Betts & Company Ltd v Macnaghten
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1910 |
| Year | 1910 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
11 cases
-
1Globe Capital LLC v Sinovac Biotech Ltd
...of the IBCA, (ii) erred in finding that the principle permitting amendments to motions at shareholders' meetings, as laid down in Betts & Co. Ltd. v Macnaghten, was inapplicable to a modern corporate context, (iii) erred in finding that the proxy forms used by the dissenting shareholders we......
-
1Globe Capital LLC v Sinovac Biotech Ltd
...of the IBCA, (ii) erred in finding that the principle permitting amendments to motions at shareholders' meetings, as laid down in Betts & Co. Ltd. v Macnaghten, was inapplicable to a modern corporate context, (iii) erred in finding that the proxy forms used by the dissenting shareholders we......
-
Branch v Bagley and Others
...in successive forms of Table A, it has not been a requirement: see Choppington Colleries Ltd v Johnson [1944] 1 All ER 762 and Betts & Co Ltd v Macnaghten [1910] 1 Ch 430. 26 When Table A was re-enacted by the Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985, some new regulations relating to the ......
-
1Globe Capital Llc v Sinovac Biotech Ltd
...of the IBCA, (ii) erred in finding that the principle permitting amendments to motions at shareholders' meetings, as laid down in Betts & Co. Ltd. v Macnaghten, was inapplicable to a modern corporate context, (iii) erred in finding that the proxy forms used by the dissenting shareholders we......
Request a trial to view additional results