header-logo header-logo

Added Protection

26 February 2009 / Peter Hayden
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Features , Company , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Peter Hayden outlines a beneficial decision for investors in hedge funds wishing to bring multiple derivative actions

The starting point when considering a derivative action is the first limb of the well cited rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189, namely that the proper plaintiff in an action in respect of a wrong alleged to be done to the company is prima facie the company itself. There are several exceptions to this rule which allow a shareholder to bring a derivative action on behalf of the company. However, it was originally envisaged that such a claim would be brought by a person holding shares in the company which had the cause of action.

The crucial question that arises is whether a person holding shares in a parent company, which has suffered an indirect loss as a result of the direct loss suffered by the subsidiary, can bring a derivative action on behalf of the subsidiary.

In the context of a hedge fund registered in the , the point usually

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll