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.

Title taken from incomplete cover. ; "United States paten rights to be purchased by the company: No. 708,541 of 1902 . No. 776,049 of 1904 . No. 776,050 of 1904 . 776,051 of 1904" -- pg. 9 ; Financial scheme -- Evolution of the Fruhling system -- The German government and the Fruhling system of dredging -- Advantages of the Fruhling system of dredging -- Dredging in the United States of America -- Prices paid for dreging work -- Certificate relating to the merits of the Fruhling system of dredging by Herr Scholer, Chief Engineer to the German government. -- Report on the Fruhling system of dredging, by Messrs. Flannery, Baggallay & Johnson, of London, England -- Report on the Fruhling system of dredging, by Herr Scholer. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; UIUC copy lacks part of cover & pgs. 2-4.

Photocopy. Washington, U.S. Army Library, 1968? 31 l. 20 cm. ; Mode of access: Internet.