• 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.

M&A Diligence: amendments to drag rights in articles immediately before sale did not constitute unfair prejudice

In Arbuthnott v Bonnyman and Others [2015] EWCA Civ 536 Geoffrey Arbuthnott (“A”), a former director of, and shareholder in, Charterhouse Capital Limited (the “Company”) sought to challenge amendments to the Company’s articles on the grounds of unfair prejudice under s.994 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”).

Drag provisions in the Company’s articles provided that:

  • where a buyer acquired more than 50% of the voting rights in the Company’s shares as a result of a general offer, the buyer could require any shareholders that had not accepted the general offer to sell their shares at the same price as the general offer;
  • a general offer was defined as an offer to all members to purchase their shares by a person proposing to acquire a controlling interest (i.e. 50%) in the Company, such offer to be approved by a founder majority;
  • a general offer was to conform to the requirements of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the “Code”); and
  • if a founder majority transferred or agreed to transfer their shares, they could determine that the drag provisions applied to all members.

The shareholders’ agreement relating to the Company (“SHA”) also provided that if a founder majority agreed to pursue an exit, each shareholder would agree to sell their shares on the same terms offered to the others, and also that the SHA was to prevail over the articles.

Certain executives of the Company became concerned about the misalignment between the shareholders and active executives, on the basis that they thought it would make it difficult for the Company to raise funds from investors. In 2011, a proposal emerged for the sale of the Company’s shares to the executives in the investment team who intended to continue in the business after the sale (the “Buyers”). An offer was made to all of the shareholders by WSL, an entity newly incorporated by the Buyers for the purposes of the transaction, for a purchase of their shares for £15.15 million. The offer was conditional on, amongst other things, amended articles being adopted in the form circulated with the offer.  The key amendments to the articles were:

  • the removal of a reference to a general offer complying with the Code;
  • the introduction of a new majority drag provision, allowing a buyer who had purchased 50% or more of the voting rights in the Company’s shares (where such purchase had been approved by a founder majority) to require any non-participating shareholders to sell their shares to the buyer; and
  • an amendment to the definition of founder majority.

The proposed amendments were approved by a written resolution, signed by all shareholders in the Company except A.  The sale of the shares to WSL was approved by a founder majority (as required under the amended articles) on 16 December 2011 and by a majority of the non-continuing shareholders at a meeting on 30 January 2012. A refused to approve the acquisition, on the basis that he thought the Company was worth substantially more than the offer price. Nevertheless, the transfer of all of the shares in the Company to WSL, except the shares held by A, took place on the terms of the WSL offer on 6 February 2012.

A presented a petition for unfair prejudice under s.994 of the Act on the basis that (amongst other things) the WSL offer, the amendments to the articles and the manner in which the WSL offer, were carried out improperly in order to obtain A’s shares at a gross undervalue rather than for any genuine corporate purpose.

The High Court rejected A’s claim, finding that:

  • there was no evidence of bad faith or improper motive by any of the directors/shareholders;
  • compulsory transfer provisions existed in the articles before they were amended and formed part of the original bargain between the parties (as reflected in the SHA) - as such, the amendments were merely a tidying up exercise;
  • there were reasonable grounds for the shareholders to believe that they were acting in the best interests of the Company – the misalignment between the shareholders and the investment executives needed to be rectified to secure the long-term stability of the Company;
  • there was no evidence to suggest that there was any realistic prospect either of a third party purchaser or the need or business efficacy of a substantial cash injection from a third party or present investor in return for a minority stake in the Company; and
  • therefore, it was in the best interests of a hypothetical member to vote in favour of the resolutions to amend the articles and facilitate a sale, so as to provide a permanent solution to the alignment issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed A’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.  The Court rejected A’s assertion that the original agreement between the founders, as reflected in the articles and the SHA, only contemplated that the drag provisions would operate where the majority shareholders were selling their shares to an unconnected third party.  On the contrary, the SHA and the original articles expressly contemplated a sale in which a founder was a proposed purchaser or was connected with a third party purchaser.

Turning to A’s argument that the amendments to the articles were invalid on the basis that they facilitated, and were specifically directed at, the expropriation of his shares, the Court set out the following principles:

  • an alteration to a company’s articles, even if passed by a requisite majority of shareholders, may be invalid in certain circumstances;
  • the limitations on the exercise of the power to amend articles arises because, in the case of all powers, the manner of their exercise is constrained by the purpose of the power and because the framers of the power of a majority to bind a minority will not, in the absence of clear words, have intended the power to be without limitation;
  • a power to amend the articles will be validly exercised if exercised in good faith in the interests of the company;
  • it is for the shareholders (and not the court) to say whether an alteration to the articles is for the benefit of the company, but it will not be for the benefit of the company if no reasonable person would consider it to be such;
  • the view of the shareholders, acting in good faith that a proposed amendment is for the benefit of the company (and which cannot be said to be a view that no reasonable person could hold) is not impugned by the fact that one or more shareholders were acting under some mistake of fact or lack of knowledge or understanding;
  • the mere fact that an amendment adversely affects (even if intended to do so) some minority shareholder(s) and benefits others does not of itself invalidate the amendment if it was made in good faith in the interests of the company;
  • a power to amend will be also be validly exercised, where the company has no interest in the matter and it is exercised for the benefit of the shareholders or some of them, provided that the amendment does not amount to oppression of the minority, is otherwise unjust or is outside the scope of the power; and
  • the burden is on the person impugning the validity of the amendment to the articles to satisfy the court that there are grounds for doing so.

In relation to A’s challenge to the amendments to the articles, the Court applied the above principles to the facts of the case. The Court agreed with the High Court that there was no evidence of bad faith or improper motive in the exercise of the power to amend the articles by the shareholders of the Company. The amendments were, as the High Court had found, merely a tidying up of the drag along provisions to make the articles clearer and more consistent (which benefited the company as well as the shareholders).

In addition, the Court agreed that the respondent shareholders had considered that they were acting in the best interests the Company as a whole, because they were concerned to resolve the alignment issue to secure the Company’s future. It was for A to show that no reasonable person would have thought that the amendments to the articles were in the Company’s best interests, and A had not demonstrated that. The Court also rejected A’s other arguments of unfair prejudice.


This decision gives some comfort to majority shareholders who seek to amend drag along provisions in the articles immediately before sale of the company. The Court of Appeal made it clear that a minority shareholder who seeks to challenge such amendments has a high bar to meet.  

However, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal placed much emphasis on the fact that there were drag along provisions in the original agreement between the parties. It remains unclear whether drag along provisions introduced for the first time immediately before a sale would be more open to challenge. A court faced with this situation is likely to apply the same principles as set out above. However, the outcome of such a case is more difficult to predict, and would depend on the specific facts of the case. Therefore, caution is advised before introducing drag, or equivalent, provisions, in a company’s articles (or shareholders’ agreement) ahead of a sale.

For more information, please contact Adam Kuan, corporate associate.