(3). proposed alteration does not unfairly discriminate, I do not think it is an objection, The company changed its articles by special resolution in general meeting allowing existing shareholders to offer any shares to person/members outside the company. A Hiker Walks 15 Km Towards The North Then 16 Km T Chegg, pengaruh bahasa asing kepada bahasa melayu, LAB REPORT Basic physical measurements & Uncertainty ODL, Automotive Technology Engineering Internship Report, Accounting Business Reporting for Decision Making, 1 - Business Administration Joint venture. The plaintiff appealed. The company changed its articles by special resolution in general meeting allowing existing shareholders to offer any shares to person/members outside the company. a share (allowing for the privilege of control) was a fair price, I can see no ground for saying that this resolution can be impeached, and I would dismiss the appeal. Swinburne University of Technology Malaysia, Diploma in Accountancy / Financial Accounting (ACC110), Fundamentals o entrepreneurship (ENT 300), English for Critical Academic Readding (ELC501), Philosophy And Current Issues (BLHW 1762), Partnership and Company Law I (UUUK 3053), Partnership and Company Law II (UUUK 3063), Business Organisation & Management (BBDM1023), Informative Speech ELC590 AS251 1D2- Giovanni Dalton, Equity and Trusts II - Trustees (Powers and Duties), Chapter Two - betrothal and promise to marry. Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer, [1959] A.C. 324, refd to. (2) and Shuttleworth v. Cox Brothers & Co. (Maidenhead), Ld. Similar Re Yenidje Tobacco Co Ltd, Foss v Harbottle, Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas, Scottish Coop Wholesal, Cook v Deeks: Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 is a United Kingdom company law case on the rights of minority shareholders. The voting rights attached to Mr Greenhalghs shares were not varied as he had the The various interpretations of these duties have resulted in considerable complexity and legal uncertainty as far as directors duties are concerned. But this resolution provides that anybody who wants at any time to sell his shares can now go direct to an outsider, provided that there is an ordinary resolution of the company approving the proposed transferee. MATH1013; CGE1000 Tutorial 2 Worksheets 2017-2018; STAT2601 B (18-19, 2nd) Chapter 10; project mangerment . There are cases of resolutions altering the articles of particular companies, and the test is whether the articles were altered for the benefit of the company. alteration benefit some people at the expense of other people or not. Mann v. Minister of Finance. AND OTHERS. Most of the 2s shares held by Mr Greenhalgh, his voting power was dilute and he finds In the first place, I think it is now plain that bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole means not two things but one thing. to a class shares are varied, but not when the economic value attached to that shares is effected. (b) hereof. a share; but he was getting no more and no less than anyone else would get who wished to sell; and I am unable and unwilling to put upon the actions of the defendant Mallard, because of his unfortunate secrecy and other conduct, so bad a complexion as to impute bad faith in the true sense of the term, of which, indeed, Roxburgh, J., acquitted him. 1372 : , . Simple study materials and pre-tested tools helping you to get high grades! If you would like to change your settings or withdraw consent at any time, the link to do so is in our privacy policy accessible from our home page.. On June 7, a notice was sent out calling an extraordinary meeting of the company for the purpose of passing the following resolution: That the articles of association of the company be altered by adding at the end of art. A minority shareholder, therefore, who produced an outsider was always liable to be met by the directors (who presumably act according to the majority view) saying, We are sorry, but we will not have this man in. The ten shillings were divided into two shilling shares, and all carried one vote. The UK case of Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd and the Australian High Court case of Ngurli Ltd v McCann will be analysed and their impact on many other cases will be dealt with in some detail. Toggle navigation dalagang bukid fish uric acid 895; Foster v. Foster (1916) 1 Ch. each. At the same time the purchaser obtained the control of the Tegarn company. At that meeting the following special resolution was passed: That the articles of association of the company be altered by adding at the end of art. The receipt by the directors of the transfer notice shall constitute an authority to them to offer the shares for sale at a fair value ascertained as follows, viz., the sum so estimated by the selling member shall, if approved by the directors, be the fair value, but in the absence of such approval in order to prevent disputes arising, the fair value shall be the auditors valuation of the current worth of the companys shares to be made by him in writing at the request of the directors. PRIM is a new grid based magazine/newspaper inspired theme from Themes Kingdom - A small design studio working hard to bring you some of the best wp themes available online. Keywords: corporate law, common law duty, shareholders, corporators, Suggested Citation: In Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1946] CA the company had issued ordinary shares of 10 shillings each and other ordinary shares of 2 shillings each which ranked pari-passu for all purposes. SUMMARY Greenhalgh instituted seven actions against the Mallard Family and its company, Arderne Cinemas Limited, between July 1941 and November 1950. . This change in the articles, so to speak, franks the shares for holders of majority interests but makes it, more difficult for a minority shareholder, because the majority will probably look with disfavour upon his choice. same voting rights that he had before. The case was decided in the House of Lords. A resolution was passed to subdivide each 50p share into five 10p shares, thus multiplying the votes of that class by five. Better Essays. [PDF copy of this judgment can be sent to your email for N300 only. In both Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd and Ngurli v McCann it. Mr Mallard , (d) If the directors shall be unable within one month after receipt of the transfer notice to find a purchaser for all or any of the shares among the members of the company, the selling member may sell such shares as remain unsold to any person though not a member of the company at any price but subject to the right of the directors (without assigning any reason) to refuse registration of the transfer when the proposed transferee is a person of whom they do not approve, or where the shares comprised in the transfer are shares on which the company has a lien.. Chapter 2 Version control Date:26-Mar-1726-Feb-17 Time: 12:19 PM8:01 AM Chapter 7 - The significance of the regulation of corporate governance and the importance of the (Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd); ii. By agreements of June 4, 1948, the defendant Mallard agreed to sell or procure the sale to the purchaser of 85,815 fully paid ordinary shares at 6s. It is with the future that we have to deal. Q5: Discuss the case of Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 512. A change to the terms of the syndication agreement had been proposed which they considered would prejudice them. share, and stated the company had power to subdivide its existing shares. Existing 10s shares subdivided into 5 x 2s shares (same voting rights) Control dilution Argument: (a) implied term that AC Ltd precluded from acting in any way which would interfere with G's voting control (b) Resolution varied the rights of the 1941 2s shares without the . ** The class of shares will differentiate by the level of voting rights the shareholder may receive. To learn more, visit | Web Design: MAFULUL AND OTHERS V. BITRUS TAKWEN & OTHERS, ALHAJI ISA NOEKOER V. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF PLATEAU STATE AND OTHERS, ALHAJI KAMORU AGBAJE AND OTHERS v. MISS. I also agree and do not desire to add anything. The UK case of Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd and the Australian High Court case of Ngurli Ltd v McCann will be analysed and their impact on many other cases will be dealt with in some detail. Millers . Du Plessis, Jean, Directors' Duty to Act in the Best Interests of the Corporation: 'Hard Cases Make Bad Law' (Feb 01, 2019). The plaintiff held 4,213 fully paid ordinary shares. Christie, K.C., and Hector Hillaby for the defendants other than the defendant Mallard were not called on to argue. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Mr Mallard would have been 13 13 Cf. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd 1946 The facts: The company had two classes of ordinary shares, 50p shares and 10p shares. As commonly happens, the defendant Mallard, as the managing director of the company, negotiated and had to proceed on the footing that he had with him sufficient support to make the negotiation a reality. The general position regarding members of companies is set out in Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951] Ch 286. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (No 2) [1946] 1 All ER 512 [ Lord Greene MR wrote 'instead of Greenhalgh finding himself in a position of control, he finds himself in a position where the control has gone, and to that extent the rights are affected, as a matter of business. The various interpretations of these duties have resulted in considerable complexity and legal uncertainty as far as directors duties are concerned. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Another: ComC 22 May 2020, Redwood Master Fund Ltd and Others v TD Bank Europe Ltd and Others, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999. The evidence is only consistent with the view that the defendant Mallard and the shareholders whose votes he controlled passed the special resolution not with a view to the benefit of the company as a whole. share into five 2s shares. The first line of attack is this, and it is one to which, he complains, Roxburgh, J., paid no regard: this is a special resolution, and, on authority, Mr. Jennings says, the validity of a special resolution depends upon the fact that those who passed it did so in good faith and for the benefit of the company as a whole. Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2000] Profinance Trust SA v Gladstone [2001] Companies Act 2006 ss 994-996. facts: company had clause prohibiting shareholder of corporation DismissTry Ask an Expert Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home [1920] 1 Ch. Accordingly, if it is one of the majority who is selling, he will get the necessary resolution. C, a member of company, challenged this. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (1946) provided a helpful working definition, asserting that class itself was not technical, it is impossible to put policy or shareholders in the same class, in the event their rights or claims diverge, Degenhardt (2010). 19-08 (2019), Available at SSRN: If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 212 448 2500 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday. As a matter of law, I am quite unable to hold that, as a result of the transaction, the rights are varied; they remain what they always were a right to have one vote per share pari passu with the ordinary shares for the time being issued which include the new 2s ordinary shares resulting from the subdivision.! It is therefore not necessary to require that persons voting for a special resolution should, so to speak, dissociate themselves altogether from their own prospects and consider whether what is thought to be for the benefit of the company as a going concern. [1927] 2 K. B. each and 205,000 ordinary shares of 2s. The articles of association provided by cl. Air Asia Group Berhad - Strategic management assignment. I think that the answer is that when a man comes into a company, he is not entitled to assume that the articles will always remain in a particular form; and that, so long as the proposed alteration does not unfairly discriminate in the way which I have indicated, it is not an objection, provided that the resolution is passed bona fide, that the right to tender for the majority holding of shares would be lost by the lifting of the restriction. Mr. Jennings further says that, if that is wrong, he falls back on his other point, that the defendant Mallard acted in bad faith. The articles of association provided by cl. Company law - Private company - Articles restricting transfer of shares to members - Majority resolution authorizing sales to strangers - Validity - Whether resolution passed bona fide for . students are currently browsing our notes. On the appeal the various transactions which led up to the resolutions of June 30, 1948, were considered at length, but they do not call for report. his consent as required by the articles, as he was no longer held sufficient shares to block Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd - ordinary resolution passed to subdivide the members shares to increase the number of votes they held. The second defendant and his family and friends were the holders of 85,815 shares. He was getting 6s. The test finds whether Evershed, M.R., Asquith and Jenkins, L.JJ. Malaysia position: The Companies Act 1965 did not permit the class rights to be varied, unless Variation of class rights. Manage Settings They act as agents or representatives of the . The present is of no importance. The company had two classes of shares; one class was worth ten shilling a share and the other class worth two shilling a share. Oxbridge Notes is operated by Kinsella Digital Services UG. The power must be exercised bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole. The ten shillings were divided . That is to say, the case may be taken of an individual hypothetical member and it may be asked whether what is proposed is, in the honest opinion of those who voted in its favour, for that persons benefit. [His lordship considered certain specific criticisms of the defendant Mallards conduct, and continued:] Mr. Jennings says that all these various matters cast such doubt upon the transaction that the defendant Mallard must be taken to have been acting in bad faith. Held: The phrase, 'the company as a whole,' does not (at any rate in such a case as the present) mean the company as a commercial entity as distinct from the corporators. The defendants appreciated this and set up the defence that their action was for the benefit of the company. The UK case of Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd and the Australian High Court case of Ngurli Ltd v McCann will be analysed and their impact on many other cases will be dealt with in some detail.Throughout this article the significance of the corporation as a separate legal entity will be emphasised and it will be argued that directors owe their duties towards the corporation as a separate legal entity. Lord Greene MR held,[1] instead of Greenhalgh finding himself in a position of control, he finds himself in a position where the control has gone, and to that extent the rights are affected, as a matter of business. does not seem to work in this case as there are clearly two opposing interests. EVERSHED, M.R. Thanks for Watching Guys .Good Luck Finals.. any comment please write on My CN post.. Assalamualaikum. Related. Throughout this article the signicance of the corporation as a separate legal Mallard wanted to sell controlling stake to outsider. In Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Limited, 1951 Ch. The company had two classes of shares; one class was worth ten shilling a share and the other class worth two shilling a share. (6). and partly by the eleventh and twelfth defendants to the action who were nominees of the Tegarn company. There will be no variation of rights if the rights attached to a class of shares remain (2d) 737, refd to. 1950. The court said no 2010-2023 Oxbridge Notes. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 512; [1951] Ch 286 is UK company law case concerning the issue of shares, and "fraud on the minority", as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. Moreover, where the proposed act under consideration has different effects on different groups of shareholders in a company, it is difficult to apply the test that what is done must be done in the interests of the members generally, who are the company for this purpose (see Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951] Ch 286; Parke v The Daily News . We and our partners use cookies to Store and/or access information on a device. Mr Greenhalgh had the previous two shilling shares, and lost control of the company. share options, or certain employment rights) and may provide a justification for summary dismissal ) [1946] 1 All ER 512; [1951] Ch 286, [1950] 2 All ER 1120. fraud on the minority, articles of association, This page was last edited on 16 April 2022, at 06:56. The company had two classes of shares; one class was worth ten shilling a share and the other class worth two shilling a share. This rule states that in a potential claim for a loss incurred by a company, only that company should be the claimant, and not the shareholders. The next authorities are Dafen Tinplate Co. Ld. [para. (2019) 34 Australian Journal of Corporate Law, Deakin Law School Research Paper No. This page was processed by aws-apollo-l2 in 0.095 seconds, Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (No 2) [1946] 1 All ER 512; [1951] Ch 286 is UK company law case concerning the issue of shares, and "fraud on the minority", as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. Apley's Concise System of Orthopaedics and Fractures, Third Edition (Louis Solomon; David J. Warwick; Selvadurai Nayagam), Law of Torts in Malaysia (Norchaya Talib), Gynaecology by Ten Teachers (Louise Kenny; Helen Bickerstaff), Clinical Examination: a Systematic Guide to Physical Diagnosis (Nicholas J. Talley; Simon O'Connor), Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design (Richard Budynas; Keith Nisbett), Diseases of Ear, Nose and Throat (P L Dhingra; Shruti Dhingra), Browse's Introduction to the Symptoms and Signs of Surgical Disease (John Black; Kevin Burnand), Apley's System of Orthopaedics and Fractures, Ninth Edition (Louis Solomon; David Warwick; Selvadurai Nayagam), Lecture Notes: Ophthalmology (Bruce James; Bron), Little and Falace's Dental Management of the Medically Compromised Patient (James W. Little; Donald Falace; Craig Miller; Nelson L. Rhodus), Essential Surgery (Clive R. G. Quick; Joanna B. Reed), Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine (Murray Longmore; Ian Wilkinson; Andrew Baldwin; Elizabeth Wallin), Clinical Medicine (Parveen J. Kumar; Michael L. Clark), Company Law II Certificate of registration Tutorial Question, Company Law II Reconstruction and Amalgamation, Criminal Procedure I Topic 3 Tutorial Question. Mann v. Can. the number of votes they hold. Companys articles provided for right of pre-emption for existing members. (2019) 34 Australian Journal of Corporate Law, Deakin Law School Research Paper No. passu (on equal footing) with the ordinary shares issued. Date. The second thing is that the phrase, the company as a whole, does not (at any rate in such a case as the present) mean the company as a commercial entity, distinct from the corporators: it means the corporators as a general body. v. Llanelly Steel Co. (1907), Ld. (b) If any member desires to sell or transfer his shares or any of them, he shall notify his desire to the directors by sending them a notice in writing (hereinafter called a transfer notice) to the effect that he desires to sell or transfer such shares. (b) hereof, the directors shall cause a notice to be sent to the selling member informing him of the current value of his shares, and shall also cause a notice to be sent to every other member of the company stating the number of shares for sale and the fair value of such shares and shall therein invite each of such members to give notice in writing within fourteen days whether he is willing to purchase any and if so what maximum number of such shares. Case summary last updated at 23/01/2020 14:39 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team . Re Bird Precision Bellows Ltd [1984] Ch 658 is a UK company law and UK insolvency law case concerning unfair prejudice. First, it aims to provide a clear and succinct . The court has to consider whether what has been done is for the benefit of all the shareholders and therefore of the company as a whole: see Buckleys Law of Companies (12th ed. Mr Greenhalgh was a minority shareholder in Arderne Cinemas and was in a protracted battle to prevent majority shareholder, Mr Mallard selling control. 1950 NOV. 8, 9, 10. The court should ask whether or not the alteration was for the benefit of a hypothetical member. Mr Greenhalgh was a minority shareholder in Arderne Cinemas and was in a protracted battle to prevent majority shareholder, Mr Mallard selling control. Du Plessis, Jean, Directors' Duty to Act in the Best Interests of the Corporation: 'Hard Cases Make Bad Law' (Feb 01, 2019). Mr Greenhalgh argued that the voting rights attached to his shares were varied without That was the substance of what was suggested. The first defendants were a private company with a nominal capital of 31,000l. Looking at the changing world of legal practice. , (c) When the fair value of the said shares has been fixed under the provisions of sub-cl. Ibid 7. what does it mean when a girl says goodnight with your name 514 (SCC) MLB headnote and full text. (on equal footing) with the ordinary shares issued. The 50,000 partly paid up ordinary shares were held by the last two defendants as nominees of another company. because upon the wording of the constitution any shareholder can sell to an outsider. The resolution was passed to subdivide each of the 10s What Mr. Jennings objects to in the resolution is that if a resolution is passed altering the articles merely for the purpose of giving effect to a particular transaction, then it is quite sufficient (and it is usually done) to limit it to that transaction. v. Llanelly Steel Co. (1907), Ld. out to be a minority shareholder. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Cook v Deeks [1916], Winthrop Investments Ltd v Winns Ltd [1975], Peters American Delicacy Co Ltd v Heath (1939) and more. . Articles provided for each share (regardless of value) to get one vote each. Greenhalgh v Alderne Cinemas Ltd: 1951 The issue was whether a special resolution has been passed bona fide for the benefit of the company. Certain principles, I think, carl be safely stated as emerging from those authorities. (2019) 34 Australian Journal of Corporate Law, Deakin Law School Research Paper No. 40]. exactly same as they were before a corporate action was taken. 719 (Ch.D) . Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Jennings, K.C., and Lindner For The Plaintiff. 12 Greenhalgh v. Arderne Cinemas Ltd. [1951]Google Scholar Ch. In Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (1946), there were two classes of right, namely one class carries more vote, and another one carries lesser. By an agreement dated June 4, 1948, made between the second defendant and the third defendant (hereinafter called the purchaser) which recited that the second defendant owned or controlled 85,815 ordinary shares and 50,000 partly paid ordinary shares, the second defendant agreed to sell the ordinary shares to the purchaser at 6s. (1974), 1 N.R. Held, that, the special resolution having been bona fide passed, it was not an objection to it that, by lifting the ban in the original articles on sales to persons who were not members of the company, the right on a sale to tender for the majority holding of shares would be lost to minority shareholders, and that accordingly the special resolution could not be impeached. v. Llanelly Steel Co. (1907), Ld. If an outside person offers to buy all the shares, prima facie, if the corporators think it is a fair offer and vote in favour of a resolution accepting the offer, it is no ground for impeaching the resolution that in passing it they considered their own individual positions. Several other third party interests are represented in the corporation as a separate legal entity and it will depend on the particular circumstances to what extent these interests need to be considered when directors fulfil their duties towards the corporation. In this article, the focus will be on these phrases and the aim is to establish whether these phrases create potentially competing duties for directors. The plaintiff is prejudiced by the special resolution, since it deprives him of his prospect of acquiring the shares of the majority shareholders should they in the future desire to sell. Tree & Trees JusticeMedia Ltd 2018, All rights reserved. If, as commonly happens, an outside person makes an offer to buy all the shares, prima facie, if the corporators think it a fair offer and vote in favour of the resolution, it is no ground for impeaching the resolution that they are considering their own position as individuals. to be modified. assume that the articles will always remain in a particular form, and so long as the However, the Companies Act 2016 allows the class rights Hickman v Kent or Romney March Sheepbreeders' Association [1915] 1 Ch 881 (Ch) - Facts . King & Wood Mallesons works side by side with Australian boards and senior executives offering a holistic corporate governance advisory service, encompassing board processes, reporting, risk management, disclosure issues, shareholder activism and the evolution of sound governance policies. Get Access. There had been a series of actions in relation to the affairs of the Arderne company which had left the plaintiff with a strong sense of grievance. If, as commonly happens, an outside person makes an offer to buy all the shares, prima facie, if the corporators think it a fair offer and vote in favour of the resolution, it is no ground for impeaching the resolution that they are considering their own position as individuals. In my opinion, in spite of all these complexities, this was, in substance, an offer by an outside man to buy the shares of this company at 6s. hypothetical member test which is test for fraud on minority. Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951] Ch 286 (CA) - Principles The phrase 'the company as a whole' refers to the shareholders as a body. Some of our partners may process your data as a part of their legitimate business interest without asking for consent.