The Controlling Shareholder, the Related-Party Lease, and the Minority
A private company has three shareholders: Alon (70%), Bella (20%), and Gil (10%). Alon is also the sole director. Without a shareholders' meeting, Alon signed a ten-year lease on behalf of the company for a warehouse owned by a company he controls personally. The rent is 40% above market. Bella and Gil discovered the lease six months later when reviewing the accounts. They demand that the company sue Alon and rescind the lease. Alon calls a shareholders' meeting and, using his 70%, passes a resolution ratifying the lease. The company's articles are silent on related-party transactions. Bella and Gil sue, arguing the ratification is invalid and the lease is a breach of fiduciary duty. Alon argues that as majority shareholder he may ratify, and that the company suffered no loss because it needed a warehouse.
1. Analyze Alon's duties and whether the shareholders' ratification is effective.
Read the worked answer
Duties. As sole director, Alon owes the company duties of loyalty and care. Entering a related-party transaction on behalf of the company with an entity he controls, at above-market rent, is a classic conflict of interest. The duty of loyalty requires that such a transaction be on arm's-length terms and that the conflicted director not control the decision.
Ratification. A shareholders' resolution may ratify a director's conflicted transaction, but ratification is effective only if the vote is taken by disinterested shareholders and the minority is fully informed. Here Alon voted his 70% to ratify his own transaction. Where the controlling shareholder is the beneficiary of the transaction, his vote cannot cure the conflict. The ratification is therefore ineffective as to the conflicted element. The minority's 30% is disinterested and would have voted against.
The 'no loss' argument. The company's need for a warehouse does not justify paying 40% above market to a related party. The measure of loss is the excess rent over market, not the absence of a warehouse. Alon's argument conflates need with price. The company suffered a measurable loss equal to the excess.
Remedies. The lease may be rescinded or reformed to market terms; Alon is liable to the company for the excess rent and for any profits he derived. The court may also order an account. The transaction is voidable at the instance of the company, and the minority may bring a derivative action where the company, controlled by Alon, refuses to sue.
2. Analyze the minority's procedural options and any limitations.
Read the worked answer
The minority has two routes: a derivative action on behalf of the company, or a personal claim if their own rights were infringed.
Derivative action. Where the company is controlled by the wrongdoer and refuses to sue, a shareholder may bring a derivative action. The shareholder must show that the company suffered the loss and that demand on the company would be futile. Here demand was made and refused; futility is established by Alon's control and his ratification vote. The derivative plaintiff must act in good faith and for the company's benefit, and the court supervises the action. Any recovery belongs to the company, not to Bella and Gil personally.
Personal claim. The minority may also argue that the ratification and the related-party transaction oppressed them, supporting a claim for relief against oppression. This is a personal remedy, distinct from the derivative claim, and may include buy-out at a fair price.
Limitations. The derivative plaintiff must meet procedural requirements, including notice and standing, and must not have consented to the transaction. Bella and Gil did not consent. Their six-month delay is not fatal; the limitation period for such claims is longer, and they acted promptly on discovery.
Conclusion. The ratification fails as to the conflicted transaction. Bella and Gil may proceed derivatively for the excess rent and may seek an oppression remedy. Alon's status as majority shareholder does not immunize him from loyalty duties.