Many clients don’t realise that there are significant restrictions on what information they should be accessing in relation to their spouse’s finances. Indeed,...
The Treasury has agreed to make changes to the administration of Inheritance Tax following complaints from the public that it is too complex, old fashioned and...
Do you remember what it was like to be 4? The world was just beginning to open up and you were exploring, tasting, discovering and taking delight in new things...
Caritas Care
As the Prime Minister sets out the government’s roadmap to ease lockdown restrictions in England, we are likely to see pubs, bars and restaurants serving custom...
Our experts in the family department share and correct some of the most common myths regularly heard in relation to divorce, child arrangements and finances.Myt...
We are all aware of the temporary measures brought in last July to help boost homebuying during the pandemic. Whilst it has certainly got the market moving, by...
A director who had conducted the affairs of a night club in a way that had unfairly prejudiced a minority shareholder has been ordered to make an interim payment to her of £200,000.
Sam Lyon Head of Corporate & Commercial reports.
The figure could be much higher once a further hearing takes place.
A judge had found that the company’s affairs had been conducted by the director in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial to a shareholder with a 25% holding.
The director’s conduct included the financial mismanagement of the company and its subsidiaries through the sale of a Soho club to himself at an undervalue and through his personally taking an opportunity to acquire another London club, in Euston, when that opportunity should have been made available to the company.
The judge ordered that the director purchase the shareholder’s stake in the company based on a valuation to be determined at further hearing.
The shareholder then requested that an interim payment of £500,000 be made to her.
The High Court held that it was desirable to make an order in the interests of justice and proportionality as the shareholder had been frozen out of receiving a return on her investment for a long period, and there were concerns that the director might dissipate his assets following various transactions he had arranged which had allowed charges to be taken over company assets.
It was possible that the director would have difficulty meeting a substantial final judgment if made.
The court could not order an interim payment of more than a reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment. There was some evidence suggesting that there was £800,000 available to the company.
On that basis, the court ordered an interim payment of £200,000.
If you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of company law please contact Sam on 01228 516634.
We’re excited to join voluntary adoption agencies (VAAs) across the UK for Big Adoption Day and, as part of this, will be holding an online event on Wednesday 1...
Caritas Care
On Wednesday, 15 January 2025, at 218 Tulketh Road, Ashton, Preston, PR2 1ES from 1pm to 3pm, we’re very excited to open our doors, to join voluntary adoption a...
Caritas Care
On Wednesday, 15 January 2025, from 1pm to 3pm, Caritas Care are excited to open their doors to join voluntary adoption agencies (VAAs) across the UK for Big Ad...
Caritas Care
On Wednesday, 15 January 2025 we’re excited to open our doors to join voluntary adoption agencies (VAAs) across the UK for Big Adoption Day. If you’re consideri...
Caritas Care
Networking, GB Update and New ConnectionsAs our share platforms have continued to grow, so too have our online meet ups! Join us for our next fortnightly meet...
GB Shared
A host of lovely events from Booths at various Booths shops across the North West.
Trybooking.com