scholarly journals Shareholders’ Control Premium and their Fiduciary Duties - Imposition of Fiduciary Duties on Non-interested Minority Shareholders and Ways to Enforce Them -

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 385-413
Author(s):  
Choong-Kee Lee
1991 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moni Murdoch ◽  
Charles W. Murdoch

When the employment of a shareholder in a family business is terminated or when dividends are not paid to inactive members, disputes often arise that can lead to litigation. In the past, minority shareholders have not had much leverage in these situations. However, developments of the past decade have substantially enhanced the position of minority shareholders. Recognizing this, professionals in the family business area may be able to mediate disputes before the polarization that leads to litigation occurs.


1970 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aharon Barak

Can the members of a company in general meeting ratify a transaction of the directors by simple majority, when the latter—in breach of their fiduciary duties—have not acted “bona fide in the interests of the company”? This question is likely to prove of importance in a number of different contexts. In Bamford v. Bamford it arose in connection with the validity of an act of the directors in the sphere of the company's relations with a third party—the contention that the act was invalid having been made by the minority shareholders, who objected to ratification, and not by the third party himself. The possibility of ratification gives rise to two questions: is the general meeting of the company the competent organ to exercise this power? And, assuming that it is, can the act done in breach of a duty be ratified by it by simple majority? In the Bamford case it is only the former aspect of the problem that is considered.The articles of the company vested the power to allot shares in the directors. In exercising this power the directors failed to act “bona fide in the interests of the company”. Their act was ratified by the members in general meeting by simple majority and the validity of the ratification was challenged. Both the judge of first instance and those sitting on appeal decided that it was valid. Plowman J., in the Chancery Division, held that, since the directors had been actuated by an improper motive, they thereby lost their power of allotment, which accordingly vested in the general meeting, as the organ of the company with residual power in this respect. The general meeting—he went on to hold—could ratify the directors' action by simple majority. Harman L.J. and Russel L.J., in the Court of Appeal, reached the same conclusion— but for different reasons. In their opinion, the fact that the directors allotted the shares for an improper motive does not mean that what they did was in excess of their powers; the allotment simply became voidable. The power to remedy the defect—they held—is in the hands of the general meeting, which can exercise this power by simple majority.


2005 ◽  
pp. 53-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Kapeliushnikov ◽  
N. Demina

The paper provides new survey evidence on effects of concentrated ownership upon investment and performance in Russian industrial enterprises. Authors trace major changes in their ownership profile, assess pace of post-privatization redistribution of shareholdings and provide evidence on ownership concentration in the Russian industry. The major econometric findings are that the first largest shareholding is negatively associated with the firm’s investment and performance but surprisingly the second largest shareholding is positively associated with them. Moreover, these relationships do not depend on identity of majority shareholders. These results are consistent with the assumption that the entrenched controlling owners are engaged in extracting "control premium" but sizable shareholdings accumulated by other blockholders may put brakes on their expropriating behavior and thus be conductive for efficiency enhancing. The most interesting topic for further more detailed analysis is formation, stability and roles of coalitions of large blockholders in the corporate sector of post-socialist countries.


Think India ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-23
Author(s):  
Hitesh Shukla ◽  
Nailesh Limbasiya

Growth, progress, and prosperity of any country depend highly on the corporate governance mechanism of that country. Good governance of a country helps it to sustainable growth and consistency in progress. The good governance should contribute towards the improvement in transparency, ethics, morality, and disclosure. The principles of good governance stand on honesty, trust, integrity, openness, and performance orientation. Our honorable Prime Minister Narendra bhai Modi had given the three E for good governance during his speech on Independence Day i.e. Effective Governance, Electronic Governance, and Ethical Governance. The fundamental concern of corporate governance mechanism is to ensure the protection of minority shareholders/owners of specific firms. Mechanism of a corporate governance specifies the relations among the shareholders, board of directors, and managers. The present paper is an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the board by calculating the corporate governance score. The mandatory and non-mandatory guidelines have been considered while assigning points to specific parameters of the corporate governance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document