• At Kemp Little, we are known for our ability to serve the very particular needs of a large but diverse technology client base. Our hands-on industry know-how makes us a good fit with many of the world's biggest technology and digital media businesses, yet means we are equally relevant to companies with a technology bias, in sectors such as professional services, financial services, retail, travel and healthcare.
  • Kemp Little specialises in the technology and digital media sectors and provides a range of legal services that are crucial to fast-moving, innovative businesses.Our blend of sector awareness, technical excellence and responsiveness, means we are regularly ranked as a leading firm by directories such as Legal 500, Chambers and PLC Which Lawyer. Our practice areas cover a wide range of legal issues and advice.
  • Our Commercial Technology team has established itself as one of the strongest in the UK. We are ranked in Legal 500, Chambers & Partners and PLC Which Lawyer, with four of our partners recommended.
  • Our team provides practical and commercial advice founded on years of experience and technical know-how to technology and digital media companies that need to be alert to the rules and regulations of competition law.
  • Our Corporate Practice has a reputation for delivering sound legal advice, backed up with extensive industry experience and credentials, to get the best results from technology and digital media transactions.
  • In the fast-changing world of employment law our clients need practical, commercial and cost-effective advice. They get this from our team of employment law professionals.
  • Our team of leading IP advisors deliver cost-effective, strategic and commercial advice to ensure that your IP assets are protected and leveraged to add real value to your business.
  • Our litigation practice advises on all aspects of dispute resolution, with a particular focus on ownership, exploitation and infringement of intellectual property rights and commercial disputes in the technology sector.
  • We have an industry-leading reputation for our outsourcing expertise. Our professionals deliver credible legal advice to providers and acquirers of IT and business process outsourcing (BPO) services.
  • We work alongside companies, many with disruptive technologies, that seek funding, as well as with the venture capital firms, institutional investors and corporate ventures that want to invest in exciting business opportunities.
  • Our regulatory specialists work alongside Kemp Little’s corporate and commercial professionals to help meet their compliance obligations.
  • With a service that is commercial and responsive to our clients’ needs, you will find our tax advice easy to understand, cost-effective and geared towards maximising your tax benefits.
  • At Kemp Little, we advise clients in diverse sectors where technology is fundamental to the ongoing success of their businesses.They include companies that provide technology as a service and businesses where the use of technology is key to their business model, enabling them to bring their product or service to market.
  • We bring our commercial understanding of digital business models, our legal expertise and our reputation for delivering high quality, cost-effective services to this dynamic sector.
  • Acting for market leaders and market changers within the media industry, we combine in-depth knowledge of the structural technology that underpins content delivery and the impact of digitisation on the rights of producers and consumers.
  • We understand the risks facing this sector and work with our clients to conquer those challenges. Testimony to our success is the continued growth in our team of professionals and the clients we serve.
  • We advise at the forefront of the technological intersection between life sciences and healthcare. We advise leading technology and data analytics providers, healthcare institutions as well as manufacturers of medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnological products.
  • For clients operating in the online sector, our teams are structured to meet their commercial, financing, M&A, competition and regulatory, employment and intellectual property legal needs.
  • Our focus on technology makes us especially well positioned to give advice on the legal aspects of digital marketing. We advise on high-profile, multi-channel, cross-border cases and on highly complex campaigns.
  • The mobile and telecoms sector is fast changing and hugely dependent on technology advances. We help mobile and wireless and fixed telecoms clients to tackle the legal challenges that this evolving sector presents.
  • Whether ERP, Linux or Windows; software or infrastructure as a service in the cloud, in a virtualised environment, or as a mobile or service-oriented architecture, we have the experience to resolve legal issues across the spectrum of commercial computer platforms.
  • Our clients trust us to apply our solutions and know-how to help them make the best use of technology in structuring deals, mitigating key risks to their businesses and in achieving their commercial objectives.
  • We have extensive experience of advising customers and suppliers in the retail sector on technology development, licensing and supply projects, and in advising on all aspects of procurement and online operations.
  • Our legal professionals work alongside social media providers and users in relation to the commercial, privacy, data, advertising, intellectual property, employment and corporate issues that arise in this dynamic sector.
  • Our years of working alongside diverse software clients have given us an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of the software marketplace, market practice and alternative negotiating strategies.
  • Working with direct providers of travel services, including aggregators, facilitators and suppliers of transport and technology, our team has developed a unique specialist knowledge of the sector
  • Your life as an entrepreneur is full of daily challenges as you seek to grow your business. One of the key strengths of our firm is that we understand these challenges.
  • Kemp Little is trusted by some of the world’s leading luxury brands and some of the most innovative e-commerce retailers changing the face of the industry.
  • HR Bytes is an exclusive, comprehensive, online service that will provide you with a wide range of practical, insightful and current employment law information. HR Bytes members get priority booking for events, key insight and a range of employment materials for free.
  • FlightDeck is our portal designed especially with start-up and emerging technology businesses in mind to help you get your business up and running in the right way. We provide a free pack of all the things no-one tells you and things they don’t give away to get you started.

