Close companies are the majority constituency in the corporate population across the globe. Yet little attempt has been made by corporate law systems explicitly to legislate for them. This is particularly so in the United Kingdom, where the courts have assumed the role of providing a customized corporate law regime for such entities. The Duomatic principle of unanimous assent, which is used to whitewash procedural irregularity, is the paradigm in this respect. This article reviews judicial attitudes in the common law world in this regard and evaluates the pros and cons of converting a globally recognized common law principle into a statutory statement of the law. It also considers the wider merits/demerits of a discrete regulatory framework for close companies and private companies in general.
BeuthinRC (1974) The principle of unanimous assent. South African Law Journal91(1): 2–18.
2.
BurtonA (2000) Dispensing with forms: The Duomatic principle. The Company Lawyer21(6): 186–188.
3.
CabrelliD (2001) BDG Roof Bond Ltd v Douglas: Further observations on the application of Re Duomatic relief. The Company Lawyer22(5): 130–133.
4.
CheffinsBR (1989) US Close Corporation Legislation: A model Canada should not follow. McGill Law Journal35(1): 160–195.
5.
CheungR (2008) The use of statutory unanimous shareholder agreements and entrenched articles in reserving minority shareholders’ rights: A comparative analysis. The Company Lawyer29(8): 234–241.
6.
CheungR (2012) Shareholder agreements—shareholders’ contractual freedom in company law. Journal of Business Law (6): 504–530.
7.
CollierJG (1970) Companies: Power to remove director by ordinary resolution. Cambridge Law Journal28(1): 41–42.
8.
CottamDWLongTNMeierSW. (2011) The 2010 Wyoming LLC Act: A uniform recipe with Wyoming home cooking. Wyoming Law Review11(1): 49–97.
9.
DineJ (1998) The comprehensive review of company law: The consultative document. The Company Lawyer19(3): 82–85.
10.
EllisJ (2011) Unanimous consent of shareholders: A principle without form?. The Company Lawyer32(9): 260–266.
11.
Farrar’s Company Law (1998) 4th ed. In: FarrarJHHanniganBM, London: Butterworths, p.47.
12.
FarringtonM (2007) A closely-held Companies Act for New Zealand. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review38(3): 543–581.
13.
FlanniganR (2014) Shareholder fiduciary accountability. Journal of Business Law (1): 1–30.
14.
FreedmanJ (1994) Small business and the corporate form: Burden or privilege?. Modern Law Review57(4): 555–584.
15.
FreedmanJ (2000) Limited liability: Large company theory and small firms. Modern Law Review63(3): 317–354.
16.
GoddardR (2004) The Duomatic principle and sections 320–322 of the Companies Act. Journal of Business LawJanuary: 121–129.
17.
GowerLCB (1956) Some contrasts between British and American corporate law. Harvard Law Review69(8): 1369–1402.
18.
GranthamR (1993) The unanimous rule in company law. Cambridge Law Journal52(2): 245–271.
19.
HanniganB (2007) Altering the articles to allow for compulsory transfer: Dragging minority shareholders to a reluctant exit. Journal of Business LawAugust: 471–501.
20.
HenningJJ (1999) The Five-Act approach to entrepreneurial law reform in South Africa. International and Comparative Corporate Law Journal1(1): 63–90.
21.
HarrisR (2013) The private origins of the private company: Britain 1862–1907. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies33(2): 339–378.
22.
HenningJJ (2016) Close corporations and close companies under the South Africa Companies Act of 2008. The Company Lawyer37(2): 62–68.
23.
HicksA (1995) Reforming the law of private companies. The Company Lawyer16(6): 171–177.
24.
IrelandP (2003) Property and contract in contemporary corporate theory. Legal Studies23(3): 453–509.
25.
Kahn-FreundO (1944) Some reflections on company law reform. Modern Law Review7(1/2): 54–66.
26.
KershawD (2009) Company Law in Context: Text and Materials. Oxford: OUP.
27.
KosminLRobertsC (2013) Company Meetings and Resolutions: Law, Practice and Procedure. Oxford: OUP.
28.
KulmsRA (2001) Shareholder’s freedom of contract in close corporations—shareholder agreements in the USA and Germany. European Business Organisations Law Review2(3/4): 685–701.
29.
LimE (2014) Of landmark or leading cases: Salomon’s challenge. Law and Society41(4): 523–550.
30.
McCaheryJAVermeulenEPM (2010) Corporate Governance of Non-Listed Companies. Oxford: OUP.
31.
MilmanD (2013) Governance of Distressed Firms. Cheltenham: Elgar.
32.
MorseGK (1971) Formality in company affairs. New Law Journal121: 379–380.
33.
ProcacciaU (1987) Designing a new corporate code for Israel. American Journal of Comparative Law35(3): 589.
34.
PrenticeD (1983) The closely-held company and minority oppression. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies3(3): 417–425.
35.
PrimeT (1999) Structuring the Law of Private Companies. In:MilmanD (ed.) Regulating Enterprise, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 41–68.
36.
ReisbergA (2010) Corporate Law in the UK after recent reforms: The good, the bad and the ugly. Current Legal Problems63: 315–374.
37.
RiderB (1979) Partnership law and its impact on domestic companies. Cambridge Law Journal38(1): 148–171.
38.
SchmitthoffC (1970) House of Lords sanctions evasion of the Companies Acts. Journal of Business Law1970: 1–2.
39.
SealyLWorthingtonS (2008) Cases and Materials in Company Law, 8th ed. Oxford: OUP.
40.
SpistoMSamujhH (2001) Close corporations in South Africa: A viable option for New Zealand small business corporate law?Waikato Law Review9(1): 153–186.
41.
TurnerRJ (2017) Rewriting the laws of company law and equity: A case comment. The Company Lawyer38(7): 219–224.
42.
WolfRC (2014) The Law and Practice of Shareholders’ Agreements in National and International Joint Ventures: Common and Civil Law Uses. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
