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

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll