Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (No 2) - UK Company Law Case Quiz

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to Lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

According to Lord Greene MR, how are the rights affected in the case of Greenhalgh?

  • The rights are varied
  • The rights are removed
  • The rights remain the same (correct)
  • The rights are increased

What did Lord Evershed MR conclude about the £5000 payment in the derivative action case?

  • It was a legitimate transaction
  • It was a fraud on the majority voters
  • It was a private gain for the minority voters
  • It was a fraud on the minority (correct)

In the case discussed, why did Lord Evershed MR find the alteration of the articles legitimate?

  • Because it led to private gains for the majority voters
  • Because it was done improperly
  • Because the alteration was properly conducted (correct)
  • Because it was a fraud on the minority voters

What does Lord Greene MR imply about Greenhalgh's control position?

<p>Control has been reduced (A)</p> Signup and view all the answers

According to Lord Evershed MR, why was it wrong to criticize the alteration of the articles?

<p>The alteration of articles was legitimate (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What was the main issue in the case of Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (No 2)?

<p>Validity of the change in the company's articles (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What was Mr Greenhalgh's primary concern in the case?

<p>Stopping Mr Mallard from selling control (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What was the significance of having two classes of shares in Arderne Cinemas?

<p>To differentiate between voting rights (D)</p> Signup and view all the answers

How did Mr Mallard plan to transfer his shares to Mr Sol Sheckman?

<p>For 6 shillings each and a resignation from the board (B)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Why did Mr Greenhalgh argue that the article change allowing external shareholders was invalid?

<p>He believed it devalued existing shares (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

What did Mr Greenhalgh request as a remedy in the case?

<p>Compensation for the loss of control (C)</p> Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards are hidden until you start studying

Study Notes

Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd (No 2)

  • Lord Greene MR held that the rights of the minority shareholders remain unaffected despite the change in control of the company.
  • The change in control occurred due to the subdivision of the 10-shilling shares into 2-shilling shares, with each share carrying one vote.

Facts of the Case

  • Mr. Greenhalgh was a minority shareholder in Arderne Cinemas, fighting to prevent majority shareholder Mr. Mallard from selling control.
  • The company had two classes of shares: 10-shilling shares and 2-shilling shares, with each class carrying one vote.
  • The articles of association initially restricted share transfers to non-members, but a special resolution changed the articles to allow existing shareholders to offer shares to outsiders.

The Dispute

  • Mr. Mallard, the majority shareholder, wanted to transfer his shares to Mr. Sol Sheckman for 6 shillings each and £5000, and resign from the board.
  • Mr. Greenhalgh opposed the transfer, claiming it was a fraud on minority shareholders and sought compensation.

Judgment

  • Lord Evershed MR held that the £5000 payment was not a fraud on the minority, as none of the majority voters were voting for personal gain.
  • The alteration of the articles was legitimate, as it was done properly.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Quiz Team

More Like This

UK Business Structures Overview
43 questions

UK Business Structures Overview

NoteworthyElectricOrgan4288 avatar
NoteworthyElectricOrgan4288
Company Law Letterheads and Dividends Quiz
56 questions
Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Browser