilled its fiduciary duties, Delaware Vice Chancellor Travis Laster awarded petitioning shareholders $17.62 per share, a 27% premium to the final deal consideration. This article draws on Laster's decision and research examining topics raised by the surrounding events to argue minority shareholder interests were not sufficiently protected.Research limitations/implicationsThe Dell transaction represents only one data point. Moreover, Vice Chancellor Laster's decision was reversed on appeal.Originality/valueNevertheless, the paper discusses the nuances surrounding many issues of interest to practitioners involving large going private transactions. It could also be used to illustrate many “real world” perspectives in an advanced corporate finance or mergers and acquisitions class.

7. Minority Shareholder Remedies

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions and coursework. Each book includes typical questions, suggested answers with commentary, illustrative diagrams, guidance on how to develop your answer, suggestions for further reading, and advice on exams and coursework. This chapter examines the law on minority shareholder remedies, which provide some limited protection or avenues of redress for a shareholder with grievances concerning the actions of the company, directors, or majority shareholders. The chapter explores, in particular: the rule in Foss v Harbottle; derivative claims; personal claims and the issue of reflective loss; the ‘unfair prejudice’ remedy in Companies Act 2006, s. 994; and petitions to wind up the company on the ‘just and equitable’ ground under Insolvency Act 1986, s. 122(1)(g).

Concentrate Questions and Answers Company Law

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions and coursework. Each book includes: typical questions; suggested answers with commentary; illustrative diagrams; guidance on how to develop your answer; key debates; suggestions for further reading; and advice on exams and coursework. Concentrate Q&A Company Law offers expert advice on what to expect from your company law exam and coursework, how best to prepare, and guidance on what examiners are really looking for. Written by an experienced examiner, it provides: reminders of points to consider; indications of key debates for each topic; exam-length suggested answers; clear commentary with each answer; diagram answer plans; cautionary points; tips to make your answer stand out from the crowd; and annotated further reading suggestions at the end of every chapter. The book should help you to: identify typical company law exam questions; structure and write a first-class answer; avoid common mistakes; show the examiner what you know; develop and demonstrate your understanding; identify connections between topics; and find relevant and helpful further reading. As well as separate chapters on exam skills and preparing coursework, it covers: companies and corporate personality; the corporate constitution; shares and shareholders; directors’ duties; company management and governance; minority shareholder remedies; corporate liability (contracts, torts, and crimes); share capital; loan capital; and corporate insolvency. The book is suitable for undergraduate students taking a module in company law on the LLB and GDL, and undergraduate students studying aspects of company law on other degreecourses.