header-logo header-logo

04 October 2007 / Dov Ohrenstein
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Features , Company , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Derivative action

Shareholders now have a statutory right to sue directors in derivative actions. Will they use it? asks Dov Ohrenstein

For over 150 years the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 has been a familiar part of the company law landscape. The rule prevents claims by shareholders for reflective losses and provides that if a wrong is done to a company then the company is usually the proper claimant in respect of that wrong. Only in exceptional circumstances, for example where the wrongdoer is a majority shareholder, have minority shareholders been able to obtain the court’s permission to bring a derivative claim on behalf of the company.
The two basic requirements at common law for a derivative action are:
- that the alleged wrong or breach of duty is one that is incapable of being ratified by a simple majority of the members; and
- that the alleged wrongdoers are in control of the company, so that the company, which is the “proper claimant” can not claim by itself.

The new basis for a derivative

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 will mark the 80th anniversary of Shawcross and Beaumont on Air Law with a live podcast exploring the evolution of aviation law from the Chicago Convention to the challenges facing modern aerospace, taking place on Tuesday 29 September
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
Indemnity costs remain exceptional, but parties cannot ignore a case that deteriorates around them. In Lawrence v Associated Newspapers, Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the claimants to pay indemnity costs after finding their conduct, viewed cumulatively, fell ‘well outside the norm’
Public law is in flux following reversals and robust appellate intervention, according to the latest public law update by the team at HSFK for NLJ
Neurotechnology is turning the human mind into an operational domain, exposing gaps in the laws of war
back-to-top-scroll