header-logo header-logo

12 January 2024 / Lois Horne
Issue: 8054 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

The shareholder principle: ripe for change?

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

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll