Data Portal @ linkeddatafragments.org

Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p Attorney General v Davy (1741) 26 ER 531 is a UK company law case, which establishes this small but essential point of law: the default rule is that a majority of a corporate body can determine what it does.Equivalent rules in contemporary company law are s 168 CA 2006, which allows shareholders to remove directors through a simple majority, Foss v Harbottle which presupposed that a majority of shareholders can always take action to litigate, and the rule in Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter Syndicate Co Ltd v Cuninghame, which raises the requirement to 75% of the shareholders if they are to give instructions to the board.. }

• Attorney_General_v_Davy abstract "Attorney General v Davy (1741) 26 ER 531 is a UK company law case, which establishes this small but essential point of law: the default rule is that a majority of a corporate body can determine what it does.Equivalent rules in contemporary company law are s 168 CA 2006, which allows shareholders to remove directors through a simple majority, Foss v Harbottle which presupposed that a majority of shareholders can always take action to litigate, and the rule in Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter Syndicate Co Ltd v Cuninghame, which raises the requirement to 75% of the shareholders if they are to give instructions to the board.".
• Attorney_General_v_Davy comment "Attorney General v Davy (1741) 26 ER 531 is a UK company law case, which establishes this small but essential point of law: the default rule is that a majority of a corporate body can determine what it does.Equivalent rules in contemporary company law are s 168 CA 2006, which allows shareholders to remove directors through a simple majority, Foss v Harbottle which presupposed that a majority of shareholders can always take action to litigate, and the rule in Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter Syndicate Co Ltd v Cuninghame, which raises the requirement to 75% of the shareholders if they are to give instructions to the board.".