Birch v Cropper

Last updated
Birch v Cropper
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Citation(s)(1889) 14 App Cas 525
Keywords
Share

Birch v Cropper (1889) 14 App Cas 525 is a UK company law case concerning shares. It illustrates the principle of exhaustion, that the rights attached to a share in an article would be presumed exhaustive, although one should construe the nature of a share with a starting presumption of equality.

Contents

The principle is now subject to the advice given by Lord Hoffmann in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd and ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS .

Facts

The company sold its canal business to another company and made a profit. It proposed to wind up and distribute the £500,000 remaining to shareholders. There were 130,000 ordinary shares. There were also 30,000 preference shares (with 5% preference on dividends), some one-third paid up, some fully paid up. There was nothing in the articles concerning the preferential shares' entitlements on winding up. The company argued that the preferential shares were just like debentures, and they should only get their money back. The preferential shareholders argued that they should be entitled to a priority in the distribution.

Judgment

The House of Lords held clearly preferential shares were not debentures, they are equity, because the 5% preference would not be paid if there was no profit, whereas a 5% interest rate would have to be. To calculate their entitlement on winding up, the court should begin the process of construction with a presumption of equality. Since it was deemed that the provision on 5% extra dividends was exhaustive, and there was no indication this should apply to winding up, there was no automatic right to more preferential distributions on winding up.

Lord Macnaghten noted that preference shareholders ‘must be treated as having all the rights of shareholders, except so far as they renounced these rights on their admission to the company.’

See also

Notes

    Related Research Articles

    Dividend Payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits

    A dividend is a distribution of profits by a corporation to its shareholders. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it is able to pay a proportion of the profit as a dividend to shareholders. Any amount not distributed is taken to be re-invested in the business. The current year profit as well as the retained earnings of previous years are available for distribution; a corporation is usually prohibited from paying a dividend out of its capital. Distribution to shareholders may be in cash or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or by share repurchase. In some cases, the distribution may be of assets.

    Financial capital is any economic resource measured in terms of money used by entrepreneurs and businesses to buy what they need to make their products or to provide their services to the sector of the economy upon which their operation is based, e.g., retail, corporate, investment banking, etc. In other words, financial capital is internal retained earnings generated by the entity or funds provided by lenders to businesses in order to purchase real capital equipment or services for producing new goods and/or services.

    Preferred stock Type of stock which may have any combination of features not possessed by common stock

    Preferred stock is a component of share capital that may have any combination of features not possessed by common stock, including properties of both an equity and a debt instrument, and is generally considered a hybrid instrument. Preferred stocks are senior to common stock but subordinate to bonds in terms of claim and may have priority over common stock in the payment of dividends and upon liquidation. Terms of the preferred stock are described in the issuing company's articles of association or articles of incorporation.

    Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end in Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and many other countries. The assets and property of the company are redistributed. Liquidation is also sometimes referred to as winding-up or dissolution, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.

    An investment trust is a form of investment fund found mostly in the United Kingdom and Japan. Investment trusts are constituted as public limited companies and are therefore closed ended since the fund managers cannot redeem or create shares.

    Dividend imputation is a corporate tax system in which some or all of the tax paid by a company may be attributed, or imputed, to the shareholders by way of a tax credit to reduce the income tax payable on a distribution. In comparison to the classical system, it reduces or eliminates the tax disadvantages of distributing dividends to shareholders by only requiring them to pay the difference between the corporate rate and their marginal tax rate. The imputation system effectively taxes distributed company profit at the shareholders' average tax rates.

    <i>Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd</i>

    Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd[1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22 is a landmark UK company law case. The effect of the House of Lords' unanimous ruling was to uphold firmly the doctrine of corporate personality, as set out in the Companies Act 1862, so that creditors of an insolvent company could not sue the company's shareholders for payment of outstanding debts.

    A split capital investment trust (split) is a type of investment trust which issues different classes of share to give the investor a choice of shares to match their needs. Most splits have a limited life determined at launch known as the wind-up date. Typically the life of a split capital trust is five to ten years.

    United Kingdom company law Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

    The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

    United Kingdom insolvency law Law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. "Insolvency" means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is "liquidated", so that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the Insolvency Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

    Soden v British and Commonwealth Holdings plc [1998] AC 298 is a UK insolvency law case, decided in the House of Lords. It decided that damages for negligent misrepresentation inducing purchase of company shares are not "sums due" to shareholders for the purpose of the Insolvency Act 1986, s 74(2)(f), so that a claim for such damages is not subordinated to claims from other creditors.

    <i>Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd</i>

    Ebrahimi v Westbourne Galleries Ltd [1973] AC 360 is a United Kingdom company law case on the rights of minority shareholders. The case was decided in the House of Lords.

    <i>Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd</i>

    Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd [1900] 1 Ch 656 is a UK company law case concerning alteration of a company's articles of association. It held that alterations could not be interfered with by the court unless a change was made that was not bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole. This rule served as a marginal form of minority shareholder protection at common law, before the existence of any unfair prejudice remedy.

    <i>Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd</i> British case on insolvency

    Re Barleycorn Enterprises Ltd [1970] Ch 465 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of creditors in a company winding up. It was held that fees for liquidation came in priority to preferential claims and floating charges. This was overturned by the House of Lords in Buchler v Talbot, but reinstated by Parliament through an amendment to the Insolvency Act 1986 s 176ZA.

    <i>Vandervell v IRC</i>

    Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts. It demonstrates that the mere intention to not have a resulting trust does not make it so.

    <i>Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd</i>

    Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd[2010] UKSC 55 is a UK company law case concerning the circumstances by which a transaction at an undervalue would be considered an unauthorised return of capital.

    <i>Re Anglo-Austrian Printing & Publishing Union</i>

    Re Anglo-Austrian Printing & Publishing Union [1895] 2 Ch 891 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning recovery of assets under a misfeasance action. It was held that because the claims were vested in the company before the company went into liquidation, the proceeds of such a claim would be caught by a floating charge where the floating charge was expressed to include any after-acquired property.

    Scottish Insurance Corp Ltd v Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd [1949] AC 462 is a UK company law case concerning shares. It illustrates that where the rights of shares are explained in the articles, that is likely to be an exhaustive statement.

    <i>Buchler v Talbot</i>

    Buchler v Talbot[2004] UKHL 9 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the priority of claims in a liquidation. Under English law at the time the expenses of liquidation took priority over the preferred creditors, and the preferred creditors took priority over the claims of the holder of a floating charge. However, a crystallised floating charge theoretically took priority over the liquidation expenses. Accordingly the courts had to try and reconcile the apparent triangular conflict between priorities.

    The Australian dividend imputation system is a corporate tax system in which some or all of the tax paid by a company may be attributed, or imputed, to the shareholders by way of a tax credit to reduce the income tax payable on a distribution. In comparison to the classical system, dividend imputation reduces or eliminates the tax disadvantages of distributing dividends to shareholders by only requiring them to pay the difference between the corporate rate and their marginal rate. If the individual’s average tax rate is lower than the corporate rate, the individual receives a tax refund.

    References