header-logo header-logo

Added Protection

26 February 2009 / Peter Hayden
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Features , Company , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Peter Hayden outlines a beneficial decision for investors in hedge funds wishing to bring multiple derivative actions

The starting point when considering a derivative action is the first limb of the well cited rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189, namely that the proper plaintiff in an action in respect of a wrong alleged to be done to the company is prima facie the company itself. There are several exceptions to this rule which allow a shareholder to bring a derivative action on behalf of the company. However, it was originally envisaged that such a claim would be brought by a person holding shares in the company which had the cause of action.

The crucial question that arises is whether a person holding shares in a parent company, which has suffered an indirect loss as a result of the direct loss suffered by the subsidiary, can bring a derivative action on behalf of the subsidiary.

In the context of a hedge fund registered in the , the point

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll