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

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