ARTICLE
8 February 2024

Improper Use Of Director's Fiduciary Duty In Issuing Shares - Shareholder Disputes - Company Law

Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC (Clerides Legal)

Contributor

Phoebus, Christos Clerides & Associates LLC is a leading Cyprus-based law firm founded in 1950 by Phoebus Clerides, former Minister of Justice and Member of Parliament. His son, Dr. Christos Clerides—graduate of King’s College London and former MP, National Council member, and Cyprus Bar Association President—later led the firm. Now under the third generation—Phoebe Cleridou, Alexandros Clerides, and Constantinos Clerides—the firm upholds its legacy of excellence, specialising in litigation and dispute resolution. For over 75 years, it has represented clients in complex cases across all levels of Cypriot courts. Its practice spans civil, commercial, constitutional, administrative, criminal, and human rights law. The firm also advises on corporate, commercial, contractual, real estate, and banking matters with a focus on dispute prevention. With 16 experienced legal professionals, the firm combines tradition with a client-focused approach, earning a strong reputation for advocacy, integrity, and legal precision.
In Re Sherborne Park Residents Co Ltd (1986) 2 B.C.C. 99528 Ch (Companies Ct), Hoffmann J held that an action by a shareholder seeking to set aside an improper issue of shares...
Cyprus Corporate/Commercial Law

In Re Sherborne Park Residents Co Ltd (1986) 2 B.C.C. 99528 Ch (Companies Ct), Hoffmann J held that an action by a shareholder seeking to set aside an improper issue of shares, as in Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974] A.C. 821 PC, was not a derivative claim at all but a personal claim by the individual shareholder who is aggrieved by it (at 99530– 99531):"Although the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the board is in theory a breach of its duty to the company, the wrong to the company is not the substance of the complaint.

The company is not particularly concerned with who its shareholders are since the true basis of the action is an alleged infringement of the petitioner's individual rights as a shareholder. The allotment is alleged to be an improper and unlawful exercise of the powers granted to the board by the articles of association, which constitute a contract between the company and its members. These are fiduciary powers, not to be exercised for an improper purpose, and it is generally speaking improper '...for the directors to use their fiduciary powers over the shares in the company purely for the purpose of destroying an existing majority, or creating a new majority which did not previously exist. [See Lord Wilberforce in Howard Smith v Ampol Petroleum [1974] A.C. 821 at 837.]'.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More