.png)
.png)
Correspondence
Feedback
Correspondence from readers on topical subjects.
Section 660A
There is one particular aspect of Dr Brice's judgment in Jones v Garnett that I find particularly strange.
Correspondence
Feedback
Correspondence from readers on topical subjects.
Section 660A
There is one particular aspect of Dr Brice's judgment in Jones v Garnett that I find particularly strange.
In deciding whether the shares represent solely a right to income or not Dr Brice states 'I would not distinguish preference shares in Young v Pearce from the ordinary shares in this case'. I cannot understand this. Quite clearly in Young v Pearce the preference shares were non-voting shares and were not entitled to any amount on winding up other than the repayment of the amount subscribed for them. The shares in this case were ordinary shares which quite clearly entitled the shareholder to vote at general meetings and in addition to that to have a proportion of the assets of the company on winding up.
Dr Brice...
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
