Search

The article provides an assessment of private enforcement actions for corporate directors' breaches of duty in Great Britain as of March 2014, focusing on derivative claims, British company law, and the nation's Department of Trade and Industry. The powers and duties of directors are examined, as well as the legal rights of shareholders and legal proceedings by administrators and liquidators. Unfair prejudice, British solicitors, and damage to a company's reputation are assessed.

The article presents an investigation of the Companies Act 2006's statutory derivative action in Great Britain. In derivative action, the court permits individual shareholders to take action on the company's behalf against negligence of persons who are in control of the company. Moreover, similarities in the Australian leave criteria and common law that aid in defining the meaning of prima facie case and the good faith of the applicant are discussed.

The article discusses the case involving Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB and Baltic Partners Ltd. regarding the unfair prejudice in the Privy Council in Great Britain. The Council will consider the ability of a shareholder to use a clause in the Companies Act of 1985 to protect his interests. The Council also considers the mistakes committed by the company. The decision allowed the Privy Council to use the unfair prejudice remedy in enforcing a cause of action provided for the company.

The article presents information on the provisions of the new Companies Act 2006 in Great Britain. It informs that the act introduces a statutory statement of the duties owed by directors to their company. It is stated that although the codification of directors' duties may achieve the government's desire to improve company law's accessibility, this could actually result in the loss of flexibility inherent in common law and equitable principles that governed this particular area previously. Part 11 of the Act is stated to provide evidence of the government's desire to enhance shareholder engagement, by placing derivative actions on a statutory footing and thereby effectively abolishing the common law derivative action. The act is stated to lead to increased litigation.

Reports that Insight Investment would start to publish a record of its discussions with FTSE-350 companies of Great Britain as well as its in-house voting recommendations for clients. Reasons behind the move; Explanation why a regulatory route would not benefit Insight Investment; Prerequisite for increased shareholder activism.

Reports on the resumption of U.S.-China trade talks after the U.S. threatened to impose trade sanctions for China's alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition; Proposed Securities & Exchange Commission rule to prohibit stockholder suits against their corporation's officers arising from unfulfilled promises of gain; Announcement of January producer prices in Great Britain.

The article reports that Royal Bank of Scotland's (RBS) April 2008 rights issue litigation has seen Bird & Bird LLP's dispute resolution head Steven Baker criticised at the Great Britain High Court after he made a £760 million "mistake" in calculating the claim value of shareholders. Mr Justice Hildyard in his judgment in early February 2014 mentioned that he was provided with substantially fluctuating figures as to the value of claims issued.

The article reflects on the effect of the latest Company Law Reform Bill on corporations in Great Britain. The proposed bill is expected to change the duties of corporate directors and the authority of shareholders to bring derivative actions against the directors. Six factors are also being formulated to guide directors on how to accomplish their job. One concern of the business community is on the reform on some provisions on derivative action.

Reports on the plan of Oury Clark to launch a class action lawsuit in Great Britain on behalf of Enron shareholders. Percentage of the company's turnover committed to pro bono work; Amount charged by Oury to Enron shareholders for the work.