Tag: Minority Shareholders
-
Increasing the Ambit of Rights Available to Voting by Proxy
[Vishal Hablani and Anirudh Goyal are 3rd & 4th Year B.A.L.L.B. (Hons.) students respectively at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata] Under the proxy system of voting, a shareholder delegates his rights to attend and vote at a meeting to another person as his representative. This representative is known as the proxy.
-
The Influence of Foreign Investors and Proxy Advisory Firms on Corporate Governance
Institutional investors have begun taking an active role in companies that have dispersed shareholding. This played out demonstrably in the case of HDFC in July when the chairman Mr. Deepak Parekh retained his position in the company by a narrow margin. This was attributable to a number of foreign institutional investors having voted against his
-
The Tata Corporate Governance Episode: The ‘India-Specific’ Issues and Concerns
[Guest post by Priya Garg, a 4th year law-student at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS)] Introduction The recent turf battle within the Tata Group is likely to become a subject matter of study for various disciplines, including the subject of corporate law and governance.[1] The Tata-Mistry dispute giving rise to corporate governance
-
Arbitrability of Oppression and Mismanagement in India
[Guest post by Aishwarya Singh, 5th year student at Jindal Global Law School] Background Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA, 2013”) provide the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) the present day authority to deal with the petitions pertaining to oppression and mismanagement. Under the previous Companies Act, 1956 (“CA, 1956”), this
-
Activism through Directors Elected by “Small Shareholders”
Recent news reports (here, here and here) have highlighted a shareholder proposal that has been initiated in preparation for the annual general meeting of Alembic Limited to be held on 28 July 2017. The shareholder in question is Unifi Capital Private Limited who is said (though not verified) to be holding 3% shares in Alembic.
-
Shareholding Thresholds for Oppression and Class Actions
Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”;} The Tata-Mistry episode has brought into focus the minimum shareholding threshold required for a minority shareholder to bring an action for oppression and mismanagement
-
NCLT Rules on Maintainability in the Tata-Mistry Case
Background The action on the legal front in the Tata-Mistry episode has been playing out in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) over the last few weeks. This is on account of an action for oppression and mismanagement initiated by two Mistry companies (the Mistry Group) that are shareholders of Tata Sons against the company
-
Shareholder Primacy in India: So Near and Yet So Far!
[The following guest post is contributed by Professor Bala N. Balasubramanian, who is an Adjunct Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.][1] The scholarly debate on primacy among the shareholders, boards and the executive in corporate governance is intellectually as challenging as it is yet inconclusive, although more recent trends around the world would
-
The Tata Episode: Corporate Governance and the Continuing Influence of Promoters
It is generally understood that corporate governance norms ought to address agency problems between various actors in a company. Moreover, in companies with concentrated shareholding, the agency problems between controlling shareholders (referred to in India as “promoters”) and minority shareholders tend to be rampant, and hence corporate governance measures need to be targeted to address
-
Non-compete Fee: A Bane for Minority Shareholders
[The following post is contributed by Soham Roy & Akhil Nene, who are 5th year students at the National Law University Odisha] A non-compete fee is paid to exiting promoters or founders of a company to ensure that they do not compete for a certain period of time with the company they are exiting. Recently,
