Miles Herman is a clever, understated lawyer who is at the top of his game.
In terms of routine governance, shareholders over a certain threshold retain the power to call company meetings, and shareholder approval is required for the appointment of company directors.
Where mismanagement of a company’s affairs is alleged, even minority shareholders may bring legal action against the directors in order to obtain remedies, including injunctive relief. In the most serious cases, a shareholder may apply to a court to have a company wound up.
Lewis Nedas Law’s solicitors hold over 40 years of corporate litigation experience in a broad range of matters, including shareholder disputes and professional negligence claims. For more information on how our Corporate and Commercial Solicitors can help you, please get in touch.
We have an innovative approach, outstanding service, and absolute commitment to client success. Contact us today, and together, we’ll set a clear path towards your business’ future growth and prosperity.
Where company affairs are alleged to have been mismanaged or conducted in a manner prejudicial towards shareholders, such as misappropriation of funds, an unfair prejudice claim can be brought in court. A shareholder who raises an unfair prejudice claim can seek judicial remedies, such as ordering the company to buyout the aggrieved shareholder, or seek an award of injunctive relief against the contentious action.
In the alternative, a shareholder may bring a derivative action against the directors on behalf of the company. Derivative claims are made against the company’s directors by individual shareholders, acting on behalf of a company. Court approval is required in order for this type of action to move forward, and the shareholder must allege the directors have breached their legal duties.
As a last resort, a shareholder may bring an action to have the company wound up. This will only be granted by a court if considered just and equitable.
A shareholder may call for a general meeting of company management if they possess at least 5% of the company’s share capital and if the directors are first asked to call the meeting. In the event of a negative response from the company directors, the shareholders are entitled to call a general meeting by themselves.
Shareholder approval is required before certain company undertakings can move forward. Usually, shareholders’ voting rights are set out in the company’s Articles of Association.
A supermajority (or over half) of shareholder votes is required when a company seeks to alter its Articles of Association or trading name from what was initially filed at Companies House, switch company designation from public to private, alter pre-emptive rights and issue shares.
By comparison, an action to remove a director or auditor, approve a director service contract, elect chairmen, redenominate share capital currency or approve allotment of shares requires a shareholder majority vote.
Subject to certain exceptions under the Companies Act, all accounts produced by a company’s directors must be subject to review by a shareholder-appointed auditor. Shareholders also possess a limited statutory right to inspect company accounts.
Book a
confidential
consultation
Miles Herman is a clever, understated lawyer who is at the top of his game.
Richard McConnell carried out conveyance for my family on 4 London flats, 1 sale and 3 purchases. In each instance he was excellent. The attention to detail and communication throughout the process was perfect. I have recommended Richard to several family members and friends who have been extremely pleased. I would have no hesitation in using Richard McConnell and Lewis Nedas in the future should the need arise.
I wanted to take the opportunity as well to thank you for everything that you have done on this case. The result that we got on Monday will have a massive positive impact not only on my life but the lives of all my family including that of my own son. I personally was struggling to hold back the tears when the sentence was being delivered by the judge and I know my father and sister felt the same too. It must be fantastic to work in a way that can have such a positive impact on people’s lives and I want you to know how much it all means to us all. Thanks a million and good luck with all that you do going forward.
Lewis Nedas advised me in a serious case of insider dealing. The lead solicitor dealing with my case was Jeffrey Lewis, who impressed me with his quick grasp of the very complex circumstances. His in-depth knowledge of how the City really works and his long experience of serious financial crime gave me great confidence. But it was also his friendly and supportive attitude, and readiness to take calls (or return them promptly if he was in court) which was very reassuring. I was delighted with the positive result of the case, and the speed and efficiency with which it was handled.
Hands on partner involvement leading a dynamic team who like to think out of the box. Results driven. Clear strategies. They can go toe to toe with the big “City” firms.
Lewis Nedas are an efficient litigation machine. If something needs to be done, they will do it. Have a real “the client comes first” attitude.
