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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll