Cinematic Finance v Ryder [2010] Ch.D. 21
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:12:51 UTC
Reforms in CA 2006 have not abolished “proper claimant” principle from Foss v Harbottle.
Thus individual claims by shareholders still possible
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons
Defendant paid Plaintiff, solicitors, to take over a company for them. After completion, Defendant became aware of several claims that could be made against them as a result of the takeover agreement...
GamlestadenFatigheter AB v Baltic Partners
Claimant, a company, was a shareholder in Defendant but also a creditors of Defendant. Claimant sued Defendant’s directors under Jersey version of section 994, alleging unfair prejudice caused by mis...
Southern Foundries v Shirlaw
Claimant, a director, had a ten-year service contract with Defendant, company. Power was inserted into articles allowing shareholders to appoint and dismiss directors at will. Claimant was dismissed...
Breckland Group Holdings v London & Suffolk Properties Ltd
Articles of company stated that management of company resided with directors. In addition, shareholders had shareholders’ agreement stating that litigation could only be brought on behalf of company...
Mills v Mills
Directors voted to pay out profits of a company in form of bonus shares to ordinary shareholders (instead of dividends). As result, voting power of preference shareholders was severely diminished. Cl...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.