header-logo header-logo

The shareholder principle: ripe for change?

12 January 2024 / Lois Horne
Issue: 8054 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail
152799
In the wake of the rise in shareholder activism & the recent decision in G4S, Lois Horne discusses disclosure & the shareholder principle
  • Considers the recent case of Various claimants v G4S, in which the High Court examines the rule that a company cannot assert privilege against its shareholders, save where the advice concerns contemplated proceedings between the company and its shareholders.
  • The judge considered that this disclosure right is based on a ‘shaky’ legal foundation and should not be extended. The rule is therefore limited to direct registered shareholders.

In the recent case of Various claimants v G4S [2023] EWHC 2863 (Ch), Mr Justice Michael Green considered the principle that a company cannot assert privilege against its shareholders, except where the documents came into existence in contemplation of proceedings between the company and its shareholders (the shareholder principle). Given the recent rise of shareholder activism, and of shareholder claims more generally, the shareholder principle is of considerable practical importance, particularly as shareholders generally only have very limited rights

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll