essay代寫Multiple derivative actions
Multiple Derivative actionsSubject: Company lawKeywords: Derivative actions; Holding companies; Hong Kong; Parent companies; Reflective loss;ShareholdersL.Q.R. 209 THE standard derivative action involves a situation where a shareholder of a company commences an action on behalf of the company of which he is a member alleging a breach of duty by the directors of the company. However, many corporate structures are in group form and the breach of duty may have not only been by the directors of the parent company (“P”) but also by the directors of a subsidiary or a sub-subsidiary. This raises the question of whether a member of P may also commence a derivative action on behalf of the various subsidiaries within the group with respect to a breach of duty by directors of companies directly or indirectly controlled by P. Such actions were referred to as “multiple derivative actions” by Lord Millett in Waddington Ltd v Chan Ho Thomas (September 8, 2008), a decision of the Final Appeal Court of Hong Kong in which his Lordship, sitting as the Non Permanent Judge of the court, gave the leading judgment. Waddington Ltd (the respondent) was a minority shareholder in Playmates Ltd holding 6.5 per cent of the shares.Playmates Ltd controlled a wholly owned subsidiary and two wholly owned sub-subsidiaries. Chan Ho Thomas (the appellant) was a director of all of the companies and it was alleged that the various subsidiary companies 代寫論文had entered into a number of transactions for the personal benefit of the appellant. The respondent had succeeded in its argument below that a multiple derivative action was allowable and that it had standing to bring it with respect to the alleged breaches of duty by the appellant. There were two issues before the Final Appeal Court of Hong Kong. The first was whether a derivative action may be brought by a person who was not a member of the company in which the cause of action is vested but a member of its parent or ultimate holding company. The second question raised the issue of whether there was a relevant exception to the principle which preclud定制論文es a shareholder from bringing an action with respect to losses that are merely reflective of loss suffered by the company, which applied to the facts in Waddington Ltd v Chan Ho Thomas.*L.Q.R. 210 As Lord Millett pointed out, there were cases in the United Kingdom where a multiple derivative action had been allowed but the issue was not fully analysed or the right of the plaintiff to bring the action challenged. In Wallersteiner v Moir (No.2)  1 Q.B. 373 CA the plaintiff brought two claims, one to recover damages for the company of which he was a member and the other to recover damages for loss suffered by its subsidiary. This fact did not escape the Court of Appeal which observed that if damages were recovered they would be paid in one case to the company and in the other to the subsidiary. There have been other cases where a multiple derivative was allo作業代寫wedbut the right of action was simply assumed (see, e.g. Halle v Trax  B.C.C. 1020 Ch D; Airey v Cordell  EWHC 2728,  B.C.C. 785). The normal rule is clear, where there is a wrong committed against the company, the proper plaintiff is the company (Lord Millett at ).
多重衍生actionsSubject：公司lawKeywords的衍生訴訟，控股公司，香港母公司;反射損失; ShareholdersL.QR 209標準衍生訴訟涉及的股東代表指稱違反公司董事職務的成員公司，其中他的公司開始行動的情況下。然而，許多企業的結構組的形式，可能有違約責任不僅是母公司的董事（“P”），但也由一間附屬公司之董事或子子公司。這就提出了一個問題的P成員是否也可以展開衍生訴訟的代表組內的各子公司由P.這些行動直接或間接控制的公司的董事職務違反者稱為“多重衍生訴訟“由苗禮治勛爵在沃丁頓有限公司訴陳何托馬斯（2008年9月8日），香港終審法院的決定在他的貴族身份，坐在非法院常任法官，給領先的判決。沃丁頓有限公司（被申請人）彩星有限公司持有6.5％的shares.Playmates有限公司控制的全資子公司和兩個全資子公司的少數股東。陳好逑托馬斯（上訴人）是所有公司的董事，據稱，各附屬公司已訂立多項交易，上訴人的個人利益。多重衍生訴訟是允許的，它已經站在使其就涉嫌違反職責由上訴人的答辯已成功在其下面的說法。香港終審法院前有兩個問題。首先是可能帶來衍生訴訟是否由一個人誰沒有賦予行動的原因是該公司在其中的一員，但其母公司或最終控股公司的成員。第二個問題，提出了這個問題，是否有相關的異常的原則，排除了股東提起訴訟，對于虧損公司，該公司的事實在沃丁頓有限公司訴陳好逑所遭受的損失，僅僅是反光托馬斯。LQR 210主米利特指出，有在英國的多重衍生訴訟已被允許的，但問題是沒有充分分析或右側的原告提出訴訟挑戰。在Wallersteiner v莫伊爾（第2號） 1 Q.B. 373 CA的原告人提出兩個要求，一個公司，而他是成員及其他損害賠償金及其附屬公司所遭受的損失追討損害賠償。這其實并沒有逃脫上訴法院指出，如果恢復的損害，他們將在一個情況下，支付公司和其他附屬。已經有多重衍生的其他情況下，只是假設（見，例如哈雷v TRAX  BCC 1020 CH D;艾雷v科德爾 EWHC 2728， 785 BCC）allowedbut訴訟權。正常的規則是明確的，那里是一個對公司犯下的錯，適當的原告人公司（苗禮治勛爵）。