The court considered the date at which shares are to be valued in a possible order for one set of shareholders to buy the shares of another.
Held: The choice was a matter of the judge’s discretion. Where a minority shareholder has a petition on foot and there is a general fall in the market, the court may in fairness to the claimant have the shares valued at an early date, especially if it strongly disapproves of the majority shareholder’s prejudicial conduct.
Lawton LJ said: ‘the shares had gone down in value between the date of the petition and the date of judgment. They might have gone up. The reason which the judge gave, on the facts of this case, for choosing the date of the petition was a sound one, viz:
‘The date of the petition is the date on which the petitioner elects to treat the unfair conduct of the majority as in effect destroying the basis on which he agreed to continue to be a shareholder, and to look to his shares for his proper reward for participation in a joint undertaking.’
I would stress, however, that the choice of a date for valuation in cases of this kind is a matter for the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion. If, for example, there is before the court evidence that the majority shareholder deliberately took steps to depreciate the value of shares in anticipation of a petition being presented, it would be permissible to value the shares at a date before such action was taken.’
and ‘What the judge was deciding was the amount of the compensation which Mr Bolton should pay Mr Lewis for the wrong he had done him . . The fact that a wrongdoer is impecunious is no reason why judgment should not be given against him for the amount of compensation due to his victim. What Mr Lewis should do to get money out of Mr Bolton, claiming, as he still does, that he is impecunious, is a matter from him to decide, not the court.’
Nicholls LJ said: ‘Counsel for Mr Bolton also attacked the judge’s choice of valuation date, which was nearly a year before the date when he made his order. Prior to the hearing, Mr Lewis had offered his shares to Mr Bolton for pounds 1,700,000, but he did not offer to sell them at their value at the date on which the petition was issued, and the price ought not to have been fixed at a date earlier than the date when it became apparent that the shares had to be sold. As it was, the price fixed by the judge was about pounds 25m more than the value of the shares at the time of the hearing. In my view, this attack also must fail. The choice of the valuation date was a matter for the judge’s discretion. The reasons he gave for choosing the earlier date seem to me sufficient to support his conclusion on this, albeit the result was a severe form of order.’
and ‘The form which the relief to be granted under s. 75 should take is discretionary. If, in a particular case, the court considers that a respondent who has wrongfully extracted substantial sums of money from a company should make recompense by paying a stated sum to the petitioner, or to the company, I do not see why such an order should not be made even if the respondent does not have and is unlikely to obtain the necessary means; although, no doubt, his financial position would be a matter to be taken into account by the court in deciding upon the form of relief. If that is correct, I do not see why the position is in principle any different in the case of a purchaser of shares: the respondent is being ordered to pay a fixed sum of money, and shares (like other forms of property) may subsequently fall or rise in value. Of course, in considering whether to make a purchase order, the court will have regard to the means of the respondent and also, if he will need to have recourse to the property which is the subject of the purchase order, or other property, to obtain the purchase price, to the likelihood of him being able to realise or obtain money on the security of that property. But these are questions of degree, and the weight to be attached to these considerations will depend on all the circumstances of the case. They are matters for the discretion of the trial judge.’
If there is a dispute as to which party should be ordered to buy out the other, the court has to decide who has the better claim on the company. Although a petitioner’s conduct may have a bearing on the relief to be granted, the mere existence of fault on the petitioner’s part is not normally a reason to deprive it of the benefit of a buy-out order. Since fairness is the touchstone, this may dictate that time should be given to enable the respondents to purchase the shares and to discharge shareholder loans.
Lawton LJ, Glidewell LJ, Nicholls LJ
(1986) BCC 99, [1986] BCLC 430
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bonham v Crow and others CA 13-Dec-2001
The petitioner complained of unfair prejudice in the way the company had been operated, and sought an order that his shares be bought out. However the judge found that the net value of the company was negative and the shares worthless. The judge had . .
Cited – Kohli v Lit and Others ChD 13-Nov-2009
The claimant asserted that the other shareholders had acted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to her within the company.
Held: The claimant was allowed to bring in without prejudice correspondence to contradict evidence by the defendant which . .
Cited – Macom Gmbh v Bozeat and Others ChD 21-Jun-2021
Order regulating company’s affairs
COMPANY – Unfair prejudice – Petitioner 60% shareholder – Respondents 40% shareholders – Alleged breaches of director’s duties and failures to observe Shareholders’ Agreement – Undermining company’s corporate governance – Appropriate remedy – . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.241638