header-logo header-logo

24 September 2012
Issue: 7530 / Categories: Blogs , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Shareholder Claims

Shareholder Claims will make particularly interesting reading for those investors with the luxury of a choice of jurisdictions in which to bring claims.

Shareholder Claims
Editor: David Greene
Publisher: Jordans
ISBN: 9781846612961            
Price: £110 /eBook £99 + VAT

That it took investors a matter of days to bring proceedings arising out of the Facebook floatation in May this year highlights what a precarious time it is for those seeking to raise capital.

In England protest votes against excessive executive remuneration - the so-called “shareholder spring” -  have led to the departure of chief executives from a number of household names including Aviva and Trinity Mirror and caused discomfort to a number of other directors.

Shareholder Claims comes at an interesting time for investors, companies and their respective advisers. 

The book is aimed at both lawyers and investors/company representatives and strikes the right balance between technical detail and broad brush introductions. 

Each chapter deals with a different jurisdiction.  Many of them would be expected in a book such as this. 

The United States, Australia, England and Wales and the major off-shore centres such as Guernsey, the Isle of Man and the main Caribbean islands will be familiar to those practising in this field. 

Less obvious jurisdictions, such as Sweden and Austria, are also covered with the result that the book covers the major commercial centres in the Western world.

Each chapter covers the normal range of claims brought by shareholders both under statute and, where applicable, common-law. Potential claims arising out of formal prospectuses and offering documentation are summarised and form a useful introduction to what can be a complex and heavily regulated area.

In particular, the chapter on France deals in some detail with the relevant European directives which will be of interest across Europe and not only in France.

Claims arising out of “secondary communications” to the market are also dealt with, as are the possibility of claims against advisers, other third parties and insider trading claims. There is also an explanation of the derivative claims procedure in relevant jurisdictions, where shareholders seek to bring claims in the name of the company. 

In England alone, that topic has justified a book in its own right, but this short summary is a helpful guide to those investigating possible claims.

The chapter on the United States also sets out some of the common defences to investor claims, and this is a worthwhile addition which highlights where the contentious areas are likely to be.

A strength of a book of this nature is that it brings out the difference in approach between different jurisdictions very clearly.  An English lawyer might be surprised to learn that in Sweden a shareholder can only bring a claim against a company officer personally only where a crime has been committed, for example. 

Shareholder Claims will therefore make particularly interesting reading for those investors with the luxury of a choice of jurisdictions in which to bring claims.

Central to those investors’ concerns will no doubt be the different rules on costs and procedure and particularly whether class-actions are available.  Each chapter contains a brief summary of the Court system in that jurisdiction which again forms a basic introduction – but no more – to the different litigation procedures.

When dealing with potential claims in foreign jurisdictions, it is often hard to know where to start. While a good professional adviser should identify the issues and the best course of action, Shareholder Claims will point its readers in the right direction.

Jason Woodland is an associate at Peters & Peters

 

Issue: 7530 / Categories: Blogs , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll