The rights and responsibilities of Shareholders

the rights and responsibilities of shareholders.

Having shareholders is vital to raise finance in order to

grow your company in return for a shareholder's investment.

They receive a range of rights and can retain power

over certain major company decisions.

The rights that go with being a shareholder can either

benefit the company or easily put a company in jeopardy.

There are four types of shares.

Ordinary shares redeemable shares, preference shares and A and B

shares. Thanks to the Companies Act, most shares come with

basic rights, such as amending articles of association, removing the

director, changing the company's name.

And due to the insolvency act, they have the right

to any assets the company may have when it is

being wound up.

The only shareholder which isn't entitled to anything other than

a share of the company's profit is a preference shareholder.

These are known as quite limited preference shares as they

come with no voting rights or a share in the

company's assets upon it being wound up.

All shareholders are not equal, and they can be further

split into two categories of major and minor shareholders, which

can result in majority shareholders having extensive power over minority

shareholders. A majority shareholder is an entity or a person

that owns more than 50% of a company shares.

A majority shareholder has significant amounts of influence over the

company's decisions and tends to be the founder of the

company or a descendant of the founder.

You get a range of different rights as a majority

shareholder, such as under Section 168 of the company's act,

a company made by ordinary resolution at a meeting remover

director before the expiration of his period of office notwithstanding

anything in agreement between it and him.

In order for a director to be voted out, there

needs to be a 50% majority, and our majority shareholder

will hold all of the power and is the deciding

factor whether a director stays or goals.

This leaves a minority shareholders when they'll say in the

decision on the Section 84 of the Insolvency Act, a

company may be wound up voluntarily if the company resolves

by a special resolution that it wound up voluntarily.

You can liquidate company when there is a 75% majority

vote again, the majority shareholder will be the main decider

on this factor and will be entitled to the majority

of the company's assets upon the company being wound up.

This could be viewed as a majority shareholder having too

much power as they could push to wind the company

up and take majority of the assets, leaving the minority

shareholders with very little.

The Companies Act does give minority shareholders certain rights, but

the rights given to the minority shareholders are extremely limited.

For example, if you have a shareholding of 10% you

are able to call a poll vote at a general

meeting, and you're able to require an audit.

These rights are significantly lower value compared to the majority

shareholders. When a dispute arises, it is often too late

to amend articles in favor of the minority shareholders rights

and amendments.

20 of these articles require 75% of the shareholders to

vote in favour of the amendment.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the majority shareholders

will not be in favor of passing a resolution to

assist a minority.

A poll which remind a minority shareholder does have is

that they can block the majority shareholder from controlling directors,

selling their shares, exiting the company and liquidating the company

as these all need a 75% majority.

So as long as the majority shareholder doesn't own 75%

of the company, these can be blocked by the minority.

We can see the difference in shareholder powers from this

and realize that not all shareholders are equal.

And there is a very wide range of powers given

to the shareholders dependent on how many shares are owned.

Diagonal states that the board of directors themselves electable or

removable by a majority shareholder vote who control the conduct

of the company, including decisions to launch or proceed with

litigation. The ability to vote is regarded as a key

membership right, and the law provides shareholders with freedom on

how they can exercise their votes.

As Lord Morgan stated, the shareholders vote is a right

of property, and prima facie may be exercised by a

shareholder as he thinks fit in his own interest.

This is also the case when the shareholder is also

the director a director when exercising his right to vote

as a member may vote purely in his own interests,

even if such interest or reverse to the interests of

the company.

However, there are limitations on the ability to vote.

The articles may place restrictions upon the shareholders ability to

vote, for example, by allowing the company to issue shares

with restricted or no voting rights.

And the statute may limit the shareholders ability to vote.

For example, if a resolution has been tabled to ratify

a director's negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of

trust, then the director in question will not be permitted

to vote on the matter.

There are two methods of voting by the show of

hands and by poll.

The general rule is unless the article states otherwise, votes

will be counted by a show of hands.

Unless the article states otherwise, each shareholder will be invited,

entitled to one vote.

Shareholders have the right to demand that a vote is

taken on a pole and any provisions in the articles

that purpose to exclude this right is void.

Unless it relates to the election of a chair or

the adjournment of the meeting, companies can place restrictions on

the right to demand a Paul, but this is limited.

Some shareholders don't tend to care about the company and

how the company is run, but just on how much

money that they can gain from the company.

Shareholders receive large dividends from the company, which could potentially

cause them to go into liquidation and supply chain creditors.

