Essay on "Shareholder Protection Companies Act 2006"
Essay 7 pages (2048 words) Sources: 7 Style: Harvard
[EXCERPT] . . . .
Shareholder ProtectionCompanies Act 2006 and shareholder protection
What constitutes unfair prejudice?
The tests of unfairness
Creditor protection
Ashfords (2010). Guide to Unfair Prejudice Against Shareholders
Minority Shareholder Solutions (2012).Test of Unfairness.
http://www.minorityshareholdersolutions.co.uk/16/test-of-unfairness
The corporate constitution in the UK has seen several changes as a result of the adoption of the Companies Act 2006 (Manfield, 2006).The changes affects all forms of corporate engagements within the UK corporate sector. In this paper, we critically evaluate the changes introduced to the corporate constitution by the Companies Act 2006 with particular reference to the balance between shareholder and creditor protection.
The corporate constitution in the UK has seen several changes as a result of the adoption of the Companies Act 2006 (Manfield, 2006).The changes affects all forms of corporate engagements within the UK corporate sector. In this paper, we critically evaluate the changes introduced to the corporate constitution by the Companies Act 2006 with particular reference to the balance between shareholder and creditor protection.
About the Companies ACT 2006
The Companies ACT 2006 is an Act of Parliament in the UK which forms the basis of the UK corporate law. Since its enactment, it has been noted that it has acted as an evolution to the previous laws and has simplified the running of private companies as well as enhanced the level of s
download full paper ⤓
The Companies ACT 2006 was implemented in stages and with the very last provision being started on the 1st of October. It effectively replaced the Company Act 1985.The Companies ACT 2006 provides a comprehensive list of code of conduct to be used by the UK's corporate sector and the act made several changes in the corporate law that governed the UL corporate world. The key provisions in the law are the codifications of certain elements of common law principles like the ones that relate to the duties of the director, the implementation of the European Union's Takeover as well as Transparency Obligations Directives, the introduction of new provisions for both public and private companies, the application of a single company law within the UK with the replacement of the two separate systems that existed for the Great Britain and the Northern Ireland.
Corporate social responsibility
The Companies ACT 2006 has several provisions that relates to corporate social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility is important for the peaceful of coexistence between the company with its employees, authorities, shareholders, stakeholders and the general community (Caroll,1999; Aguilera & Jackson,2003; Berle,1932). This is because for an organization to prosper, there is a need for the stakeholders to be involved in almost every aspect of its governance (Freeman, Wicks and Parmar,2004). In regard to corporate social responsibilities, the Companies ACT 2006 makes the following provisions:
Section 171 directs the directors to act within their powers, section 172 urges the directors to promote the firm's success, section 173 urges the directors to exercise an independent judgment, section 174 urges the directors to exercise a very reasonable level of care, diligence and skill, section 175 urges the directors to avoid situations that leads to conflict of interest, section 176 urges the director to avoid accepting any forms of benefits from third parties while section 177 urges the director to declare some level of interest in any transactions that are carried out within the company
Shareholder protection
The relevance of legislation for corporate governance has for a long time been a subject of debate in literature (Pistor, Reiser and Gelfer,2000,p.325).Legal scholars are noted to have suggested that when compared to the competitive capital, managerial labor markets as well as product markets, the role of law in corporate governance is at best of a rather secondary importance as noted by Eastbrook and Fischel (1991).In countries with very strong shareholder protection laws, the rights of the shareholders are clearly specified in the legal systems ( Hart, and Moore,1990). The role of legislation in the protection of shareholder and creditor rights is therefore apparent (Jensen and Meckling,1976) and is clearly outlined in the Companies Act 2006.
Companies Act 2006 and shareholder protection
Shareholders are protected from various corporate evils by the Companies Act 2006.The most common protection to shareholders under the Companies Act 2006 is the protection from unfair prejudice (Marsden, 2011).Some level of protection is provided to the shareholders under statute and the particular part that protects shareholders is section 994 of the Companies Act 2006, a change which acted on the old/previous section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 (Ashfords,2010).
