Two common remedies for shareholder oppression include a buy-out order, where one shareholder is ordered to purchase the oppressed shareholder’s shares, or a winding up order, where the Court forces the company into administration or liquidation. In the case of Snell v Glatis (No 2) [2020] NSWA 166, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the complications involved in a buy-out order following a finding of shareholder oppression, and instead made a winding-up order. This article considers this case and remedies for shareholder oppression.
Background to the Snell case
In Snell v Glatis (No 2) [2020] NSWA 166, the NSW Court of Appeal had to consider the primary judge’s decision to order a compulsory buy-out after shareholder oppression was found. S232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides the grounds on which a Court may make an order under s233 of the Act if the conduct in question is oppressive or contrary to the interests of members as a whole. The conduct complained of in Snell included that the affairs of four companies under the control of Mr Snell were conducted in an oppressive manner, which were held to be unfairly prejudicial to Mr Glatis.
The buy-out order for the oppressed minority’s shareholdings within a group of companies gave rise to numerous complications. The order included a buy-back price of $66 million and the defendant was unable to raise the funds to comply. The Court of Appeal considered a previous judgement which followed the following principles:
- oppression can be cured by the oppressor being ordered to acquire the oppressed shareholder’s shares at a fair value;
- the buy-back order should be designed to place the company in a good position and avoid conflict;
- winding up should be considered as a last resort in comparison to a buy-out order; and
- winding up a company that is operating and profitable is an extreme step, requiring a solid case to be made.
It was held to be impractical for Mr Snell to comply with the buy-out order. Their Honours found that the primary judge erred in exercising a discretion to make a buy-out order and instead made an order to wind up the company. The aim of this was to secure the respondent’s share of the value of the relevant corporate group and prevent further ongoing oppression.
What is a buy-out order?
A share buy-back is an offer to a shareholder of a company to sell their shares back to the company. A buy-back order is often made where there is a finding of shareholder oppression, with the point of the order being to return to a minority shareholder the value of their shareholding.
Winding up as a remedy to shareholder oppression
As seen in Snell, if a share buy-back order cannot be met or is impractical, winding up may be a preferable option to the Court. An order to wind up the company essentially forces it into liquidation. Under s461(f) of the Act the Court may order the winding up of a company if it is being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or discriminatory against a member or in a manner that is contrary to the interests of members as a whole.
Takeaways
The purpose of remedies for disputes involving shareholder oppression is to actually ensure that the oppression cannot occur in future. An alternative remedy to a buy-back order includes an order to wind up the company, however the Court of Appeal confirmed in Snell that this should be used as a last resort, and that relief will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The history and structure of the company are also relevant considerations.
Links and further references
Legislation
Cases
Snell v Glatis (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 166
Further information about shareholder or directors disputes
If you need advice on shareholder or directors disputes, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS.
Legal Practice Director
T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred)
M: +61 419 726 535
E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
Related insights about shareholder or directors disputes
-
Shareholders’ right to inspect books under s 247A Corporations Act
A shareholder of a company can apply to the Court seeking an order that it be provided with access to the company’s books and records under certain circumstances, provided that the shareholder is acting in good faith and seeking inspection for a proper purpose.
-
Point in time valuation and minority shareholder oppression
Shareholder oppression, or minority shareholder oppression, is generally thought to occur when the majority shareholders misuse their power to oppress or control the minority.
-
Compensation for breaches of director’s duties
Should it be held that a director of a company has breached their statutory duties, as contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act), then the question arises as to how a Court will determine the amount of compensation to be paid by the errant director. The remedies provided for in the Act include declaratory…
-
Provisional liquidators and shareholder disputes
The appointment of a provisional liquidator may be appropriate in shareholder disputes if there are genuine concerns that there is a risk a company’s assets will be dissipated, there are potential solvency concerns and all other alternatives have been exhausted. The appointment of a provisional liquidator by a Court has been said to be ‘a…
-
Director’s absolute right to access company’s financial records
Directors have a right to access financial records, but how far should they go? This article explores the balance between a director’s right to information and acting reasonably in circumstances.
-
Shareholder rights to obtain the register of members and section 168
Find out how a company’s obligation to disclose its register of members can affect shareholder rights and communication. Learn more by reading about the case of Hongkong Xinhe International Investment Company Limited v Bullseye Mining Limited [2020] WASC 276.
-
Can a party obtain oppression orders when a company is in liquidation?
Despite liquidation, minority shareholders may still have remedies if they were treated unfairly. Learn more in our article, “Shareholder Oppression and Liquidation: Are Remedies Still Available?”
-
Shareholder oppression remedies – to buy-back or wind up?
The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a decision to order a compulsory buy-out for oppressed minority shareholders in Snell v Glatis (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 166. This article examines the Court’s reasoning and potential remedies for shareholder oppression, and how company history and structure can be relevant.
-
Shareholder oppression – combined effect adds up
A Court decision has highlighted the consequences of oppressive conduct between majority shareholders. Learn more about the case and the implications for understanding interactions between company members by reading this blog post.
