Question

In: Accounting

The High Court of Australia’s decision in Gambotto v WCP Ltd (1995) 182 CLR 432 provided...

The High Court of Australia’s decision in Gambotto v WCP Ltd (1995) 182 CLR 432 provided a test for determining whether a constitutional alteration may be set aside on the basis of unfairness to the minority.

Explain this test with reference to the facts of the case

Solutions

Expert Solution

The test was that when the majority shareholders want to amend constitution of the company to permit expropriation then it has to ensure that this action will not operate oppressively in relation to the minority shareholders of the company.

In the case mentioned in the question the majority shareholders of WCP had held around 99.7% of the company’s shares. Gambotto and Sandri were minority shareholders who held approximately 0.094% of WCP’s shares. The parent company of WCP i.e. IEL wanted to acquire all shares and hence were looking at acquire the 0.094% ownership held by Gambotto and Sandri. Gambotto and Sandri were not in favor of selling their shares.

The court held that a company can amend its constitution to force acquisition of shares only when the proposed acquisition is necessary to protect (or promote) the interest of the company. Here the purpose of altering the constitution of WCP (by changing its articles of association) was mainly to aggrandize the majority and so the court rejected this action by the company and ruled in favor of the minority shareholders.


Related Solutions

The High Court of Australia’s decision in Gambotto v WCP Ltd (1995) 182 CLR 432 provided...
The High Court of Australia’s decision in Gambotto v WCP Ltd (1995) 182 CLR 432 provided a test for determining whether a constitutional alteration may be set aside on the basis of unfairness to the minority. Explain this test with reference to the facts of the case.
Company Law ILAC The High Court of Australia’s decision in Gambotto v WCP Ltd (1995) 182...
Company Law ILAC The High Court of Australia’s decision in Gambotto v WCP Ltd (1995) 182 CLR 432 provided a test for determining whether a constitutional alteration may be set aside on the basis of unfairness to the minority. Explain this test with reference to the facts of the case.
ou are a Justice of the NSW Supreme Court. How will the High Court’s decision in...
ou are a Justice of the NSW Supreme Court. How will the High Court’s decision in Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community affect your future decisions regarding intention and the presumptions regarding social/domestic and commercial agreements?
brief the court decision entitled United States v. Hamilton, __4th Ct. App. __ 2012 
brief the court decision entitled United States v. Hamilton, __4th Ct. App. __ 2012 
Select the most appropriate statement: In Standard Chartered Bank of Australia Ltd v Antico, the court...
Select the most appropriate statement: In Standard Chartered Bank of Australia Ltd v Antico, the court held that the test for classifying an entity as a shadow director involves: Select one: a. None of these options apply b. Checking whether the directors of the subsidiary company habitually comply with the instructions of the parent company, over a period c. Checking whether the parent company has a nominee director on subsidiary company's board d. Checking whether the parent company encouraged the...
brief the court decision entitled Tillman v. Commercial Credit Loans, Inc., 655 S.E.2d, 362 (N.C. 2008)
brief the court decision entitled Tillman v. Commercial Credit Loans, Inc., 655 S.E.2d, 362 (N.C. 2008)
Do you agree with the High Court's ruling in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic (2007)...
Do you agree with the High Court's ruling in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic (2007) 231 CLR 160 which provides greater protection to shareholders rights? Ordo you prefer the recent amendments to the Corporations Act as provided by the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Act 2010 (Cth)?
P21.3 Leader Enterprises Ltd. follows IFRS and has provided the following information: In 2019, Leader was sued in a patent infringement suit, and in 2020, Leader lost the court case. Leader must now pay a competitor $50,000 to settle the suit. No previo
P21.3 Leader Enterprises Ltd. follows IFRS and has provided the following information: In 2019, Leader was sued in a patent infringement suit, and in 2020, Leader lost the court case. Leader must now pay a competitor $50,000 to settle the suit. No previoP21.3 Leader Enterprises Ltd. follows IFRS and has provided the following information:In 2019, Leader was sued in a patent infringement suit, and in 2020, Leader lost the court case. Leader must now pay a competitor $50,000 to settle the...
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT