-
Hylepin v Doshay: excuses for shareholder oppression?
On 19 November 2021, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia published its decision in the case of Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 201 (Hylepin v Doshay). Hylepin v Doshay was appealed from the decision in Hylepin Pty Ltd v Doshay Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1370 that concerned a…
-
Can a unit trust be wound up by the oppression remedies
The Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corps Act) grants the Courts the power to award remedies under section 233, specifically designed to address situations of oppression within corporate entities under section 232. These remedies, also known as the “Oppression Remedies”, aim to resolve situations where a company’s conduct unfairly prejudices its members or shareholders. While primarily…
-
Cancellation of shares held to be oppressive
Shareholder oppression occurs when those who control a company use their power in a way that unfairly harms or takes advantage of other (usually minority) shareholders. The Federal Court case of Sharif v Vitruvian Investments PL (No 3) [2023] FCA 920 (Vitruvian Investments) involved a shareholder oppression dispute between Mr Walid Sharif (Mr Sharif/Plaintiff) and…
-
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.
-
Shareholder oppression remedies – 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 effects add 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.
-
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’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.
Directors disputes
Make an enquiry
