CLOSE SEARCH
We acted for a personal representative seeking to recover the value of shares held by her late husband in a private company. The surviving director refused to transfer the shares and instead appropriated them. We navigated complex company law and valuation issues, leveraging legal pressure and strategic negotiation to secure a favourable financial settlement based on an enhanced company valuation.
Our client was appointed as the personal representative of her late husband, Mr A, following a High Court order. At the time of his death, Mr A owned 50% of the shares (500 out of 1,000) in a private company, alongside the other shareholder and director, Ms B.
After Mr A’s death:
Our client sought either transfer of the shares into her name or entitlement to profits.
Instead, Ms B transferred Mr A’s shares to herself, becoming the sole shareholder.
Our client objected and sought compensation for the value of the shares now vested in her as personal representative.
This matter raised several key legal and strategic issues:
Transmission of Shares on Death - Under the Companies Act 2006, shares pass automatically to a personal representative upon death. This is not a transfer requiring director approval.
Directors’ Discretion to Refuse Registration - The company’s Articles allowed Ms B to refuse to register our client as shareholder. While this discretion is broad, it is not without consequence.
Right to Value if Registration Refused - Where registration is refused, the director must offer fair value for the shares. Ms B accepted this principle, shifting the dispute to valuation.
Valuation Date Dispute - The central issue became whether the shares should be valued at the date of death (as argued by Ms B), or at the current date, reflecting significant improvement in the company’s performance (as argued by our client).
We adopted a multifaceted approach, combining robust legal analysis with targeted commercial pressure to maximise our client’s negotiating position.
Clear assertion of entitlement - we firmly asserted our client’s legal and beneficial entitlement to the shares, or alternatively to their full market value. This established a strong baseline position and signalled our readiness to pursue formal remedies if required.
Challenge to historic valuation - challenged the fairness of a historic valuation given the delay and conduct of Ms B. We emphasised that any valuation mechanism must reflect current realities and not unfairly prejudice our client due to circumstances outside their control.
Leveraging litigation risk - used the prospect of court-determined valuation (potentially more favourable to our client) as leverage in negotiations. This introduced a credible litigation risk for Ms B, including the possibility of a higher court-determined valuation, increased costs exposure, and loss of control over the outcome. This risk was used strategically to encourage meaningful engagement and movement in settlement discussions.
Commercial pressure and resolution focus - alongside the legal arguments, we maintained consistent commercial pressure by demonstrating both preparedness to litigate and willingness to resolve matters pragmatically. This balanced approach positioned our client as reasonable but resolute, increasing the likelihood of achieving a favourable negotiated outcome.
Through a sustained programme of pre-action correspondence and carefully managed negotiations, we were able to deliver a commercially favourable outcome for our client without the need to commence formal proceedings. We secured Ms B’s agreement to compensate our client for the shares.
Crucially, we leveraged the argument for a current (enhanced) valuation, reflecting the company’s improved financial position.
As a direct result, the final settlement reflected a substantial uplift on the position initially advanced by Ms B. This resulted in a significantly improved settlement for our client without the need for litigation.
Personal representatives have strong rights over shares upon death, even where directors resist registration.
Directors exercising discretion must act fairly and be prepared to provide value.
Valuation disputes can be outcome-determinative, and powerful negotiating tools when used strategically.
Early, well-structured legal pressure can achieve excellent commercial results without court proceedings.
Get in touch
If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact us on:
