| Hilder v Dexter | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1902] AC 474 |
| Keywords | |
| Share, issue at a discount | |
Hilder v Dexter [1902] AC 474 is a UK company law case concerning shares.
| Hilder v Dexter | |
|---|---|
| | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citation(s) | [1902] AC 474 |
| Keywords | |
| Share, issue at a discount | |
Hilder v Dexter [1902] AC 474 is a UK company law case concerning shares.
To raise working capital, United Gold Coast Mining Properties Ltd offered shares at par value to Mr Hilder and others with an option to take further shares at par for two years. After the share price rose, Mr Hilder wished to exercise his option.
Earl of Halsbury LC held that Hilder was entitled to exercise the option, as it in no way directly or indirectly contravened the rule against issuing shares at a discount under Companies Act 1900, section 8(2) (now Companies Act 2006, section 580). [1]
Mullens v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, was a 1976 High Court of Australia tax case concerning arrangements where stockbrokers Mullens & Co accessed tax deductions for monies subscribed to a petroleum exploration company. The Australian Taxation Office held the scheme was tax avoidance, but the court found for the taxpayer.
The Companies Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which forms the primary source of UK company law.
Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 561 is a leading English company law case concerning a director's duty of care and skill, whose main precedent is now codified under Section 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The case was decided under the older Companies Act 1985.
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.
Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Meyer [1959] AC 324 is a UK company law case, concerning the predecessor of the unfair prejudice provision, an action for "oppression" under section 210 of the Companies Act 1948.
O'Neill v Phillips[1999] UKHL 24 is a UK company law case on an action for unfair prejudice under s.459 Companies Act 1985. It is the only case thus far in the House of Lords on the provision and it deals with the concept of members of a business having their "legitimate expectations" disappointed.
Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v The Rank Organisation Ltd. [1985] BCLC 11 is a UK company law case dealing with "oppression" under section 20 Companies Act 1948. Goulding J delivered the first instance judgment.
Directors' duties are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors' duties are analogous to duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries, and by agents to principals.
Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).
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.
Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1974] EWCA Civ 7 is a leading English trusts law case, concerning resulting trusts.
Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Maxwell [1993] BCLC 814 is a UK company law case concerning a director's duty to act for proper purposes of the company. This case is an example of what would now be Companies Act 2006, section 171.
Morphitis v Bernasconi[2003] EWCA Civ 289 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning fraudulent trading.
Re Smith and Fawcett Ltd. [1942] Ch 304 is a UK company law case, concerning the meaning of "the interests of the company". It is relevant for the provisions of company law now embodied in Companies Act 2006, section 172.
Shareholders in the United Kingdom are people and organisations who buy shares in UK companies. In large companies, such as those on the FTSE100, shareholders are overwhelmingly large institutional investors, such as pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds or similar foreign organisations. UK shareholders have the most favourable set of rights in the world in their ability to control directors of corporations. UK company law gives shareholders the ability to,
Canadian corporate law concerns the operation of corporations in Canada, which can be established under either federal or provincial authority.
Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd[2011] EWCA Civ 347 is an English trusts law case, concerning constructive trusts. Sinclair was partially overruled in July 2014 by the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC.
Re Vandervell Trustees Ltd [1971] AC 912 is a UK tax law case, concerning the ability of the Revenue to amend tax assessments.
Coutts & Co v Stock[1999] EWHC 191 (Ch), [2000] 1 WLR 906 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.
Eclairs Group Ltd v JKX Oil & Gas plc[2015] UKSC 71 was a decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to the exercise of directors' powers for a proper purpose under English company law.