Custom Side Menu

* Hollington on Shareholders' Rights 9th ed: 1st Supplement

* Hollington on Shareholders' Rights 9th ed: 1st Supplement
Product ISBN: 9780414110939
Status: Coming Soon (Pre-order Now)
HK$1,188.00

Product Details


Author(s):

Publication date:

Binding :

Publisher:

Qty: Add to Cart

NOT YET PUBLISHED

 

This first supplement to the ninth edition of Hollington on Shareholders’ Rights includes examination of the following recent case law:

The bargain between the shareholders

 

  • The discussion of obligations of good faith in shareholders’ agreements is updated in light of Compound Photonics Group Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1371

S.994 Companies Act 2006 (unfair prejudice remedy)

  • The update takes account of several recent decisions including Court of Appeal in Loveridge v Loveridge (two decisions), Re The Hut Group Ltd, Taylor Goodchild Ltd v Taylor, Langer v McKeown, Re Kings Solutions Ltd, Bailey v Cherry Hill Skip Hire Ltd; Privy Council in Chu v Lau and Ming Siu Hung v J F Ming Inc.; and Jersey Court of Appeal in Financial Technology Ventures II (Q) LP v ETFS Capital Ltd and Tuckwell
  • Analysis of recent cases as respects the concept of ‘quasi-partnership’, including the relevance of a written shareholders’ agreement and no partnership/entire agreement clauses
  • Analysis of O’Neill v Phillips in the light of Scottish and New Zealand decisions
  • Analysis of the controversial question of when a minority discount should be applied, in the light of recent cases
  • Analysis of winding up on just and equitable basis in light of Re Klimvest plc

Directors’ duties

  • further analysis of Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas Plc and the ‘proper purpose’ rule under s. 171 of the 2006 Act, in light of recent cases

Derivative claims

  • Court of Appeal decision in Boston Trust Co Ltd v Verhoef as to locus standi and procedure in common law derivative claims; and first instance decisions (McGaughey v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd, Prinse v Landmasters (Overseas) Ltd & Ors); and statutory derivative claims (Re Nexbell Ltd; Hughes v Burley) are referenced