header-logo header-logo

A cosmetic war? Pre-emption rights on transfer

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll