header-logo header-logo

Derivative action

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll