It seems that the attempt to argue on everything a shareholder may bring to a court as being a derivative claim is the common corruption game played together by many corporations and courts.
While I am not trying to balance that by making arguments in which I don't see a potential for being correct, I think there is a potential that a direct standing exist in cases related to the undervalued selling and issuance of shares of a corporation even when the relief is demanded to come through the corporation or can only obtained through the corporation. I want to start first by pointing out a potential distinction that doesn't seem to has been commonly noticed by the courts. The distinction is between injury to shareholders by the injury to the corporation, like that of selling assets at undervalued prices, and injury to shareholders by the action that injured the corporation, like that of issuing shares at low prices. In this later situation, the path of injury to shareholders started with the dilution to shareholders ownership by the issuance of those shares and did not pass through the injury to the corporation by receiving less than required price for those shares. The injury to the corporation here simply meant a failure for providing an acceptable justification altering the issuance of those shares from its path to injure shareholders through the dilution. Therefore a shareholder may demand a compensation for the corporation for the issuance of those shares from a direct standing because, while it wont provide a recovery from the dilution, it can provide a proper justification for it correcting the path to shareholders injury that started by the issuance of those shares.
No comments:
Post a Comment