Suchergebnisse

It is common that the majority shareholders in a corporation take action that unfairly prejudices the minority. A majority shareholder occupies a dominant position in the decision-making process of the company's affairs and can control the company with the principle of majority rule. In the process of company development, the interests of the majority shareholders may diverge from the interests of the company. In this case, the majority of shareholders may engage in unfair prejudice conduct that harm the interests of the company and minority shareholders for their own benefit. Consequently, to some extent, the principle of majority rule provides the possibility for the controlling shareholders to abuse voting rights, which often constitutes damage to the interests of minority shareholders. In addition, due to the reliance on the controlling shareholder, the directors tend to only take into account the interests of the majority shareholders, with the result that ignore the rights and interests of non-controlling shareholders. Especially in private companies, minority shareholders not only cannot sell their shares in the stock exchanges without restrictions to exit the company, but also may be subject to more severe oppression by the actual controller of the company. When minority shareholders cannot obtain relief within the company, it is necessary for aggrieved shareholders to bring an action against the majority shareholders to protect their rights.

However, under the rule in Foss v Harbottle, shareholders only be allowed to sue if they meet the exceptions. Due to the limited application scope of these exceptions, the aggrieved shareholders are often unable to get timely and effective relief in practice. In response to this problem, statutory unfair prejudice provisions are introduced to balance the interests of majority shareholders and minority shareholders, and to prevent shareholder oppression in corporate governance. It emphasizes judicial intervention to protect the legitimate interests of shareholders. Compared with just and equitable winding up and derivative action, the unfair prejudice is regarded as a mechanism for minority protection as it covers a variety of remedies and leaves the court with greater discretion.

This report investigates how the UK interprets, narrates and implements its obligations towards international protection for refugees and others that are at significant risk of serious human rights violations and persecution, with an emphasis on the impact of recent migration movements. It explores how the UK applies international protection instruments, particularly the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees/the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and Common European Asylum System (CEAS) directives, and examines the political and policy conflicts that have resulted, most notably with the 2016 "Brexit" referendum on UK membership of the European Union (EU). Highlighting the gaps between policy and the experience of the asylum regime in practice, the report considers the beliefs, coping strategies and perceptions of those who go through the asylum system. It also links experiences and practices to surrounding political narratives, noting how actors in different parts of the asylum system internalise and/or resist the asylum system's rationalisations.

This report investigates how the UK interprets, narrates and implements its obligations towards international protection for refugees and others that are at significant risk of serious human rights violations and persecution, with an emphasis on the impact of recent migration movements. It explores how the UK applies international protection instruments, particularly the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees/the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and Common European Asylum System (CEAS) directives, and examines the political and policy conflicts that have resulted, most notably with the 2016 "Brexit" referendum on UK membership of the European Union (EU). Highlighting the gaps between policy and the experience of the asylum regime in practice, the report considers the beliefs, coping strategies and perceptions of those who go through the asylum system. It also links experiences and practices to surrounding political narratives, noting how actors in different parts of the asylum system internalise and/or resist the asylum system's rationalisations.

The issue of migrants convicted or suspected of serious criminality is one that has been high on the media and political agenda in the UK in the last two decades. This paper focuses on three categories of (suspected) criminal migrants - foreign national offenders, individuals considered to pose a security risk and those excluded from refugee status under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention - outlining the scale and demographic of these groups in the UK, governmental measures taken to facilitate their removal and the consequences for those that nevertheless remain. This examination reveals that, despite the UK's emphasis on removal, legal obstacles and administrative problems continue to frustrate many attempts to remove such persons. As a result, large numbers of individuals are released into the community or remain in detention for often prolonged periods of time. In the case of excluded asylum-seekers, these individuals are subject to an extremely precarious form of leave. The result is these 'undesirable' migrants remain in a form of 'limbo', with no firm legal status and the prospect of removal ever present. If the emphasis remains on removal rather than looking to alternative in-country solutions that are more than temporary in nature, a viable solution to this issue is likely to remain elusive.