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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll