145:, he argued that the refusal to consider such reasons must not be taken too far and that the board must have authority to interfere with these constitutional rights where the threat is big enough. A company cannot, he suggests, be incapable of acting where it is at risk of ‘impotence and beggary’.
117:
The former managing director (Aubrey
Glasner) of Stratford UK (a subsidiary of Oaktree Capital Management LLC, a Delaware institutional money manager) had entered the company into a poison pill contract. If the managing director or the chairman (Rolf Nordstrum) left office, or if there was a
165:
Lord
Nicholls held that there was no question of ‘knowing receipt’. An agreement can be set aside if company assets have been misapplied ‘and irrespective of whether B still has the assets in question, A will have a personal claim against B for
170:, subject always to a defence of change of position. B’s personal accountability will not be dependent upon proof of fault or ‘unconscionable’ conduct on his part. B's accountability, in this regard, will be ‘strict’.
153:
Brooke LJ and
Carnwath LJ held that the judge's conclusion that the directors' had improperly exercised their powers was correct and should not have gone on to consider the actual knowledge of the director.
98:
may employ to prevent a bidder buying shareholders' shares without the board's consent. It held that it is an improper use of a directors' power to frustrate a takeover bid through issuing a
173:
Lord Scott held that the agreement would obstruct any takeover, not just the ‘unwanted predator’. So the case turned on authority, actual, apparent or ostensible.
430:
490:
243:
202:
667:
657:
584:
257:
461:
162:
The House of Lords held that the case should be remitted to trial, to determine whether the directors had the authority to issue a poison pill.
231:
542:
106:
339:
570:
600:
556:
662:
195:
141:
416:
504:
454:
413:
370:
294:
285:
530:
188:
644:
V Brudney, 'Fiduciary
Ideology in Transactions Affecting Corporate Control' (1966) 65 Michigan Law Review 259
99:
447:
273:
382:
91:
219:
518:
393:
613:
403:
359:
328:
318:
282:
95:
167:
625:
560:
118:
takeover, the company would owe a crippling payment to a
Criterion Properties through a
426:
87:
546:
508:
651:
478:
350:
270:
139:
Hart J at first instance struck down the pill. Quoting from
Megarry VC's judgment in
123:
604:
590:
574:
83:
47:
308:
304:
180:
119:
439:
126:. When the board of Stratford learnt of the pill, it dismissed Glasner.
443:
184:
105:
For public companies, the case is superseded by Rule 21 of the
109:, which prohibits any action that frustrates a takeover bid.
38:
Criterion
Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC
80:
Criterion
Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC
66:
58:
53:
43:
33:
25:
20:
455:
196:
8:
492:Belmont Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)
245:Imperial Pension Ltd v Imperial Tobacco Ltd
462:
448:
440:
203:
189:
181:
17:
586:Criterion Properties plc v Stratford LLC
259:Criterion Properties plc v Stratford LLC
601:Arthur v AG of Turks and Caicos Islands
232:Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd
7:
142:Cayne v Global Natural Resources Plc
543:El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc
122:. Criterion and Oaktree were in a
107:City Code on Mergers and Takeovers
14:
414:Public Company Mergers Directive
371:Re Grierson Oldham and Adams Ltd
340:R (Datafin plc) v Takeover Panel
668:2004 in United Kingdom case law
658:United Kingdom company case law
571:Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam
557:BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele
1:
21:Criterion plc v Stratford LLC
505:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson
211:Takeover regulation sources
72:Takeover defence, authority
684:
629:, 199 A.2d 548 (Del. 1964)
295:Employment Rights Act 1996
611:
597:
581:
567:
553:
539:
527:
515:
501:
487:
482:(1873-74) LR 9 Ch App 244
475:
423:
411:
401:
391:
379:
367:
357:
348:
336:
326:
316:
302:
292:
280:
268:
254:
240:
228:
216:
71:
531:Baden v Societe Generale
470:Knowing receipt cases
663:House of Lords cases
220:Hogg v Cramphorn Ltd
394:Insolvency Act 1986
614:English trusts law
404:Companies Act 2006
383:Re Bugle Press Ltd
360:Companies Act 2006
329:Companies Act 2006
319:Companies Act 2006
283:Takeover Directive
96:board of directors
620:
619:
437:
436:
297:ss 86, 94 and 135
168:unjust enrichment
92:takeover defences
76:
75:
675:
587:
493:
464:
457:
450:
441:
260:
246:
205:
198:
191:
182:
18:
683:
682:
678:
677:
676:
674:
673:
672:
648:
647:
641:
636:
626:Cheff v. Mathes
621:
616:
607:
593:
585:
577:
563:
549:
535:
523:
519:Re Montagu’s ST
511:
497:
491:
483:
471:
468:
438:
433:
419:
407:
397:
387:
375:
363:
353:
344:
332:
322:
312:
298:
288:
276:
264:
258:
250:
244:
236:
224:
212:
209:
179:
160:
151:
149:Court of Appeal
137:
132:
115:
12:
11:
5:
681:
679:
671:
670:
665:
660:
650:
649:
646:
645:
640:
637:
635:
632:
631:
630:
618:
617:
612:
609:
608:
598:
595:
594:
582:
579:
578:
568:
565:
564:
554:
551:
550:
540:
537:
536:
528:
525:
524:
516:
513:
512:
502:
499:
498:
488:
485:
484:
476:
473:
472:
469:
467:
466:
459:
452:
444:
435:
434:
427:UK company law
424:
421:
420:
412:
409:
408:
402:
399:
398:
392:
389:
388:
380:
377:
376:
368:
365:
364:
358:
355:
354:
349:
346:
345:
337:
334:
333:
327:
324:
323:
317:
314:
313:
303:
300:
299:
293:
290:
289:
281:
278:
277:
269:
266:
265:
255:
252:
251:
241:
238:
237:
229:
226:
225:
217:
214:
213:
210:
208:
207:
200:
193:
185:
178:
175:
159:
158:House of Lords
156:
150:
147:
136:
133:
131:
128:
114:
111:
88:UK company law
74:
73:
69:
68:
64:
63:
60:
56:
55:
51:
50:
45:
41:
40:
35:
34:Full case name
31:
30:
29:House of Lords
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
680:
669:
666:
664:
661:
659:
656:
655:
653:
643:
642:
638:
633:
628:
627:
623:
622:
615:
610:
606:
603:
602:
596:
592:
589:
588:
580:
576:
573:
572:
566:
562:
559:
558:
552:
548:
545:
544:
538:
533:
532:
526:
521:
520:
514:
510:
507:
506:
500:
495:
494:
486:
481:
480:
479:Barnes v Addy
474:
465:
460:
458:
453:
451:
446:
445:
442:
432:
428:
422:
418:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
390:
385:
384:
378:
373:
372:
366:
361:
356:
352:
351:Takeover Code
347:
342:
341:
335:
330:
325:
320:
315:
310:
306:
301:
296:
291:
287:
284:
279:
275:
272:
271:Takeover Code
267:
262:
261:
253:
248:
247:
239:
234:
233:
227:
222:
221:
215:
206:
201:
199:
194:
192:
187:
186:
183:
176:
174:
171:
169:
163:
157:
155:
148:
146:
144:
143:
134:
129:
127:
125:
124:joint venture
121:
112:
110:
108:
103:
101:
97:
93:
89:
86:is a leading
85:
82:
81:
70:
65:
61:
57:
52:
49:
46:
42:
39:
36:
32:
28:
24:
19:
16:
624:
599:
583:
569:
561:EWCA Civ 502
555:
541:
529:
517:
503:
496:1 All ER 393
489:
477:
381:
369:
338:
256:
242:
230:
218:
172:
164:
161:
152:
140:
138:
116:
104:
79:
78:
77:
59:Prior action
54:Case history
37:
15:
309:SI 2006/246
100:poison pill
90:concerning
652:Categories
639:References
547:EWCA Civ 4
509:EWCA Civ 2
417:2011/35/EU
406:ss 895-941
396:ss 110-111
362:ss 974-991
331:ss 942-965
305:TUPER 2006
286:2004/25/EC
135:High Court
120:put option
534:1 WLR 509
431:takeovers
249:1 WLR 589
177:See also
130:Judgment
67:Keywords
44:Citation
605:UKPC 30
591:UKHL 28
575:UKHL 48
274:rule 21
263:UKHL 28
94:that a
84:UKHL 28
48:UKHL 28
522:Ch 264
386:Ch 270
343:QB 815
235:AC 821
223:Ch 254
62:BCC 50
634:Notes
374:Ch 17
321:s 168
113:Facts
26:Court
429:and
425:see
654::
102:.
463:e
456:t
449:v
311:)
307:(
204:e
197:t
190:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.