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
-
Equal ownership and shareholder oppression risks
Case of Cody v Live Board Holdings Limited [2014] NSWSC 78 shows need for precise drafting of Shareholders’ Agreements and Constitutions to comply with Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and remove any inconsistencies between documents and ensure Directors’ actions are clear.
-
Shareholder oppression – a taxonomy of corporate wrongs
This article examines the concept of shareholder oppression and provides examples of when the Court has found oppressive conduct, as well as when it has not. It also outlines the remedies the Court prefers when faced with oppressive conduct.
-
Company wound up under s461K for failing to achieve its objectives?
The NSW Supreme Court case of Gearhouse provides insight into the Court’s power to wind up a company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). A combination of circumstances, including deadlock between shareholders, loss of confidence in management and an expired agreement, can lead to winding up.
-
Shareholder’s inspection allowed despite distrust
Drafting Share Vesting Agreement requires consideration of several factors, including securities, copyright, class of shares, taxation, congruence with other agreements, and Events of Default. Alternatives to incremental vesting and requirements of Redeemable Preference Shares. Care must be taken when drafting Events of Default/Forfeiture clauses.
-
Shareholder oppression – the early warning signs
This article explores the legal framework of shareholder oppression and identifies early warning signs to look out for when starting a new venture, such as entity type, relationship with advisors, exclusion from management, access to info and non-flexible negotiation.
-
Just and equitable winding up – shareholder oppression
Discontinuing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia can be costly, as the default position is that the discontinuing party pays the other party’s costs. However, the Court has discretion to award costs and may consider the parties’ conduct and reasons for discontinuance.
-
Shareholders’ agreements & deadlock clauses
Deadlock Clauses in Shareholders’ Agreements can prevent shareholder oppression. Learn about different types of clauses, dispute resolution provisions and financial implications. Read on to find out more.
-
What exactly is a section 293 direction?
There are several reasons why a shareholder may require financial information, primarily they are denied access to the ‘accounts’ so as to make informed decision about the company. The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides various mechanisms for shareholders to obtain financial and accounting information about a company, to allow them to access full and…
-
Director’s misuse of funds held to be oppressive
This article explores shareholder oppression, examining Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Martin v Australian Squash Club Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 452, to understand the cumulative effect of individual acts.