Employees, pension schemes, local communities and taxpayers are the ones

that are left up picking up the pieces.

And they had no say on how the company was

wrong. There has become a growing obsession with shareholder value,

which can compromise a company's innovation and strategic direction in

favor of immediate profits.

1970. Only 10% of companies profits were paid to shareholders.

Now it has increased between 60 to 70%.

Shareholders are also increasingly offshore.

Over 40% of U.

K shares are now owned by overseas investors.

Shareholders don't care about the money about the company.

They just want to make the most amount of money

possible. In 2000 and 16, BHS was struggling to survive

due to shareholder greed.

They show that during the period of 2000 and 5

to 2000 and 14, the group did not pay any

further dividends, possibly because its financial strength had been sapped

by the huge 1.3 billion payout in 2000 and five

company law labeled the directors, who were also shareholders, to

regard the company as their private fiefdom.

Furstenberg argues that shareholders are stupid and impertinent, stupid because

they give their money to somebody else with no effective

control over what the person does with it and impertinent

because they asked for a dividend as a reward for

their stupidity.

Now this presents the view that the companies are not

working in the shareholders best interests but instead just taking

shareholders money.

In the case of White and Bristol Aeroplane, this proved

that the rights and privileges associated 20 class of shares

may be affected, modified, varied, dealt with or obligated in

any manner.

With the sanction of an extraordinary resolution passed at a

separate meeting of the members of that class, Bristol sought

to issue new ordinary shares and preference shares to the

company's existing shareholders.

An existing preference shareholder argued that the effect of the

share issue was to dilute the preference shareholders voting power

and so the rights attached to his shares were affected

ever. Shirt stated that there was no doubt that the

share issue would affect the enjoyment of and the capacity

to make effective use of the rights attached to whites

preference shares.

However, he went on to say that there is to

my mind a distinction and a sensible distinction between an

affecting of the right and then affecting of the enjoyment

of the rights or of the stockholders capacity to turn

them to account.

The issuing of the preference shares affected the preference shareholders

enjoyment of their rights, but it did not affect the

rights themselves, which remained the same.

Accordingly, there was no variation of class rights, and so

a separate meeting of the preferential shareholders was not required.

In the case of Ibrahimi and Westbound Galleries.

In 1945 Ibrahimi in NASA formed a partnership that sold

rugs and carpets, and both parties would manage the firm.

In 1958 they incorporated the business, and Ibrahimi A.

Nazar, became the company's first directors, each holding 500 chairs.

George, Nasa's son, became a director shortly after, and they

each transferred George 100 shares, 1969 a dispute roles, and

they both used their majority to vote.

Ibrahimi out of office, West Born distributed its profits as

directors fees and not as dividends.

Ibrahimi removal from office meant he was no longer entitled

20 of the profits.

Lord Wilberforce noted that the that companies that exhibited these

characteristics were referred to as quasi partnerships and that West

Born was clearly such a company.

Accordingly, equitable considerations would be relevant here.

The relevant consideration here was the fact that when NASA

and Ibrahimi set up the partnership, it was understood that

both parties would be involved in managing the firm.

And when the business was incorporated, there was an indisputable

inference that the character of the association would, as a

matter of personal relation and good faith, remain the same.

By removing Ibrahimi from office, the Nasar's had inequitably breached

this understanding and so the winding of Westbourne was ordered.

The law can be seen to protect shareholders, including minority

shareholders, so then majority shareholders can't abuse their rights.

In the case of British Union for the Abolition of

Vivisection, Cos.

Article stated that proxy votes were not permitted and company

meetings had to be attended in person.

A meeting was called to amend the articles.

The meeting was disorderly and before any business was conducted,

it was shut down by the police before it became

too disorderly company's board applied to the court for an

order convening a meeting at which only the only the

board members should be allowed to personally attend with other

members being able to vote by way of postal ballots.

Yeah, Justice Breyer stated that a member should feel free

to attend and vote at general meetings and is not

to be deterred from doing so by the fear that

the extremism of the radical minority of members will or

may cause the meetings to degenerate into violent and potentially

dangerous demonstrations based on the special circumstances and unusual circumstances

of the case.

He therefore held that it was impractical to call a

meeting in accordance with the company's articles and so granted

the order sought by company directors.

Shareholders rights remains a controversial subject in corporate law, limited

by shareholders not being equal and not always acting in

the company's best interests.

It can be argued that shareholders have too many rights,

however, they are monitored heavily by the courts

The rights and responsibilities of Shareholders

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated