Preview

Proper Balance Between Majority and Minority Shareholder.

Best Essays
Open Document
Open Document
3692 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Proper Balance Between Majority and Minority Shareholder.
North South University

LAW 200
Assignment # 2

Prepared for:
Barrister A.M. Masum Faculty of Business

North South University

Prepared by:
ID NAME 062 528 030 M.Montasir Imran Khan

Section: 02

Page | 1

“A proper balance of the rights of majority and minority shareholders is essential for the smooth functioning of the company.”- Explain & Illustrate? 1. Introduction:
The basic principal relating to the administration of the affairs of a company is that “the will of the majority is supreme”. The general rule is that the decisions of the majority shareholders in a company bind the minority. 1 In a world that recognizes ‘simple majority rules’, minority shareholders of companies are by default vulnerable to oppression, disregard and unfair treatment by majority shareholders who are in control of the company. Majority shareholders also have certain obligations to minority shareholders in their capacity of controlling the corporation. In certain cases this minority shareholder right can be exercised directly against a shareholder, without having to go against a corporation or through the derivatives action process.2 In such case a proper balance of the rights of majority and minority shareholders is essential for the smooth functioning of the company. The oppression of minority or mismanagement of a company by majority therefore calls for some remedial action. 3 Today’s minority shareholders come to the corporation with varied attitudes and agendas. Although their shareholder status results from a variety of circumstances, it is important in each case to make their relationship with the corporation and the other shareholders as productive as possible. This

1 2

Ashok, S. (2009-2010).Company law (p.246-248).India:V.K Enterprise. The right of the majority to have their way has, however, been occasionally abused and the whip of majority has The companies act, 1956 has laid down certain provisions which restrict the unbridled supremacy of the



Bibliography: 1. Ashok, S. (2009-2010).Company law (p.246-248).India:V.K Enterprise. 2. Anonymous, (n.d.).Minority Shareholders (para-5).Retrieved March 2, 2011 from http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/free-essays/minority-shareholders.php 3. Anonymous, (n.d.).What is a Majority Shareholder? (Paragraph-3). Retrieved March 2, 2011 from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-majority-shareholder.htm 4. Majority Shareholder.(n.d.).Retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://www.answers.com/topic/majority-shareholder#ixzz1GPM9cC6j 5. Robert, C. (April 1, 2003). Shareholder rights and remedies in close corporations: Oppression, fiduciary duties, and reasonable expectations (Paragraph-1).Published by Journal of Corporation Law. Retrieved March 3, 2011 from http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/laws/1058708-1.html 6. Benjamin, M. (October 15, 2008). A Voice-Based Framework for Evaluating Claims of Minority Shareholder Oppression in the Close Corporation. Georgetown Law Journal.97. 7. Meinhardt, J.M. (2001).Investor Beware: Protection of Minority Stakeholder Interests in Closely held Limited – Liability Business Organizations (p.288). 8. Spratlin, D.J. (1990), Modern Remedies for Oppression in the Closely Held Corporation (p.405). 9. Grandfield, C. S. (2002), Reasonable Expectations of Minority Shareholders in Closely Held Corporations: The Morality of Small Businesses (p. 381). Page | 14 10. Anonymous,(n.d.).Shareholder Disputes,(paragraph-2).Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.darlingtons.com/site/srvbusiness/srvbusinesslitigationanddisputes/ srvshareholderdisputes/ 11. Roderick, R. (1998). Company shareholders and directors (paragraph-1).Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.law-office.demon.co.uk/art%20power-1.htm 12. Prakash, O.P. (July 29, 2009).Minority Shareholder Rights – Necessities & Limitations. Retrieved March 4,2011from http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/MINORITY-SHAREHOLDER-RIGHTSNECESSITIES-LIMITATIONS-1464.asp 13. Anonymous, (n.d.).Minority Shareholders (paragraph-18).Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/free-essays/minority-shareholders.php 14. Anonymous, (n.d.).Minority Shareholders (paragraph-8).Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/free-essays/minority-shareholders.php Page | 15

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Acct 504 Quiz 1

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages

    One of the advantages of a corporation from a social standpoint is that every stockholder has equal voting rights, i.e., “one person, one vote.”…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Al Dunpal Case Study

    • 1394 Words
    • 6 Pages

    1. Consider Dunlap’s statement on page 3 of the case: “Stakeholders! Everytime I hear the word I ask how much did they pay for their stake? There is only one constituency I am concerned about and that is the shareholders.” Do you agree or disagree with Dunlap’s view of shareholder primacy?” Explain…

    • 1394 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Stakeholders: Large Firms

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Unlike shareholders who are solely interested in return dividends and share price growth, stakeholders have wide variety of interests in how companies operate. Freeman (1984) stated that stakeholders are, “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”. The main objective for firms is profit maximization and for this reason I agree to a certain extent that large corporations abuse their power against stakeholders.…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Financial Ratios and Sales

    • 10334 Words
    • 42 Pages

    One of the advantages of a corporation from a social standpoint is that every stockholder has equal voting rights, i.e., “one person, one vote.”…

    • 10334 Words
    • 42 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    syllabi

    • 1972 Words
    • 11 Pages

    One of the advantages of a corporation from a social standpoint is that every stockholder has equal voting rights, i.e., “one person, one vote.”…

    • 1972 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/dynamicdoc/document.cfm?CompanyID=ASX&DocumentID=364&PIN=&Page=3&keyword=Type%20keyword%20here (accessed 06 Feb, 2008) Faculty of Law, corporate Governance eJournel, bond university, year 2007, Brendan Scandret…

