Discussing Shareholder Disputes | Davis Blank Furniss Solicitors

Shareholder disputes are not unusual. Shareholders will often have different views and ideas about how the business should be run and this can often lead to conflict.

There are documents that you can put in place to govern how the company should be run and it is important to be aware of these documents and the provisions set out within them in the event of a dispute between the shareholders. The Articles of Association set out how the company should be run on a day to day basis. There may also be a shareholder agreement in place.

In the event of a dispute, the relevant documents should be considered to ensure that any decisions taken by the company are taken in accordance with the Articles of Association.

If the dispute has led to the relationship between the shareholders being irreconcilable, it might be proposed that the remaining shareholders buy out the unhappy shareholder. This will allow the unhappy shareholder to realise his investment in the company and for the company to carry on without the unhappy shareholder from attempting to block any decisions of the company. If the remaining shareholders are not willing to buy out the unhappy shareholder, it can be ordered by the Court under s994 Companies Act 2006.

Protection afforded by the s994 Companies Act 2006

S994 of the Companies Act 2006 allows a shareholder to apply to the court for relief where the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the shareholder’s interests and that an actual or proposed act or omission of the company is or would be so prejudicial. The following points should be considered before making a petition under s994:

(1)  The shareholder must be able to demonstrate both prejudice and unfairness before the court will make an order.

(2)  A shareholder can show unfair prejudice if she can show that the monetary value of her shares will decrease or has decreased as a result of a prejudicial act or omission. Unfair prejudice is not, however, limited to the financial value of the shares; it can also include damage to trust and confidence as a result of a breach of a fiduciary duty or the diluting a shareholder’s shareholdings by issuing shares with the intention of diluting a shareholder’s shareholding etc.

a. In Re Brenfield Squash Racquets Club Limited [1996] it was held that where the value of the shares had decreased, or was put in jeopardy of decreasing as a result of the act complained of, unfair prejudice could be found. Here, the Court ordered the majority shareholder to sell their shares to the petitioning minority shareholder at the request of the petitioning shareholder.

b. In Re Baumler (UK) Ltd [2004] it was held that a breakdown in the relationship of a quasi-partnership may amount to sufficient prejudice even if there is nothing more tangible caused by the prejudice.

c. Breaches of a company’s Articles of Association and shareholder agreements have also been held to amount to unfair prejudice, including the failure to hold annual general meetings, to provide accounts and to disclose interests in a transaction with the company (Re Woven Rugs [2010]).

d. In O’Neill v Phillips [1999], it was held that a breakdown of trust and confidence that had led to a deadlock but could not be attributed to any unfair prejudice will not entitle a petitioner to relief under s994, though it may justify the company being wound up.

(3)  The court will take an objective approach and should not consider morality when reaching their decision.

(4)  The shareholder must be worse off as a result of the complained conduct. If there is no detriment suffered by the shareholder, the petition will not be successful.

a. In Rock (Nominees) Ltd v RCO (Holdings) Plc [2004] a company sold its wholly owned subsidiary to a majority shareholder in breach of fiduciary duty. No prejudice was found because the sale took place at the best reasonable price and therefore the petitioner was no worse off as a result of the breach.

(5)  If the court is satisfied that the petition is well founded, one of the following orders may be made:

a. An order to regulate the conduct of the company in the future;

b. An order for the company to refrain from doing the act complained of;

c. An order for the company to do the act that the petitioner has complained that the company has omitted to do;

d. An order for the petitioning shareholder to be bought out by the remaining shareholders;

e. An order authorising civil proceedings to be brought in the name of and on behalf of the company;

f. An order for the company not to amend its articles, or any specified articles, without the leave of the court;

g. An order to wind the company up where it is just and equitable to do so.

If you are experiencing any problems with shareholders and need assistance from our Dispute Resolution team, please contact us on 0161 832 3304.

For more information about Andrew and his work, please click here.


Read what our clients have to say...

View All

Excellent experience start to finish – always very responsive to any queries and the turnaround on the property I was buying was very quick, even in the busy time leading up to stamp duty deadline. Jenny was always very helpful and went above and beyond to close on a short timescale.

Ben Armitage

“Very approachable, practical solutions to problems, but most of all very responsive which I personally think is very important because if you need help, you need it quickly, or at least to know someone is looking at it for you”.

Joanne Rowe, Finance Director, Greater Manchester Chamber

“Always able to contact, very approachable, friendly and professional”

Nives Feely, JAM Recruitment

“I believe I have been able to establish a professional working relationship with everyone I have come into contact. Importantly, I sense the relationships which have been established give me the confidence that I can make contact with Davis Blank Furniss at any time and on any matter. I would also like to express my thanks to the very impressive “gatekeepers” who work in reception, not only for making me very welcome, but also for their professionalism”

Bill Pryke, CEO, Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors

“Thank you for your efficient and friendly help throughout this process. We have had it easy but your approach has been part of that”.

Robert Amsbury (Conveyancing Client)

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank you personally for the ongoing support and assistance the firm has offered to our parents over the years. I hope also that we may be able to call on you if necessary in the future.”

Valerie Fisher (Probate Client)

“Jo always provides great service, understands our needs and delivers on her promises. Our needs are relatively simple but the complexity arises out of the volume of work and short time frames, Jo always delivers.”

Peter Fernandez, Corporate Director at Royal Bank of Scotland

“A big thank you to all who dealt with my wife’s claim… We would not hesitate to recommend Davis Blank Furniss to anyone that may be in a situation like we have been…”

Anon (Personal Injury client)

“Before putting my case in Kirsty (Morbey)’s capable hands I’ve met a couple of other solicitors. None of them listen to me as intently as Kirsty and showed me as much empathy and understanding as she did. Simultaneously she was able to look at my case from legal perspective, explain all the options and follow each of our meetings with written summary of the discussed matters (in timely manner). Her advice was invaluable and led me to successfully ending the case matter (hopeful for good). I’m forever grateful for he work and would definitely recommend her to anyone looking for reliable, knowledgeable and committed solicitor”.

Anon (Family client)
5 star service

Our Manchester office is rated 5 stars on Google