Enforcement of drag-along provisions

In a recent case (Cunningham v. Resourceful Land Ltd and others [2018] EWHC 1185 (Ch)), the Chancery Division of the High Court upheld the application of drag along provisions in a shareholders’ agreement and held that the transfer of the claimant’s shares in accordance with such provisions had been valid. This article will consider key aspects of the decision and identify relevant take-away points.

The court case

The claimant was party to a shareholders’ agreement (SHA) relating to Resourceful Land Ltd (RLL) together with four other shareholders. RLL was incorporated with the purpose of holding the land on which an anaerobic digestion plant would be operated. The operations of the plant itself were to be undertaken by another company, Resourceful Earth Limited (REL). REL, which had obtained finance for the project from Privilege Project Finance Limited (Privilege), began to run out of money in March 2017. Some of the directors of REL requested further funding from Privilege, without which the project could not complete. Privilege agreed to provide additional monies, but on the basis it would receive an equity stake in the project. It was proposed that Privilege incorporate a new company, Wortside Limited (Wortside), which would purchase all the existing shares in RLL from its shareholders in exchange for newly-issued shares in Wortside. Three of the shareholders (Syndicate Shareholders) supported the transaction proposed by Privilege, but the remaining two shareholders did not.

The SHA contained drag along provisions in clause 8 which stipulated that where the Syndicate Shareholders wished to transfer their shares in RLL to a “bona fide arm’s length purchaser” the Syndicate Shareholders had the option to require all the other shareholders to “sell and transfer” all their shares on the same terms to the third-party purchaser. Clause 8.6 provided that if the dragged shareholders failed to execute transfers of their shares then, upon the company receiving the purchase monies “or any other consideration” payable for the shares, the Syndicate Shareholders were permitted to execute the transfers on their behalf.

The Syndicate Shareholders entered into a sale and purchase agreement, selling all their shares in RLL to Wortside, following which they served a drag along notice on the remaining two shareholders. The transfer of the shares held by the two remaining shareholders was completed pursuant to the provisions of clause 8 of the SHA. The claimant challenged the transaction by bringing a claim to rectify the register of members, seeking to replace Wortside’s name with his in respect the relevant shares, on the basis that:

  • the word “sale” in clause 8 of the SHA was only intended to cover a sale of shares for cash and not shares, and therefore the drag along provisions had not been applicable to the transaction;
  • the transaction had not been bona fide or undertaken in good faith, as it arose as a condition of further funding, the Syndicate Shareholders received a collateral benefit and it had been undertaken in “great haste” and was intended to take advantage of RLL; and
  • the transaction was not on arms’ length terms, as the shareholders of RLL obtained an interest in Wortside (the purchaser).

The High Court dismissed the claimant’s claim and upheld the application of the drag-along provisions. The Court reasoned as follows:

  • clause 8 was not to be interpreted as only applying to a sale of shares for cash. In particular, the words “or any other consideration” were deliberately wide and permitted a non-cash transfer;
  • Privilege had not acted in bad faith and was a bona fide purchaser as required under the SHA. Privilege had agreed to treat all the shareholders (including the dragged shareholders) on an equal basis. There was no evidence of a side deal or special inducement for the Syndicate Shareholders. There was also no evidence that Privilege had, or had intended to, take advantage of the RLL Shareholders; and
  • clause 8 required an arm’s length purchaser at the time the sale was agreed and not at or following completion. There was no prior relationship between the Syndicate Shareholders and Privilege, other than a commercial relationship between Privilege and REL. Wortside only obtained an interest in RLL as a result of the transaction and, prior to that, had no interest in or connection with RLL.

Key take-away points

There are relatively few cases on the enforceability of drag along provisions. Therefore, the decision of the High Court is encouraging for shareholders who seek to rely on drag along provisions in shareholders’ agreements or articles of association. The Court adopted a pragmatic, commercial interpretation of the drag along provisions in order to facilitate a transaction that was obviously in the best interests of the company and its shareholders as a whole. Nevertheless, there are some learning points for parties/lawyers seeking to draft, negotiate or rely on drag along provisions:

  • Courts called upon to enforce drag along provisions will, in the first instance, seek to interpret the provisions by reference to what a reasonable person with relevant background knowledge would have understood the language to mean. Therefore, it is important for the language to be as clear as possible on what is permissible under the provisions. For example, it should be clear whether a dragged shareholder can be paid in non-cash consideration. Other common consideration structures, such as deferred consideration, loan-notes, earn-out and escrows should also be expressly permitted (if that is the intention of the parties);
  • where relying on drag along provisions, it is important to review the provisions carefully to ensure compliance. Any Court called upon to assess whether the process in the provisions has been followed correctly is likely to scrutinise the conduct of the dragging shareholders closely; and
  • in addition to compliance with the wording of the relevant provisions, equitable and fair treatment of all shareholders (including the dragged shareholders) is always likely to be a key consideration of any Court (although it is acknowledged in this case the Court considered these matters on the basis of the wording in the SHA). Nevertheless, a transaction in which all shareholders are treated equally, and which is in the best interests of the Company and the shareholders as a whole, is likely to be less vulnerable to subsequent challenge.

Contact our experts for further advice

View profile for Adam KuanAdam Kuan