header-logo header-logo

23 June 2017 / Michael Budd
Issue: 7751 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

A cosmetic war? Pre-emption rights on transfer

nlj_7751_budd

Private companies need to ensure they have clear terms on share valuation in the event of a sale. Michael Budd explains the mechanics

  • The recent Court of Appeal case involving the cosmetic brand Lush shows how important it is for a private company to have clear terms on share valuation in the event of a sale.

A recent Court of Appeal case, Cosmetic Warriors Limited and Lush Cosmetics Limited v Gerrie [2017] EWCA Civ 324, exposed the consequences of omitting from provisions on share transfers (usually called pre-emption rights on transfer) typical wording specifying how a valuer is to value shares.

There is no requirement for a company to be subject to pre-emption rights on transfer, but many companies believe it is sensible to include these. In their simplest form, they provide that a selling shareholder must first offer their shares to existing shareholders before offering them to a third party buyer.

Andrew Gerrie and his wife were minority shareholders in two companies, following a restructuring in 2001. One owned intellectual

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll