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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll