96:, the procedure of a derivative suit is as follows. First, eligible shareholders must file a demand on the board. The board may either reject, accept, or not act upon the demand. If after a period of time the demand has been rejected or has not been acted upon, shareholders may file suit. If the board accepts the demand, the corporation itself will file the suit. If rejected, or not acted upon, the shareholder must meet additional pleading requirements. On the requirements being met by the shareholder, the board may appoint a “special litigation committee” which may move to dismiss. If the special litigation committee makes a required showing, the case will be dismissed. If the committee fails to make a showing, the shareholder suit may proceed.
52:) in the name of the corporation against a party or parties allegedly causing harm to the latter. If the directors, officers, or employees of the corporation are not willing to file an action, a shareholder may first petition them to proceed. If such petition fails, they may take it upon themself to bring an action on behalf of the corporation. Any proceeds (damages and interest in English law) of a successful action are awarded to the corporation and not to the shareholder(s) as the controlling claimant.
36:, management is responsible for bringing and defending the corporation against suit. Shareholder derivative suits permit a shareholder to initiate a suit when management has failed to do so. To enable a diversity of management approaches to risks and reinforce the most common forms of corporate rules with a high degree of permissible management power, many jurisdictions have implemented minimum thresholds and grounds (procedural and substantive) to such suits.
152:, the purpose of such permissible suits is never to protect the shareholders, but to protect the corporation itself. Thus highly irregular emoluments or share reward schemes to the board of directors themselves or their personal extrinsic interests lend themselves to such suits. Creditors may bring an action, if a corporation inextricably faces
60:
In most jurisdictions, a shareholder must satisfy various requirements to prove that he has a valid standing before being allowed to proceed. The law may require the shareholder to meet qualifications such as the minimum value of the shares and the duration of the holding by the shareholder; to first
191:
Derivative shareholder suits are extremely rare in continental Europe. The reasons probably lie within laws that prevent small shareholders from bringing lawsuits in the first place. Many
European countries have company acts that legally require a minimum share in order to bring a derivative suit.
44:
Under traditional corporate business law, shareholders are the owners of a corporation. However, they are not empowered to control the day-to-day operations of the corporation. Instead, shareholders appoint directors, and the directors in turn appoint officers and/or relatively less powerful
167:
case must be shown stage. This preliminary case avoids wasted time and costs. In
Scotland where there had been even less clear rules on shareholder actions on behalf of the company, particularly procedurally, alike sections assist.
313:
Kristoffel
Grechenig & Michael Sekyra, No derivative shareholder suits in Europe: A model of percentage limits and collusion, International Review of Law and Economics (IRLE) 2011, vol. 31 (1), p. 16-20
32:
against a third party. Often, the third party is an insider of the corporation, such as an executive officer or director. Shareholder derivative suits are unique because under traditional
176:
192:
Larger shareholders could bring lawsuits, however, their incentives are rather to settle the claims with the management, sometimes to the detriment of the small shareholders.
212:
of the court. It must be in the best interest of the company to have this action brought so benefits to company must outweigh the costs of taking action.
163:
provides no new statutory class of suits but must be followed, setting out the required standard procedure. In
England and Wales, this entails a
171:
A confirmation of the statutory procedure being in almost all cases applicable first occurred in the leading reported case of:
61:
make a demand on the corporate board to take action; or to post bond, or other fees in the event that he does not prevail.
136:, an action brought by minority shareholder(s) could only in exceptional circumstances be upheld under the doctrine of
117:
326:
Why do
Shareholder Derivative Suits Remain Rare in Continental Europe?, 37 BROOKLYN J. INT'L L. 843-892 (2012).
247:
93:
73:, corporate law is based on state law. Although the laws of each state differ, the laws of the states such as
301:
341:
229:
351:
220:
In India, derivative suits are brought under the clauses of oppression and mismanagement.
89:
where corporations often incorporate, institute a number of barriers to derivative suits.
8:
99:
This model approach is followed to a greater or lesser degree among various states. In
205:
160:
112:
346:
180:
138:
100:
78:
103:, for example, derivative suits must be brought to secure a judgment "in favor."
121:
133:
335:
70:
201:
144:
142:
in 1843 as to who is the "proper claimant/plaintiff". Exceptions involve
33:
29:
25:
153:
82:
48:
Derivative suits refer to one or more shareholders bringing an action (
107:
has different rules in regards to demand and bond requirements too.
315:
104:
74:
148:
and, similarly, fraud on minority. According to Blair and Stout's
92:
Generally in these states, and under the
American Bar Association
49:
21:
86:
186:
127:
120:, originated with a shareholder derivative suit against
64:
195:
333:
267:
265:
215:
45:executives to manage day-to-day operations.
262:
39:
302:Explanatory Notes on Companies Act 2006
150:Team Production Theory of Corporate Law
334:
187:Derivative suits in continental Europe
128:Derivative suits in the United Kingdom
65:Derivative suits in the United States
290:Eisenberg v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc.
13:
209:
177:Roberts v Gill & Co Solicitors
14:
363:
204:these can be brought under the
196:Derivative suits in New Zealand
116:, which ultimately reached the
320:
307:
295:
283:
274:
253:
241:
1:
235:
55:
7:
223:
159:Sections 302 to 306 of the
118:United States Supreme Court
18:shareholder derivative suit
10:
368:
208:section 165 only with the
216:Derivative suits in India
40:Purpose and difficulties
230:Business judgment rule
110:The famous case of
206:Companies Act 1993
161:Companies Act 2006
113:Shaffer v. Heitner
359:
327:
324:
318:
311:
305:
299:
293:
287:
281:
278:
272:
269:
260:
257:
251:
245:
211:
139:Foss v Harbottle
367:
366:
362:
361:
360:
358:
357:
356:
332:
331:
330:
325:
321:
312:
308:
304:pages 74&ff
300:
296:
292:, 451 F.2d 267.
288:
284:
279:
275:
270:
263:
258:
254:
246:
242:
238:
226:
218:
198:
189:
130:
122:Greyhound Lines
67:
58:
42:
28:on behalf of a
12:
11:
5:
365:
355:
354:
349:
344:
329:
328:
319:
306:
294:
282:
280:MBCA § 7.44(a)
273:
271:MBCA § 7.44(d)
261:
259:MBCA § 7.42(2)
252:
239:
237:
234:
233:
232:
225:
222:
217:
214:
197:
194:
188:
185:
184:
183:
134:United Kingdom
129:
126:
66:
63:
57:
54:
41:
38:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
364:
353:
350:
348:
345:
343:
342:Corporate law
340:
339:
337:
323:
317:
310:
303:
298:
291:
286:
277:
268:
266:
256:
249:
244:
240:
231:
228:
227:
221:
213:
207:
203:
193:
182:
179:
178:
174:
173:
172:
169:
166:
162:
157:
155:
151:
147:
146:
141:
140:
135:
125:
123:
119:
115:
114:
108:
106:
102:
97:
95:
90:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:United States
62:
53:
51:
46:
37:
35:
34:corporate law
31:
27:
24:brought by a
23:
19:
352:Shareholders
322:
309:
297:
289:
285:
276:
255:
243:
219:
199:
190:
175:
170:
164:
158:
149:
143:
137:
131:
111:
109:
98:
91:
68:
59:
47:
43:
17:
15:
202:New Zealand
165:prima facie
145:ultra vires
30:corporation
26:shareholder
336:Categories
236:References
154:insolvency
94:guidelines
83:California
56:Procedure
347:Lawsuits
224:See also
105:Delaware
101:New York
79:New York
75:Delaware
316:(link).
181:UKSC 22
132:In the
69:In the
50:lawsuit
22:lawsuit
250:§ 7.42
87:Nevada
85:, and
210:leave
20:is a
248:MBCA
200:In
338::
264:^
156:.
124:.
81:,
77:,
16:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.