{"title":"20. The derivative claim and the rule in Foss v Harbottle","authors":"B. Hannigan","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198722861.003.0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter discusses further aspects of shareholder remedies, namely the common law multiple derivative claim; derivative claims under Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), Part 11; the reflective loss principle; personal actions at common law; and specific statutory rights under the CA 2006. At common law, a shareholder aggrieved by a breach of duty by a director could bring a derivative claim on behalf of the company, as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. That common law claim now remains as a common law multiple derivative claim whereas the ‘ordinary’ derivative claim now is a statutory claim under CA 2006, Part 11. This chapter explores both types of derivative claim and assesses their value to shareholders. An important constraint on shareholder recovery is the principle governing reflective loss which has recently been restated by the Supreme Court. This chapter considers the current position in the light of that development.","PeriodicalId":10779,"journal":{"name":"Company Law","volume":"244 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Company Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198722861.003.0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This chapter discusses further aspects of shareholder remedies, namely the common law multiple derivative claim; derivative claims under Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), Part 11; the reflective loss principle; personal actions at common law; and specific statutory rights under the CA 2006. At common law, a shareholder aggrieved by a breach of duty by a director could bring a derivative claim on behalf of the company, as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. That common law claim now remains as a common law multiple derivative claim whereas the ‘ordinary’ derivative claim now is a statutory claim under CA 2006, Part 11. This chapter explores both types of derivative claim and assesses their value to shareholders. An important constraint on shareholder recovery is the principle governing reflective loss which has recently been restated by the Supreme Court. This chapter considers the current position in the light of that development.
本章进一步探讨了股东救济的几个方面,即普通法多重派生索赔;《2006年公司法》(CA 2006)第11部分下的衍生索赔;反射损耗原理;普通法上的个人诉讼;以及《2006年条例》下的具体法定权利。在普通法上,因董事违反义务而受到损害的股东可以代表公司提出派生索赔,作为Foss v Harbottle规则的例外。普通法索赔现在仍然是普通法多重衍生索赔,而“普通”衍生索赔现在是《CA 2006》第11部分下的法定索赔。本章探讨了这两种类型的衍生债权,并评估了它们对股东的价值。对股东追偿的一个重要限制是最高法院最近重申的有关反射损失的原则。本章根据这一发展考虑目前的情况。