Einde inhoudsopgave
Exit remedies for minority shareholders in close companies (IVOR nr. 82) 2011/4.4.4.1
4.4.4.1 Member of a company
dr. Q. Wang, datum 02-05-2011
- Datum
02-05-2011
- Auteur
dr. Q. Wang
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS405266:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Bermuda Cablevision Ltd v. Colica Trust Co Ltd [1998] 1 BCLC 1. Lloyd v. Casey [2002] 1 BCLC 454, used the judgment as a precedent in Bermuda Cablevision Ltd v. Colica Trust Co Ltd.
Fan Yunhui, Research on the Minority Shareholder's remedies in the UK, China Law Publish, June 2005, Chapter 4. There is also support on this point, see: D.D. Prentice, the Theory of the Firm, Minority Shareholder Oppression: Sections 459-461 of the Company Act 1985, Oxford Joumal of Legal Studies, Vol. 8 No 1, 1988, p. 64.
Law Commission Cp 142 (1996), p. 109.
S. 994 (1) requires the petitioner to be a member of the company. It seems simple and clear that the petitioner must be a member when he brings an action to recover any damage he may have suffered. Therefore, understandably, members cannot make allegations relating to conduct that pre-dates their registration as shareholders. An exception has nonetheless been laid down which has become known as the "continuing wrong theory". This exception allows a plaintiff to bring an action to challenge a wrong that existed before he acquired his shares if it stil continues after he became a member.1 This section, however, does not address the issue of whether a former shareholder who subsequently discovers unfairly prejudicial conduct at a time when he was a member of the company can also bring a petition. This issue is disputed. The general consensus is that he cannot.2 Nevertheless, this issue does not seem to cause any problem in practice because to date, there has not been any case law on this issue.3