30:
105:
Brightview Ltd provided internet services. Its shares were in two classes, X and Y shares. Mr
Shalson held the majority of X shares through another company called Reedbest Properties Ltd. Atlasview Ltd controlled the majority of Y shares. Brightview's business had faltered after it failed to fulfill
141:
Deputy Judge
Jonathan Crow held there was no good reason for striking out the petition, except that two of the petitioners who were not members of the company, nor had shares transferred to them by operation of law, should be removed from the petition. He also held that the "interests" of a nominee
128:
Mr
Shalson and Reedbest argued that Atlasview could not make a claim because it was merely a nominee shareholder and therefore had no economic interest in Brightview, and therefore could not be "prejudiced". They also argued that Atlasview was attempting to claim losses for the diminution of the Y
125:). It argued the loan terms left the company so exposed that the X shareholders were able to strip the company's assets for its own benefit and to the exclusion of Y shareholders. Moreover, Atlasview argued that an "investment agreement" with Mr Shalson was breached when the loan was taken.
149:, even if they are owed to the company, because the wording of s 994 did not preclude it. Nor did the case law support such a change, since one of the reasons for the unfair prejudice petition being introduced was to "outflank" the restrictive procedure for
129:
shares' value, as a result of an alleged breach of director's duty, but they should be barred because this loss was merely reflective of the company's loss. Accordingly, they requested that the claim be struck out as an
97:(loss to the company, which also prejudices a member). The case is a notable precedent because it makes clear that a nominee shareholder is also a legitimate petitioner for unfair prejudice.
142:
shareholder could certainly include the economic and contractual interests of a beneficial owner, and the court had the discretion under s 461 (now s 996) to make an appropriate award.
185:
525:
156:
Lastly there was no clear abuse of process, as it may well have been that the administration petition was done too quickly for
Atlasview to respond.
635:
625:
224:
178:
517:
606:
587:
29:
630:
340:
493:
171:
272:
248:
374:
307:
352:
260:
501:
296:
469:
453:
532:
461:
445:
328:
437:
423:
40:
599:
A comparative study of shareholders' derivative actions: England, the United States, Germany, and China
509:
386:
477:
284:
146:
133:, because Atlasview should have sought redress through opposing the initial administration petition.
107:
485:
363:
236:
114:
110:
order was made. Shortly after, Brightview was sold to another company owned by the X shareholders.
317:
201:
122:
118:
90:
602:
583:
416:
150:
212:
130:
86:
60:
145:
On the reflective loss argument, there was no good reason to prevent a claim for breach of
94:
64:
78:
409:
397:
82:
619:
526:
Three Rivers
District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3)
106:
an immediate demand to repay a loan of £5.24 million from the X shareholders. An
557:
163:
93:) and raised the question of barring a claim if attempted to recover for
580:
Exit rights of minority shareholders in a private limited company
167:
113:
Atlasview complained that it (with Y shareholders) had been
54:
46:
36:
20:
562:Gower and Davies Principles of Modern Company Law
179:
8:
554:Sealy's Cases and Materials in Company Law
186:
172:
164:
28:
17:
545:
225:Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw
518:Rock (Nominees) Ltd v RCO Holdings plc
564:(8th edn Sweet and Maxwell 2008) 683.
7:
494:Re Harrison (Saul D) & Sons plc
341:Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd
14:
273:Estmanco v Greater London Council
85:case, which concerns a claim for
79:[2004] EWHC 1056 (Ch)
249:Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd
636:2004 in United Kingdom case law
626:United Kingdom company case law
375:Re London School of Electronics
308:Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone
597:Xiaoning, Li (December 2006).
578:de Vries, Paul Pieter (2010).
470:Re a Company No 003160 of 1986
454:Re a Company No 005287 of 1985
74:Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd
22:Atlasview Ltd v Brightview Ltd
1:
462:Re a Company No 00477 of 1986
353:Re Bird Precision Bellows Ltd
582:. Kluwer. pp. 130–131.
502:Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
297:Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
631:High Court of Justice cases
552:L Sealy and S Worthington,
446:Re Cade (J E) & Son Ltd
261:Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)
50:EWHC 1056 (Ch), 2 BCLC 191
652:
601:. Kluwer. pp. 45–47.
533:Civil Procedure Rules 1998
394:
383:
371:
361:
349:
337:
329:Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd
325:
315:
304:
293:
281:
269:
257:
245:
233:
221:
209:
199:
194:Minority protection cases
121:, section 459 (now s 994
59:
27:
556:(9th edn OUP 2010) 651;
438:Attorney General v Blake
431:Referred to in judgment
41:High Court (Chancery)
424:O'Donnell v Shanahan
285:Smith v Croft (No 2)
535:Part 3, r 3.4(2)(a)
473:(1986) 2 BCC 99,276
465:(1986) 2 BCC 99,171
457:(1985) 1 BCC 99,586
364:Insolvency Act 1986
237:Edwards v Halliwell
115:unfairly prejudiced
510:O'Neill v Phillips
387:O’Neill v Phillips
318:Companies Act 2006
202:Companies Act 2006
151:derivative actions
123:Companies Act 2006
119:Companies Act 1985
91:Companies Act 2006
608:978-90-13-04391-4
589:978-90-13-07520-5
417:Bhullar v Bhullar
404:
403:
147:directors' duties
70:
69:
643:
612:
593:
565:
550:
478:Re Elgindata Ltd
216:(1843) 67 ER 189
213:Foss v Harbottle
188:
181:
174:
165:
131:abuse of process
87:unfair prejudice
61:Unfair prejudice
32:
18:
651:
650:
646:
645:
644:
642:
641:
640:
616:
615:
609:
596:
590:
577:
574:
572:Further reading
569:
568:
551:
547:
542:
405:
400:
390:
379:
367:
357:
345:
333:
321:
311:
300:
289:
277:
265:
253:
241:
229:
217:
205:
195:
192:
162:
139:
103:
95:reflective loss
65:reflective loss
12:
11:
5:
649:
647:
639:
638:
633:
628:
618:
617:
614:
613:
607:
594:
588:
573:
570:
567:
566:
544:
543:
541:
538:
537:
536:
530:
522:
514:
506:
498:
490:
482:
474:
466:
458:
450:
442:
433:
432:
428:
427:
420:
413:
410:UK company law
402:
401:
398:UK company law
395:
392:
391:
384:
381:
380:
372:
369:
368:
362:
359:
358:
350:
347:
346:
338:
335:
334:
326:
323:
322:
316:
313:
312:
305:
302:
301:
294:
291:
290:
282:
279:
278:
270:
267:
266:
258:
255:
254:
246:
243:
242:
234:
231:
230:
222:
219:
218:
210:
207:
206:
200:
197:
196:
193:
191:
190:
183:
176:
168:
161:
158:
138:
135:
108:administration
102:
99:
83:UK company law
68:
67:
57:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
38:
34:
33:
25:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
648:
637:
634:
632:
629:
627:
624:
623:
621:
610:
604:
600:
595:
591:
585:
581:
576:
575:
571:
563:
559:
555:
549:
546:
539:
534:
531:
528:
527:
523:
520:
519:
515:
512:
511:
507:
504:
503:
499:
496:
495:
491:
488:
487:
486:Giles v Rhind
483:
480:
479:
475:
472:
471:
467:
464:
463:
459:
456:
455:
451:
448:
447:
443:
440:
439:
435:
434:
430:
429:
426:
425:
421:
419:
418:
414:
412:
411:
407:
406:
399:
393:
389:
388:
382:
377:
376:
370:
365:
360:
355:
354:
348:
343:
342:
336:
331:
330:
324:
319:
314:
310:
309:
303:
299:
298:
292:
287:
286:
280:
275:
274:
268:
263:
262:
256:
251:
250:
244:
240:2 All ER 1064
239:
238:
232:
227:
226:
220:
215:
214:
208:
203:
198:
189:
184:
182:
177:
175:
170:
169:
166:
159:
157:
154:
152:
148:
143:
136:
134:
132:
126:
124:
120:
116:
111:
109:
100:
98:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
66:
62:
58:
53:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
31:
26:
23:
19:
16:
598:
579:
561:
553:
548:
524:
516:
508:
500:
492:
484:
476:
468:
460:
452:
444:
436:
422:
415:
408:
385:
373:
351:
339:
327:
306:
295:
283:
271:
259:
247:
235:
223:
211:
155:
144:
140:
127:
112:
104:
73:
72:
71:
21:
15:
366:s 122(1)(g)
89:(now s 994
620:Categories
540:References
513:1 WLR 1092
320:ss 994-996
204:ss 260-264
558:PL Davies
47:Citations
481:BCLC 959
441:1 AC 268
332:2 Ch 426
160:See also
137:Judgment
55:Keywords
521:BCC 466
497:BCC 475
449:BCC 360
276:1 WLR 2
605:
586:
529:2 AC 1
505:2 AC 1
489:Ch 618
378:Ch 211
356:Ch 658
344:AC 360
288:Ch 114
264:QB 373
252:Ch 286
228:AC 701
117:under
101:Facts
81:is a
77:
37:Court
603:ISBN
584:ISBN
396:see
622::
560:,
153:.
63:,
611:.
592:.
187:e
180:t
173:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
