The Warehouse Sale: A Conflicted Director, a Related-Party Buyer, and a Shareholder Who Arrives Late
Halcyon Logistics Ltd has five shareholders. Priya holds 22%; Marcus and his wife Elena together hold 40%, and Marcus is managing director. Halcyon's only substantial asset is a bonded warehouse valued at 1.9 million in an independent valuation obtained in January. In February the board, with Marcus presiding and voting, resolved to sell the warehouse to Kestrel Storage Ltd, whose sole shareholder is Elena, for 1.1 million. The articles require a director with a conflict to disclose it and abstain from voting; Marcus told the board that 'Kestrel is a family vehicle, no need to trouble the shareholders', then voted in favour. The sale completed in March and the 1.1 million was used to repay a shareholder loan owed to Marcus. Priya learned of the sale only in November, from draft accounts. The shareholders' agreement gives Priya a right of first refusal over any 'transfer of shares in the company' by any shareholder. Priya wants the sale unwound and Marcus to account for the shortfall.
1. Was the sale valid, and what duties did Marcus breach?
Read the worked answer
Separate the company's act from the director's duty. The resolution is the company's act; the conflict is Marcus's.
The articles. They require disclosure and abstention. Marcus disclosed the family connection in substance but then voted, and the abstention requirement is mandatory. A resolution passed with a vote that the articles disqualify is vulnerable, though courts often prefer to treat the breach as a wrong done to the company rather than to strike down the resolution automatically.
The purchaser. Third-party protection for a good-faith purchaser does not assist Kestrel: its sole shareholder is the managing director's wife, so his knowledge of the conflict and of the January valuation of 1.9 million is imputed to it.
Duties breached. Duty to act in good faith in the company's interests; duty to avoid conflicts of interest; duty not to make a secret profit; and, in most systems, the requirement of shareholder or disinterested approval for a disposal of the company's only substantial asset. Using the proceeds to repay Marcus's own loan completes the circle: the transaction moved value from the company to him.
Fairness and burden. A price of 1.1 million against an independent valuation of 1.9 million is presumptively unfair. Once the conflict and the valuation are shown, the burden shifts to Marcus to prove the transaction was fair and that no better price was available.
Conclusion: the sale is voidable at the company's instance; it is not automatically void.
2. What remedy should Priya pursue, and what procedural hurdles must she clear?
Read the worked answer
Who owns the claim? The loss is the company's, not Priya's. Her primary route is a derivative action brought on Halcyon's behalf against Marcus and Kestrel, seeking rescission of the sale or, if restitution is impossible, damages or an account of profits measured by the shortfall of roughly 800,000. A personal action is limited to breach of the shareholders' agreement or an unfair-prejudice petition; she cannot recover the company's loss personally.
Hurdles. (1) Demand: she should first ask the board to sue; that is likely futile because Marcus controls the board and the other directors approved the sale, so she must plead and prove futility. (2) Leave: some jurisdictions require the court's permission to proceed derivatively, with notice to the company. (3) Security for costs and the risk of an adverse costs order. (4) Ratification: the majority can ratify a mere conflict or breach of duty in good faith, but cannot ratify a fraud on the minority or the diversion of company property to a director - and Marcus's 40% plus Elena's holding makes ratification likely if the transaction is characterised as an ordinary conflict, which is why the pleadings must emphasise self-dealing.
Interim step: seek an injunction freezing the 1.1 million or restraining further dealings with Kestrel.
3. Does Priya's right of first refusal apply to the warehouse sale, and does her eight-month delay affect her remedies?
Read the worked answer
The right of first refusal. On its terms, it is triggered by a 'transfer of shares'. The February transaction transferred an asset, not shares, so the trigger is not met on a literal reading. A purposive anti-avoidance argument is available where a transaction is structured to strip the company of its business and frustrate the right, but here the asset sale does not alter shareholdings or Priya's proportionate stake, so the right is not engaged. Her remedy lies in the derivative claim, not the shareholders' agreement.
Delay. Eight months is not fatal to a restitutionary claim, which runs from the statutory limitation period and, in equity, is barred only where the claimant knew of the facts and acquiesced. Priya did not know until the draft accounts, so neither acquiescence nor laches is made out.
But delay does weaken rescission. Rescission requires the parties to be restored to their positions. If Kestrel has sold the warehouse on to a bona fide purchaser, or has charged it, rescission is impossible and the remedy converts to damages or an account of profits against Marcus and Kestrel. Delay also makes interim relief harder: an injunction now would prejudice an innocent sub-purchaser.
Conclusion: press the account of profits and the 800,000 shortfall rather than rescission, and plead the dates of discovery carefully.