NettetACTIONS. The plaintiff, Samuel Rolleston Hogg, the holder of 50 ordinary shares in Cramphorn Ltd., brought these actions on behalf of all but three of the shareholders … Nettetapplying that duty,2 there is, however, no critical analysis of its doctrinal basis other than to treat it simply as a codification of the common law rules. This is because it has been …
318 THE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL. 35
Nettet10. jun. 2024 · They have evolved a doctrine called the ‘proper purpose doctrine for directors. In Hogg v. Cramphorn, explicit recognition was given to the proper purpose test over and above the traditional bonafide test…In the present case, we are concerned with the propriety of the issue of additional share capital by the Managing Director in his own … NettetThe plaintiff, Mr. Hogg, held fifty ordinary shares in the company, of which the authorised capital comprised 40,000 ordinary shares and 96,000 preference shares (of which 5,707 were unissued).* owa login marines
NOTES OF CASES - Wiley Online Library
Hogg v Cramphorn Ltd [1967] Ch 254 is a famous UK company law case on director liability. The Court held that corporate directors who dilute the value of the stock in order to prevent a hostile takeover (the poison pill) are breaching their fiduciary duty to the company. Se mer Mr Baxter approached the board of directors of Cramphorn Ltd. to make a takeover offer for the company. The directors (including Colonel Cramphorn who was managing director and chairman) believed that the … Se mer Buckley J, writing for the Court, held that the new shares issued by the directors are invalid. The directors violated their duties as directors by … Se mer • Cheff v. Mathes, 199 A.2d 548 (Del. 1964) • Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Ltd [1974] AC 832. • Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004] UKHL 28 Se mer Nettet14. aug. 2024 · This duty is a key duty of company’s directors. This is evident in the case of In Hogg-v- Cramphorn [1967] Ch 254. Company director’s aim was to prevent a … randy thompson ministries