data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4913/d49139ae882122c8276ec9f052ec8b07dc12d729" alt=""
Opinion in the Court of Appeal was divided. Young JA, in the minority, supported the position taken by the trial judge and, in his judgment, considered various definitions of preference share, referring to authorities from Delaware, England, Canada and Singapore. Young JA took the view that preference shares were those that had rights over and above other shares in the company which actually existed. The majority disagreed. Handley AJA (with whom Giles JA agreed) held that the directors' power to issue new shares, as contained in the articles of association, was exercisable at all times and was not affected by the state of the company's share register. As such, the preference shares in question were validly issued and conferred the preferential rights defined in the articles. These rights were, Handley AJA noted, potential only and would lack effective content until ordinary shares were issued. This did not, however, mean that preference shares could not be issued.
No comments:
Post a Comment