header-logo header-logo

Derivative action

04 October 2007 / Dov Ohrenstein
Issue: 7291 / Categories: Features , Company , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Shareholders now have a statutory right to sue directors in derivative actions. Will they use it? asks Dov Ohrenstein

For over 150 years the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 has been a familiar part of the company law landscape. The rule prevents claims by shareholders for reflective losses and provides that if a wrong is done to a company then the company is usually the proper claimant in respect of that wrong. Only in exceptional circumstances, for example where the wrongdoer is a majority shareholder, have minority shareholders been able to obtain the court’s permission to bring a derivative claim on behalf of the company.
The two basic requirements at common law for a derivative action are:
- that the alleged wrong or breach of duty is one that is incapable of being ratified by a simple majority of the members; and
- that the alleged wrongdoers are in control of the company, so that the company, which is the “proper claimant” can not claim by itself.

The new basis for a derivative

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 dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
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
back-to-top-scroll