20. The derivative claim and the rule in Foss v Harbottle

B. Hannigan
{"title":"20. The derivative claim and the rule in Foss v Harbottle","authors":"B. Hannigan","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198722861.003.0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses further aspects of shareholder remedies, namely the common law multiple derivative claim; derivative claims under Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), Part 11; the reflective loss principle; personal actions at common law; and specific statutory rights under the CA 2006. At common law, a shareholder aggrieved by a breach of duty by a director could bring a derivative claim on behalf of the company, as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. That common law claim now remains as a common law multiple derivative claim whereas the ‘ordinary’ derivative claim now is a statutory claim under CA 2006, Part 11. This chapter explores both types of derivative claim and assesses their value to shareholders. An important constraint on shareholder recovery is the principle governing reflective loss which has recently been restated by the Supreme Court. This chapter considers the current position in the light of that development.","PeriodicalId":10779,"journal":{"name":"Company Law","volume":"244 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Company Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198722861.003.0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter discusses further aspects of shareholder remedies, namely the common law multiple derivative claim; derivative claims under Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), Part 11; the reflective loss principle; personal actions at common law; and specific statutory rights under the CA 2006. At common law, a shareholder aggrieved by a breach of duty by a director could bring a derivative claim on behalf of the company, as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. That common law claim now remains as a common law multiple derivative claim whereas the ‘ordinary’ derivative claim now is a statutory claim under CA 2006, Part 11. This chapter explores both types of derivative claim and assesses their value to shareholders. An important constraint on shareholder recovery is the principle governing reflective loss which has recently been restated by the Supreme Court. This chapter considers the current position in the light of that development.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
20.Foss诉Harbottle案的衍生索赔及规则
本章进一步探讨了股东救济的几个方面,即普通法多重派生索赔;《2006年公司法》(CA 2006)第11部分下的衍生索赔;反射损耗原理;普通法上的个人诉讼;以及《2006年条例》下的具体法定权利。在普通法上,因董事违反义务而受到损害的股东可以代表公司提出派生索赔,作为Foss v Harbottle规则的例外。普通法索赔现在仍然是普通法多重衍生索赔,而“普通”衍生索赔现在是《CA 2006》第11部分下的法定索赔。本章探讨了这两种类型的衍生债权,并评估了它们对股东的价值。对股东追偿的一个重要限制是最高法院最近重申的有关反射损失的原则。本章根据这一发展考虑目前的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conclusions The Role of the Directors A Real Entity Theory of Company Law Corporate Personality Enforcement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1