A petition sought relief for prejudicial conduct of the company by majority shareholders, where further shares had been issued and the petitioner had been unable to purchase them.
Held: The petition was dismissed. Hoffmann J said: ‘Nevertheless, I do not think that the bona fides of the decision or the fact that the petitioner was offered shares on the same terms as other shareholders necessarily means that the rights issue could not have been unfairly prejudicial to his interests. If the majority know that the petitioner does not have the money to take up his rights and the offer is made at par when the shares are plainly worth a great deal more than par as part of a majority holding (but very little as a minority holding), it seems to me arguable that carrying through the transaction in that form could, viewed objectively, constitute unfairly prejudicial conduct.’
Judges:
Hoffmann J
Citations:
[1986] BCLC 362
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.378388
