The Limits of Privilege: Joint Interest and Indirect Shareholders

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI:10.54648/bula2022005
{"title":"The Limits of Privilege: Joint Interest and Indirect Shareholders","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/bula2022005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under English law, direct shareholders are considered to have a joint interest in the privileged materials of their subsidiaries. However, for reasons of policy, this same right has been denied to indirect shareholders. This distinction, and so the current law on joint interest privilege, fails to take into account the complexity of contemporary corporate structures and the dynamics of modern shareholder litigation. Given the trend of increasing shareholder litigation, it is a matter of time until the common law is found wanting and the rights of an indirect shareholder to the inspection of the privileged material of its subsidiary are limited unfairly. It is this article’s contention that indirect shareholders should be given limited rights to inspection of the privileged materials of their subsidiaries and the denial of such rights should not be waived away by the blunt instrument of policy. Instead, it proposes a new model based on a rebuttable presumption that the materials of a company are privileged against indirect shareholders unless they can demonstrate ‘good cause’ in line with well-defined criteria. It is hoped this model will provide greater legal certainty to this area and ensure a more robust foundation for so important a legal right.\nLaw of privilege, shareholder litigation, shareholder rights, indirect shareholders, joint interest, subsidiaries, ‘good cause’","PeriodicalId":42005,"journal":{"name":"AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/bula2022005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under English law, direct shareholders are considered to have a joint interest in the privileged materials of their subsidiaries. However, for reasons of policy, this same right has been denied to indirect shareholders. This distinction, and so the current law on joint interest privilege, fails to take into account the complexity of contemporary corporate structures and the dynamics of modern shareholder litigation. Given the trend of increasing shareholder litigation, it is a matter of time until the common law is found wanting and the rights of an indirect shareholder to the inspection of the privileged material of its subsidiary are limited unfairly. It is this article’s contention that indirect shareholders should be given limited rights to inspection of the privileged materials of their subsidiaries and the denial of such rights should not be waived away by the blunt instrument of policy. Instead, it proposes a new model based on a rebuttable presumption that the materials of a company are privileged against indirect shareholders unless they can demonstrate ‘good cause’ in line with well-defined criteria. It is hoped this model will provide greater legal certainty to this area and ensure a more robust foundation for so important a legal right. Law of privilege, shareholder litigation, shareholder rights, indirect shareholders, joint interest, subsidiaries, ‘good cause’
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
特权的限制:共同利益与间接股东
根据英国法律,直接股东被认为对其子公司的特权材料具有共同利益。然而,由于政策原因,间接股东被剥夺了同样的权利。这种区分,以及现行有关共同利益特权的法律,未能考虑到当代公司结构的复杂性和现代股东诉讼的动态。鉴于股东诉讼日益增多的趋势,发现普通法的不足是时间问题,间接股东审查子公司特权材料的权利受到不公平的限制。本文的论点是,应赋予间接股东有限的权利来检查其子公司的特权材料,并且不应通过生硬的政策工具放弃对这种权利的剥夺。相反,它提出了一个基于一个可反驳的假设的新模型,即公司的材料对间接股东有特权,除非他们能证明符合明确定义的标准的“正当理由”。希望这一模式将为这一领域提供更大的法律确定性,并确保为如此重要的法律权利提供更坚实的基础。特权法,股东诉讼,股东权利,间接股东,共同利益,子公司,正当理由
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
5
期刊最新文献
Good Faith in English Contract Law: Should the Law Retreat? Rethinking Directors’ Statutory Fiduciary Duties in the Commonwealth Caribbean: Should Sequana be Followed? Is the Derivative Action Regime in India a Historical Relic? Cybersecurity in Business: A Case Study of DiDi The EU-US Data Privacy Framework: Doomed Like Its Predecessors?
×
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