    • 2654 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Best Essays

    Case Study

    • 2525 Words
    • 11 Pages

    [ 6 ]. Professor Robert Baxt AO, Law Book Co, Thomson Reuters, 2011, Corporation Legislation…

    • 2525 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Better Essays

    Unless we live as a hermit, we are unable to escape the influence of others ‘decision (Clawson, 2012). Those decisions, negative or positive, affect every entity in a business. Most businesses have entities that are affected by the day to day operations of that business. These entities are known as stakeholders. We group these stakeholders based on their interest. They’re grouped in categories such as employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, and the community. The more commonly known stakeholder groups in business are employees, suppliers, shareholders, and customers. These groups are concerned with the decisions that affect the dividends that they receive in their share of profits. They all play a key role in protecting their interest and investment.…

    • 1091 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    The concept of stakeholder claims is that each stakeholder has something that they want from the organization or make certain demands from the organization to which they are affiliated. For example, shareholders claim dividends; employees claim remuneration and insurance; customers claim quality, favorable, prices and constant supply; Financiers and investors will claim interest rates. These are but a few examples of shareholder claims. More will be discussed in the course of the essay. According to Phillips &Freeman (2003 pp 25-32), only shareholders that hold direct financial risks should have absolute right to influence decisions and policies taken by the firm. Other stakeholders such as customers and suppliers are said to process freedom of exit and therefore do not have a lot of influence (RBS, 2002 pp 16).…

    • 1142 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Activist Investor

    • 775 Words
    • 3 Pages

    One concern that critics addressed is whether activist intervention increased shareholders’ value. Supporters believe that activist investors will have positive effect in strengthen shareholders’ voice and increasing the value of vote through activist intervention on corporation governance. In the paper, The Agency Costs of Agency Capitalism: Activist Investors and the Revaluation of Governance Rights, Gilson and Gordon point out that, corporation ownership nowadays is no longer dispersed as before. Share ownership is reconcentrated by institutional investors who “owned over 70% of the outstanding stock of the thousand largest US public companies”. These institutional investors consisted of large funds show little incentive to take the active role of monitoring their portfolios or challenging boards and management. Due to portfolio diversification, free ride problem occurs when they bear costs and obtain benefits from active participation will benefits their competitors as well. The active role of monitoring to take corrective action transfers to activist hedge funds, “who acquire a…

    • 775 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Determine what factors arise in considering if a minority investor can make maintain such control or what can be done to prevent others from exercising control of the corporation.…

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Business Law

    • 1957 Words
    • 8 Pages

    “The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 has to be watched very carefully. It has often been supposed to cast a veil on the personality of a limited company through which the courts cannot see. But that is not true. The courts can, and often do, draw aside the veil. They can, and often do, pull off the mark. They look to see what really lies behind” - Lord Denning in Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v Inland revenue Commissioners [1969] 3 All ER 422.…

    • 1957 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ownership and control of Parmlat was concentrated in a single strong shareholder that resulted in the oppression of minority shareholders.…

    • 251 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Howard Smith

    • 9812 Words
    • 29 Pages

    Two companies, A and B, held 55 per cent. of the issued shares of company M, which required more capital. A made an offer for all the issued shares of M, and another company, H, announced an intention to make a higher offer for those shares. M's directors considered A's offer too low and decided to recommend that the offer be rejected. A and B then stated that they intended to act jointly in the future operations of M and would reject any offer for their shares. H then applied to M for an allotment of 4½ million ordinary shares; M's directors decided by a majority to make the allotment and immediately issued the shares. The effect of that issue was that M had much needed capital; A and B's share holding was reduced to 36.6 per cent. of the issued shares and H was in a position to make an effective takeover offer. A challenged the validity of the issue of the shares to H and sought an order in the Supreme Court for the rectification of the share register by the removal of H as a member of M in respect of the allotted shares. M's directors contended that the primary reason for the issue of the shares to H was to obtain more capital.…

    • 9812 Words
    • 29 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Cadbury Buyback Case

    • 3832 Words
    • 16 Pages

    Squeeze out of minority shareholders The law relating to reduction of share capital can be found in Section 100 to 105 of the Companies Act, 1956. The recent judgments in Elpro and Sanvik Asia have laid down that minority shareholders can be squeezed out without their consent, thereby creating an arena of jurisprudence in the favor of majority acquiring full rights to do whatever they will with the company. According to Punjab Distilleries India Ltd. v CIT, the following requirements have to be followed under section 100 of the Companies act: (i) A resolution has to be passed by the general body of the company (ii) Application has to filed with the court for confirmation (iii) After confirmation register with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. (iv) Issue notices to invite applications for refund of share capital (v) Distribute the proportionate share capital among each of the shareholders. British and American Trustee and Finance Corporation v. Couper is a leading authority on reduction of share capital which laid down that courts cannot go into the motive of reduction by the company. The judicial trend in this regard seems to show that Section 100 primarily is being used for more of objectionable objectives, for example in the leading case of Sandvik Asia the reason behind the Company’s reduction of share capital was to continue to remain a public company even after delisting of its shares, other reasons like reduction of administration costs , conversion to a private limited company in order to avoid greater regulations, are being widely used. Initially companies used Section 100 read with Section 391, however this practice was done away with in order to avoid the condition of a separate class meeting.…

    • 3832 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Best Essays