What's needed here

Is a proper bit of 19th Century Chancery jurisprudence:
Menier v Hooper's Telegraph Works, (1873-74) L.R. 9 Ch. App. 350, Lord Justice James:

"Hooper's Company have obtained certain advantages by dealing with something which was the property of the whole company. The minority of the shareholders say in effect that the majority has divided the assets of the company, more or less, between themselves, to the exclusion of the minority. I think it would be a shocking thing if that could be done, because if so the majority might divide the whole assets of the company, and pass a resolution that everything must be given to them, and that the minority should have nothing to do with it. Assuming the case to be as alleged by the bill, then the majority have put something into their pockets at the expense of the minority. If so, it appears to me that the minority have a right to have their share of the benefits ascertained for them in the best way in which the Court can do it, and given to them."

There's nothing new under the sun. Well, not when comes to this sort of thing.

Posted By: paulg, May 5, 10:45:25