Losses resulting from expulsion following whistleblowing can be very substantial, and there is no statutory limit on the amount of compensation that can be awarded.
But in some cases the expulsion of the whistleblower may:
- be based (at least on the face of the expulsion documentation) not on the whistleblowing, but on different, lawful grounds, or
- be achieved by way of resolution of the other members under the terms of the LLP deed, under provisions requiring no grounds to be stated.
In such circumstances it may be argued by the continuing LLP members that the chain of causation between the whistleblowing and the whistleblower’s loss brought about by the expulsion of the whistleblower has been broken, and that accordingly no recoverable loss arises.
The Court of Appeal decision earlier this year in Wilsons Solicitors & others v Roberts brings such scenarios sharply back into focus.read more
An LLP member or company shareholder:
- who is in the minority and thus outvoted, and
- whose co-proprietors have misused or misappropriated business assets (including the misdirection of corporate opportunities),
may in some circumstances be able to pursue a claim against his co-proprietors on behalf of the LLP or company (even though the LLP or company is otherwise controlled by the misbehaving majority), in order to seize back the assets and/or to recover compensation for the LLP or company. Furthermore the LLP or company might well be ordered, at the outset of the claim, and throughout the conduct of the claim, to pay most of the member/shareholder’s legal costs incurred in bringing the claim.read more
(This article was first published on the Kluwer Mediation Blog on 7 March 2017)
…the typical all-powerful and largely irreplaceable partner of yore has evolved to become a powerless, placeholder partner, keeping the chair warm for the next incumbent of his post. He is the counterpoint to, and the prey of, the predator partner.
This has radically altered how many partnership disputes, especially in the professions, tend to arise and are resolved.read more
The case of Campbell v Campbell  serves as a prime example of the need for business partners trading through any type of business vehicle to record the precise terms of their business relationship with one another at the outset. It is also a good illustration...read more
I previously reported on the case of Moore v Moore (2016), in which the court ordered, based on proprietary estoppel, that a farmer's son was entitled to take over his father's interest in the family farming partnership, despite the fact that the father wanted to...read more
In the case of Hosking v Marathon Asset Management LLP  EWHC 2418 (Ch) the court had to answer the question, "Whether the share of profits of a partner of a partnership or a member of an LLP, paid out pursuant to and in accordance with a partnership or LLP deed,...read more
"...the father and son fell out, and the father decided to disinherit his son..." A share in a partnership is easy to transfer. It can be transferred by signature of a very short document. It can even be transferred by oral agreement. The assets so transferred can...read more
In Re Newtons Coaches Ltd ( EWHC 3068 (Ch), 29 November 2016) useful guidance has been given by Mr Registrar Jones in the Companies Court as to whether partners of an insolvent partnership may reuse its name in a subsequent business. Being involved in management...read more
"This risks being a cutting off nose to spite face moment" The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement on 23 November 2016 brought unwelcome news for anyone trading through a partnership or LLP, and especially for professional firms. Profit-sharing His statement to the effect,...read more
...Disclosure is necessary for the fair disposal of the claim to save costs... In Destiny Investments (1993) Ltd v TH Holdings Ltd shareholders in a joint venture company have been granted an order requiring auditors to disclose documents to enable a valuation to be...read more