diy litigation for frozen out dharholder

[nemisis4u]

hi legal eagles
as stated b4 im a 31% sharholder of a auction house in north london
an impass as been going on for many years
A. me being pig headed and B. them not willing to pay a percentage estimated vallue of the company.
the company his the bedrock of the other directors/sharholders income and pension plan.
so its quite a good on going concern.
recently i found out that the 2x10% directors / sharholders have given loans to the major director /sharholder(49%)
i requested an egm.so far stoned wall
april last year i requested an independent audit only to be informed that this will be undertaken by the company accountants .
which is illegal
im a great believer in the maxim that if you give someone enough rope etc etc.
enhence the ultimate question
can someone in my position take litigation against the company myself.
an if so where would i look go to save pit falling for advice?????
regards

[obscure]

can someone in my position take litigation against the company myself.
Are you asking "can I sue the company/take action in court" or are you asking "can I act as my own council in a legal case"?
The answer to the first one is "yes". The answer to the second an unequivocal "no" - If you had sufficient expertise in the law to represent yourself then you wouldn't need to ask the question.

The sort of legal dispute you are having is complex and the cost of making a mistake could be huge. You need a good corporate law expert. Saving money by not getting one will cost you far more in the long run.

[nemisis4u]

thanks for you reply
i did mean can i represent myself
and im still unsure about this.
if i can or can not
i do know that the courts dont like this to happen
the reason this as come about was with the heather macartney case. where she seems to suggest otherwise and she ditched her own expensive council and then represented herself.
also it dosnt seem to difficult to represent yourself as being an unfairly predjudiced sharholder if that fact is the case.and self evident.
the only dispute would be the amount of the share value.
also if you could represent yourself you would not have the worry of expensive lawyers which would put pressure on the other side to settle.quickly.
you can represent your self in a criminale case.
so what are the reasons for not being able to in a legal one.
i agree iv no legal education but legal advice dosnt mean you will win the case even when the legal expert says you have got a good one
so where in law does it say you cant represent yourself.
and for what reason.
and fool hardy as it may seem cant this precedent be set.
cheers

[PI Guy]

Are you asking "can I sue the company/take action in court" or are you asking "can I act as my own council in a legal case"?
The answer to the first one is "yes". The answer to the second an unequivocal "no" - If you had sufficient expertise in the law to represent yourself then you wouldn't need to ask the question.

The sort of legal dispute you are having is complex and the cost of making a mistake could be huge. You need a good corporate law expert. Saving money by not getting one will cost you far more in the long run.I think that you can represent yourself but it's probably not a good idea

[obscure]

....also it dosnt seem to difficult to represent yourself as being an unfairly predjudiced sharholder if that fact is the case.and self evident. Nothing is self evident in a court case and the fact that even think that a court will simply take your side is proof you don't know what your doing. You have to prove your case and you have to refute the opposing council's case - how will you refute their case when you won't even understand the meaning of the legal terms they use?

the only dispute would be the amount of the share value. Of course it won't. The opposing council will drum up all sorts of other disputes and again you will have to disprove them. Again, the fact that you believe this to be a simple "self evident" case clearly demonstrates that you don't know enough to represent yourself.

i agree iv no legal education but legal advice dosnt mean you will win the case even when the legal expert says you have got a good one Sorry but this point is silly. You are basically saying "Expert lawyers aren't guaranteed to win so I will have a lawyer who knows nothing about the law" - If an expert can't guarantee a win then you have many many times less chance of winning.

so where in law does it say you cant represent yourself and for what reason.
The law doesn't say you can't represent yourself... it is just very stupid to do so for the reasons mentioned above.

Have you read the memorandum and articles of association that form the basis of the business. Do you understand them fully? Do you understand a shareholders legal rights, the rights and responsibilities of a Director and employment law and can you really argue these with an experienced corporate lawyer?

I am not a lawyers but I have spent 20 years negotiating million dollar intellectual property contracts and during that time I have worked with many of the top IP lawyers in the UK. I know an awful lot about copyright, trademarks and other IP related issues and can read an understand complex contracts and the single most important thing I have learned is that I would and could never go into court and represent myself/a client against an experienced IP lawyer.

[nemisis4u]

hi
forgive me but i thought you said in your originale thread that" unequivically you cant represent yourself.
are you saying now you can

[Antonia @limeone.com]

You can represent yourself providing the court ( the judge hearing the case) is prepared to allow you to. The court will make a decision very early on as to whether someone is capable of progressing the case and if you cannot then the case will be stayed. It's as simple as that.

You can learn how to conduct your own legal case but you also need to be aware of the risks involved and if you get the process wrong can get costs awarded against you. The whole system beyond the small claims court is geared to legal representation, the rules alone will take you weeks to read nevermind learn and apply.

You could try talking to us about mediation or the Dispute resolver who is also on here as an alternative to litigation.

[obscure]

hi
forgive me but i thought you said in your originale thread that" unequivically you cant represent yourself.
are you saying now you can
I can see I didn't phrase my answer correctly. You are legally allowed to represent yourself - its just not a smart thing to do in a complex case.

[nemisis4u]

good morning
thanks to obscure and antonia
and all the others who replied to my thread
for there time and trouble
one thing about this forum is not only do you get other opionions
but quite often alternative avenues to persue
which can only be good and perhaps invaluable
thanks again
nemisis4u

[beenthruthemill]

There is a saying which seems apposite - a man who represents himself, has a fool for a client - enuf said

[The Dispute Resolver]

I assume you want to be bought out. You can force your shares to be bought at a valuation decided on expert evidence by the court but you have to prove some situation such as a "fraud” on your minority shares. Not “fraud” in the criminal sense but a technical phrase in company governance meaning that the majority shares have been used for voting purposes in an excessive way. Impossible to identify without extensive investigation of events but the sort of case covered is where decisions are made that are more to do with the personal interests of the majority rather than the best interests of the company, such as reducing the profits of company A by requiring it to sub-contract unnecessarily with a new company B formed by the majority shareholders of A. As everyone has said you do need to sit down with a solicitor. It would be crazy to issue such proceedings without expert legal advice and a full investigation of events.


You do seem to have some strengths in your position. You have 31% which means two things




No special resolution, such as is required to wind up the company or to increase the share capital (sometimes required to enable a new investment into the company) can be made without your consent (because they need 75% to pass such resolutions and they only have 69%) .
With the support of the two 10% shareholders/directors (investors) you can gain the resolutions you require.



As to 2, I don't know who your beef is with but I presume it is primarily with the 49% shareholder and, AT PRESENT, the two 10%'ers support him/her. This is a matter for negotiation. Nobody wins in this sort of case because ultimately money is drained out to pay two or even three sets of lawyers and massive time is wasted and strain on all concerned. The company will suffer.


You must offer mediation before you begin legal proceedings. Firstly its a classic multi-person/multi-interest situation which a mediator can really help with. No judge is interested, or empowered, to 'do deals' but with shareholder disputes there are so many potential ways to solve the problem. If they refuse, this improves your hand straight away because it puts them at risk of being ordered to pay the legal costs of the case, whether or not you win, as a punishment for refusing mediation. If you wanted me to act as mediator, I would be able to make that approach to the other parties at no cost to yourself if they refuse. Mediation cost can be kept very low especially if undertaken as a facility to test out potential solutions before litigation and ,of course, if most of the discussions can be undertaken online as with using our software at www.TheMediationRoom.com.