fbpx

High Court Comes to Aid of Elderly Farmer Blindsided by His Brothers

High Court Comes to Aid of Elderly Farmer Blindsided by His Brothers

Minority shareholders may lack real control over companies they invest in, but that does not mean they are bereft of rights. The High Court made that point in coming to the aid of an elderly farmer whose interest in a family company was undermined by his two younger brothers acting behind his back.

Following their father’s death, the brothers each became entitled to one-third of the shares in the company, which was founded by their grandfather. By then, however, relations between the older brother and his two younger siblings were so strained that they were unwilling to work together or even speak to each other. Negotiations in respect of a possible demerger of the company proceeded for some time but failed to reach fruition.

About a month after their father’s death, the younger brothers exercised their powers as directors of the company to arrange the transfer of two landholdings – together worth well over £2 million – from the company to a new company in which they each held 50 percent of the shares. On discovering what had happened, their older brother launched proceedings under Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 on the basis that the affairs of the company had been managed in such a manner as to unfairly prejudice his interests as a minority shareholder.

In upholding his claim, the Court found that the transfers had been concluded behind his back and that he did not learn of them until long after the event. His brothers had deliberately excluded him from the process of carving out the company’s most valuable assets. The transfers potentially gave rise to heavy Capital Gains Tax liabilities and, in acting as they did, the younger brothers engaged in directorial misconduct of a plain and fairly breathtaking nature.

The Court needed to hear further arguments before deciding what relief to grant the older brother. It was, however, likely that the transfers would be set aside and the landholdings returned to the company. There also remained the wider question of how the company’s affairs should be regularised: by demerger or winding up. In urging the brothers to sort out the mess without further litigation, the Court observed that family antagonisms should not stand in the way of commercial common sense.

It is vital to seek legal representation as early as possible in circumstances such as this, to ensure your legal entitlements are not put at risk. Contact us for advice.

Our articles are provided for general interest and information only. They do not constitute legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the content accurately reflects the law in England as at the date of its transmission, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage arising from any act or omission resulting from any information contained herein.

Latest COVID-19 Information

WE ARE STILL OPEN FOR BUSINESS HOWEVER, OUR FRONT DOORS WILL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC DURING THIS 2nd LOCKDOWN PERIOD from 5th November until further notice. For us all to be as safe as possible, our preference will be to interact with clients by telephone, email and/or zoom meetings ONLY. We would ask that if you have to drop any papers off at our offices, you use our Post Box unless you need anything copying, in those cases please knock the door and one of our receptionists will deal with you at the front door but only if you are wearing protective face coverings. If you require further assistance then a member from the relevant department will telephone you thereafter to discuss. We hope you understand that this is to safeguard you, our staff and to limit as much contact as possible. We may take a little longer to respond to enquiries and deal with matters. Please bear with us. FOR MORE INFORMATION CLICK THE BUTTON BELOW.