City law firm Speechly Bircham has advised an AIM listed company on its successful defence of the first reported derivative claim brought under Chapter 1 of Part 11 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006).
The claim was brought against the company by two former executive directors, and the court was asked to consider whether the former executives should be granted permission to continue their derivative action under section 263 of the CA 2006.
Although the basis for mandatory refusal in section 263(2) for permission was not made out, the court refused permission for the claim to continue having considered the discretionary factors set out in sections 263(2) (a) to (f), and the circumstances of the former executives’ case. Of particular significance, the Judge said that he was not satisfied that anything the applicants might achieve under the Part 11 claim would be different from that which they might achieve by bringing a petition under section 994 (previously section 459 of the Companies Act 1985).
The case report can be found in the All England Reporter March, [2008] All ER(D)225 (Mar).
The team at Speechly Bircham was led by Corporate partner Andrew Clarke and Commercial Dispute Resolution partner, Ian Timlin and assisted by Commercial Dispute Resolution solicitor, Julie Thrower.
For more information, please contact: Andrew Clarke, Corporate partner, on 020 7427 6768, andrew.clarke@speechlys.com
Ian Timlin, Commercial Dispute Resolution partner, on 020 7427 6546, ian.timlin@speechlys.com
Sarah Gerard, press office, on 020 7427 6679, sarah.gerard@speechlys.com
www.speechlys.com