Re BSB Holdings Ltd
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 28 July 1995 |
Date | 28 July 1995 |
Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division
Before Mrs Justice Arden
Company - protection of members against unfair prejudice
The width of the court's jurisdiction to protect a company's members against unfair prejudice could, unless carefully controlled, become a means of oppression. It was important that the legitimate and proper workings of business and the investment of capital should not be inhibited by, for example, unfounded threats of action.
Mrs Justice Arden so held in the Chancery Division, in dismissing a petition, presented under section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 by London Merchant Securities plc (LMS), a member of BSB Holdings Ltd, on February 4, 1992, as re-re-amended pursuant to an order of her Ladyship of February 21, 1995, which sought relief by way of an order under Part XVII of the 1985 Act, against, inter alios, the respondents, Chargeurs SA, Granada Group plc, Pearson Group plc and 11 of their wholly owned subsidiary and nominee companies and against Reed International plc and three of its wholly owned subsidiary and nominee companies.
Mr Robin Potts, QC, Mr Martin Moore and Mr Andrew Thompson for LMS; Mr David Oliver QC, Mr David Richards, QC and Mr Philip Gilyon for Chargeurs, Granada and Pearson; Mr George Bompas, QC and Miss Rosalind Nicholson for Reed; Mr Robert Hillyard, QC, for BSBH; Mr Michael Todd for News International plc; Mr Alastair Walton for British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and its subsidiary companies.
MRS JUSTICE ARDEN said that the essence of LMS's 14 heads of complaint, as an initial subscriber to BSBH, was that it had been substantially and unfairly prejudiced during the five rounds of BSBH's financing and by the eventual merger of BSBH with BSkyB.
BSBH had been incorporated in July 1986 to act as vehicle for a consortium which had been successful in its bid for a franchise to be granted by the Independent Broadcasting Authority; £625 million capital being then envisaged.
Difficulties and delays had led to much more capital being needed, for example, the penultimate round of financing had provided for an increase in BSBH's issued share capital to over £160 billion and had led to the merger decision.
Her Ladyship set out the history and the petitioner's allegations in detail and continued that section 459 had to be viewed in the context of legislation and case law, which provided extensive minority protection in specific areas.
The leading authority was now Re Saul D. Harrison &...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Banco Economico v Allied Leasing
...-Armvent Ltd., In re, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1679; [1975] 3 All E.R. 441, dicta of Templeman J. applied. (3) -BSB Holdings Ltd. (No. 2), Re, [1996] 1 BCLC 155; [1995] T.L.R. 452, applied. (4) -Bank of Credit & Commerce Intl. S.A. (No. 6), Re, Morris v. Mahfouz, [1994] 1 BCLC 450, followed. (5) -Ca......
-
Patrick Gerard Mckillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and Others
... ... The position is on all fours with that in Re Ringtower Holdings plc (1989) 5 BCC 82, 99 and Re Sedgefield Steeplechase Co (1927) Ltd [2001] 1 BCLC 211 , where the court held that there was no relevant desire or intention to transfer shares for the purpose of pre-emption provisions where what was proposed was to transfer the shares subject to a similar ... ...
-
Sunrise Radio Ltd and Another (Petitioner) v Dr Avtar Lit and Others
...not be reduced to the sum of particular instances.'" 13 I also note what Arden J (as she then was) said in Re BSB Holdings Plc (No 2) [1996] 1 BCLC 155 at 242:— "However, in my judgment, it is not the effect of Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc that a remedy under s 459 can be given only if the......
-
Apex Global Management Ltd and Another v Fi Call Ltd and Others
...exigencies of listing. 185 These and any further consequential matters can be addressed after this judgment has been handed down. 1Re BSB Holdings Ltd (No.2) [1996] 1 BCLC is handed down, that Global Torch, Fi Call Limited (through its liquidator) and also the Apex Parties should be entitle......
-
BVI Analysis Of A Share Allotment In Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
...v Moore Freres & Co [2018] EWHC 2347 (Ch) 12. [2018] EWHC 2347 (Ch) 13. [1919] 2 Ch 114, at 120 14. [2009] EWHC 2893 (Ch) at [82] 15. [1996] 1 BCLC 155 at The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your ......
-
The statutory unfair prejudice remedy for minority shareholder protection in Pakistan. Difficulties of section 290 of the Companies Ordinance 1984
...others [2009] EWHC176 and [2010] EWCA Civ 23.20. See Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc [1995] 1 BCLC 14; See Re BSB Holdings Limited (No. 2)[1996] 1 BCLC 155; See Re Marchday Group [1998] BCC 800; See O’Neill-v-Phillips [1999]1WLR 1092.21. See Re R. A. Noble (Clothing) Ltd [1983] BCLC 273; See ......
-
Incomplete contracts, contingent fiduciaries and a director's duty to creditors.
...State University Law Review 561, 593. (148) See, eg, Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150, 164 (Latham CJ); Re BSB Holdings Ltd [No 2] [1996] 1 BCLC 155, 246-9 (Arden (149) See, eg, Macey, 'Fiduciary Duties as Residual Claims: Obligations to Non-shareholder Constituencies from a Theory of the Fi......
-
Business, State, and Community: ‘Responsible Risk Takers’, New Labour, and the Governance of Corporate Business
...companies: see, especially, ReSaul D Harrison & Sons plc [1995] 1 B.C.L.C. 14 (though compare Re BSB Holdings Ltd. (No 2) [1996] 1 B.C.L.C. 155, at 243e per Arden J) and O’Neill v. Phillips [1999] B.C.C.600. In any event, the fact that the section concerns shareholder disagreements has give......
-
Ascertaining The Corporate Objective: An Entity Maximisation and Sustainability Model
...Over-and UnderinvestmentIncentives’ (1990) 45 JournalofFinance765.74 Mills vMills (1938) 60 CLR150,164; Re BSB Holdings Ltd (No2)[1996]1 BCLC 155,246^249.Ascertaining The CorporateObjective672 r2008 The Author. Journal Compilation r2008 The Modern Law ReviewLimited.(2008) 71(5)MLR interests......