What constitutes unfair prejudice?
According to section 994 of the Companies Act 2006, a member of a given firm may apply to the Courts through petition for an order on the specific grounds that;
a) The affairs of the company are being conducted or have been conducted in a matter which is regarded as unfairly prejudicial to the specific interests of the various members or to some members with at least himself/herself included or b) That a certain actual act or even a proposed one or omission of the firm (with an inclusion of the act or even an omission) is regard to be so prejudicial.
There are two main elements to the specific requirements of an unfair prejudice. These two must be present for a given claim to succeed. They are;
The reported or observed conduct must be prejudicial in a manner or sense that its causes harm or prejudice to a certain interest that is relevant to a give member or to some shareholders
It also must be deemed to be unfair.
The tests of unfairness
The tests for testing if a certain action is unfair prejudice is noted by Ashfords (2010) to be purely objective. This means that it is never necessary for the shareholders who are petitioning to prove or show that anyone acted in a manner which indicates bad faith or even with the intention of creating prejudice. The courts is noted to regard a given case to be unfair prejudice of a hypothetical and reasonable bystander can believe that indeed it is unfair. The fairness in this case is judged in regard of the commercial relationship, in terms of the contractual terms that are main and clearly indicated/contained in the Article of Association as well as in any existing shareholders agreements. The case should therefore begin by effectively asking if the conducts that are pointed out in the shareholder's complaint are in accordance with the powers of the shareholder as well as Articles that are recognized by the board. Minority Shareholder Solutions (2012) indicated that the best protection for the shareholders is the according of appropriate protection in the relevant Articles themselves. This means that is a conduct is deemed to be in accordance with the specific Articles to which the various shareholders have agreed., then it will be extremely difficult for the shareholder to succeed with a given unfair prejudice petition. It is worth noting that even if a given conduct is deemed not to be in accordance with the relevant parts of the Articles, it does not automatically render a given conduct unfair. This is because technical as well as trivial infringements of the relevant parts of the Articles may never give rise to a solution under section 994.
The situations/scenarios in which the rights of a given shareholder may have been Prejudiced.
According to the Companies Act 2006, a given conduct must be regarded as unfairly prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners in their capacity as certified members of a given company. In other words, they must be shareholders. The courts however adopts a broader perspective of what may be treated as his or her interest as a certified member of the given company. The use of the "unfairly" word enables the Court to duly consider the wider and yet equitable considerations as well as recognize that the certified members of a given company have rights as well as expectations that may not necessarily be part of the company's Article of Association.
The types of conducts that may be regarded as fairly Prejudicial
The concept of unfair prejudice is noted by Birds et al. (2010) to be a rather flexible one with an obvious lack of an exhaustive definition. There are however certain categories of conducts that may be deemed to amount to an unfairly prejudicial conduct. The categories are however open-ended (Birds et al.,2010,p. 1155).The common examples of acts that may constitute an unfairly prejudicial conduct are; the exclusion of a given shareholder from the management in situations where there is a legitimate expectation of his or her participation, the diversion of the core business of a company in which the company's majority shareholder has vested interest. The awarding of excessive benefits to the majority shareholder. Abuse of power also adds to the list.
In regard to the remedies that may be used in… READ MORE
Quoted Instructions for "Shareholder Protection Companies Act 2006" Assignment:
UK Company LAW
Style of writing to include:
Indepth research, including evidence of independent research
Citation of authorities and materials
Critically review the legal position, (where appropriate)
An***** problem scenarios and to apply the law (where appropriate).
Further reading materials to be uploaded
Reading list:
Aguilera, R.V. & Jackson G., *****˜Corporate Governance: Dimensions and Determinants*****
(2003) 28 Academy of Management Review 447
· Argandona, A., *****˜The Stakeholder Theory and the Common Good***** (1998) 17 Journal
of Business Ethics 1093
· Armour, J., Deakin S. & Konzelmann S. J., *****˜Shareholder Primacy and the Trajectory
of UK Corporate Governance***** (2003) 41 (3) British Journal of Industrial Relations 531
· Berle, A.A., *****˜For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees: A Note***** (1932) 45 Harvard
Law Review 1365
· Birds, J. *****˜The Companies Act 2006 ***** Revolution or Evolution?***** (2007) 49 Managerial
Law 13
· Carroll, A. B., *****˜The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Towards the Moral
Management of Organizational Stakeholders***** (1991) Business Horizons 39
· Cerioni, L., *****The Success of the Company in s. 172 (1) of the UK Companies Act
2006: Towards an *****˜Enlightened Directors***** Primacy*****?***** (2008) 4 Original Law Review 8
· Fisch, J., *****˜Measuring Efficiency in Corporate Law: The Role of Shareholder Primacy*****
(2006) Journal of Corporation Law 637
· Freeman, R.E. & Evan, W., *****˜Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Interpretation*****
(1990) 19 (4) Journal of Behavioral Economics 337
· Freeman, R. E., Wicks A. C. & Parmar B., *****˜Stakeholder Theory and *****The Corporate
Objective Revisited********** (2004) 15 Organization Science 364
· Freeman, R.E., *****˜A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation***** in Beauchamp,
T.L. & Bowie, N.E. (eds), Ethical Theory and Business 5th edn, (1997) Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Prentice Hall
· Freeman, R.E., *****˜Divergent Stakeholder Theory***** (1999) 24 Academy of Management
Review 233
· Freeman, R.E., *****˜Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate
Governance***** (1983) Spring 3 California Management Review 88
· Williams, C. A., Conley J. M., *****˜An Emerging Third Way? The Erosion of the Anglo-
American Shareholder Value Construct*****, (2005) 38 Cornell International Law Journal
493
How to Reference "Shareholder Protection Companies Act 2006" Essay in a Bibliography
“Shareholder Protection Companies Act 2006.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2012, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/shareholder-protection-companies-act/57002. Accessed 6 Jul 2024.
Related Essays:
Company or Organization, Preferably Essay
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
company or organization, preferably the organization or company you work for. All below questions must be addressed
Cincom Systems was founded in 1968 and is in the business of providing… read more
Essay 15 pages (5736 words) Sources: 4 Style: APA Topic: Business / Corporations / E-commerce
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 Term Paper
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 is also known as Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and is most commonly called SOX or Sarbox. On July 30, 2002 the… read more
Term Paper 15 pages (4252 words) Sources: 20 Style: APA Topic: Accounting / Auditing
Ethics Policies on 3 Companies Term Paper
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
Ethics Policies on 3 companies.
Ethics Policies
Memo of transmittal
Ethics policies within companies
Microsoft Corporation
Nokia
Intel Corporation
Memo of transmittal
The current ethics policies are the outcome of… read more
Term Paper 8 pages (2159 words) Sources: 5 Style: APA Topic: Ethics / Morality
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Impacts Term Paper
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Impacts on Post and Pre-Using Case Examples as References
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
During the past few decades, the number of white-collar business fraud cases… read more
Term Paper 7 pages (2014 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Business / Corporations / E-commerce
Ethics of Headhunting Structure Business Ethics Corporate Term Paper
![Paper Icon](https://www.a1-termpaper.com/images/term-paper-3.png)
Ethics of Headhunting
Structure
Business Ethics
Corporate Social Responsibility
Social responsibility frameworks
Personal recruitment
External recruitment
Executive search
What are the choices facing organizations? What are the consequences?
Inductive and… read more
Term Paper 33 pages (9767 words) Sources: 50 Style: Harvard Topic: Business / Corporations / E-commerce
Sat, Jul 6, 2024
If you don't see the paper you need, we will write it for you!
We can write a new, 100% unique paper!