header-logo header-logo

04 October 2007 / Dov Ohrenstein
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Features , Company , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Derivative action

Shareholders now have a statutory right to sue directors in derivative actions. Will they use it? asks Dov Ohrenstein

For over 150 years the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 has been a familiar part of the company law landscape. The rule prevents claims by shareholders for reflective losses and provides that if a wrong is done to a company then the company is usually the proper claimant in respect of that wrong. Only in exceptional circumstances, for example where the wrongdoer is a majority shareholder, have minority shareholders been able to obtain the court’s permission to bring a derivative claim on behalf of the company.
The two basic requirements at common law for a derivative action are:
- that the alleged wrong or breach of duty is one that is incapable of being ratified by a simple majority of the members; and
- that the alleged wrongdoers are in control of the company, so that the company, which is the “proper claimant” can not claim by itself.

The new basis for a derivative action

From 1 October 2007 the provisions in the Companies

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll