[11]
Shares in an insolvent company in liquidation are clearly valueless unless the value of any claims which the company has against the respondents to the petition will eliminate the deficiency and produce a surplus for members. Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 requires the petitioner to show that the respondent’s wrongful acts have caused him prejudice in his capacity as a member. If the company is insolvent, that means that – in general – the petitioner must show that his shares would have had a value but for the wrongdoing of the respondents.
- Approved Judgment
- Introduction
- The Disputed Strip
- Representation before me
- The direction for a split trial and the trial before me
- The Hughes’ family and an overview of some of the Hughes’ businesses
- Portbond and LWC: Directors, shareholders and entry into administration
- The alleged acts of, or conduct of the Companies’ affairs, said to amount to unfair prejudice: summary
- Unfair prejudice
- [630]
- [631]
- [11]
- [12]
- Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB v Balti Partners Ltd
- Statements of case and amendment
- Approach to the Evidence
- Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd
- Lachaux v Lachaux
- Carmarthenshire County Council v Y
- Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
- Gestmin:
- iii) Carmarthenshire County Council:
- Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA
- Armagas v Mundogas
- The Ocean Frost,
- Charlie Pickering
- Mr Gregory
- David Clarkson
- Charles Hughes
- James
- Mr Greg Lacey: Expert
- Conduct in relation to other Hughes’ family companies
- 7,500
- Allegations in the Petition regarding alleged “cash sales” (stock sold for unaccounted cash); false allegations concerning, and unfair investigation of, payments to Lisa; removal of Lisa and Charlie from the Companies; legal proceedings against Lisa known to be on a false basis
- Cash sales
- Dismissal/Removal of Lisa
- (3) Investigation
- Causing the company to issue proceedings against Lisa
- Dismissal of Charlie from employment
- Directors’ loan accounts and the alleged cash sales of stock
- Lisa Pickering
- Repayment
- Proceedings
- Conclusion
- Charlie Pickering’s dismissal
- Cash Sales: conclusions
- Conclusions: investigations and removal of Lisa, the Recovery Proceedings
- Conclusion: dismissal of Charlie Pickering
- Benefits alleged to be taken from the Company by the Relevant Respondents: Funding of “extravagant personal lifestyles”
- (a) Salaries: John’s salary including Lorraine’s salary; James’ salary; Charles’ salary
- (b) Company credit card expenditure of John and Charles
- (c) Car expenditure
- Horse related expenditure
- Gallops:
- (e) Child support agency payments
- Payments to James for investment in his property business
- The evidence
- Discussion and conclusions
- General conclusion: allegation of financial support to fund extravagant personal lifestyles.
- Allegations relating to the Pre-Pack sale: summary
- The facts: the path to administration