Herald case

In Karl v. Herald case, the court held defined “oppressive conduct” as “any unfair or fraudulent act by a majority shareholder that inures to the benefit of the majority and to the detriment of the minority.” This definition is what held the case. The definition provided by the court will be used to determine whether the majority shareholder’s claim that the client’s dividend is her job constitutes an action that was unfair or fraudulent and would benefit the majority shareholder and would be detrimental to the minority. Example 3: Client and Don are partners in a business. Don owns 70 percent of the partnership and Client owns 30 percent. Client does not work for the business. Don runs the business and pays himself a large salary that always seems to equal the profits. Client thinks this is fishy and believes Don should have a set salary, and the profit above Don’s salary should be shared 70/30. There is no partnership case law in the jurisdiction addressing this question. The case in example 3 is not on point with the Karl v. Herald case. Step 1 There are some similarities in both cases, but they are sufficiently similar. Both cases involve small businesses in which one person is in control of the business, and the person with the most control of the business benefits from the business and the other person does not. But the differences out way the similarities, in this case the parties are partners in a business, and in the Karl v. herald case it was a corporation. Step ...

Sonia and Rahul Gandhi hold 76 per cent of the shares in Young Indian, which acquired the AJL. If Netflix documented the National Herald case, it would run to 12 seasons of 20 episodes each. The action-packed series would span almost a century, beginning in the era of India’s freedom struggle and traversing through high courts and the Supreme Court, and various government offices including that of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). It would have a parallel track covering a media trial, and a social media trial, of the protagonists, the Gandhis. On terra firma, the ED, probing allegations of money laundering against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, has completed its interrogation of the latter. Rahul faced five days of quizzing of around 11 hours each. Sonia, down with COVID earlier this month, is likely to be interrogated in mid-July. The Congress describes the ED probe as vendetta politics. The ruling BJP believes this is a crackdown on ‘corruption’ and accuses the Gandhis of trying to pressurise the investigating agencies and prevent them from doing their job. Watch: The Federal News Sense Episode 3 | National Herald under 30 mins In February 2016, the Supreme Court had directed the Gandhis to face criminal proceedings in the case, but exempted them from personal appearances. The court also expunged the Delhi High Court’s remarks that prematurely pinned criminal intent on the Gandhis. While facing the charges in the law courts, Sonia and Rahul are simultane...

Sonia and Rahul Gandhi hold 76 per cent of the shares in Young Indian, which acquired the AJL. If Netflix documented the National Herald case, it would run to 12 seasons of 20 episodes each. The action-packed series would span almost a century, beginning in the era of India’s freedom struggle and traversing through high courts and the Supreme Court, and various government offices including that of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). It would have a parallel track covering a media trial, and a social media trial, of the protagonists, the Gandhis. On terra firma, the ED, probing allegations of money laundering against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, has completed its interrogation of the latter. Rahul faced five days of quizzing of around 11 hours each. Sonia, down with COVID earlier this month, is likely to be interrogated in mid-July. The Congress describes the ED probe as vendetta politics. The ruling BJP believes this is a crackdown on ‘corruption’ and accuses the Gandhis of trying to pressurise the investigating agencies and prevent them from doing their job. Watch: The Federal News Sense Episode 3 | National Herald under 30 mins In February 2016, the Supreme Court had directed the Gandhis to face criminal proceedings in the case, but exempted them from personal appearances. The court also expunged the Delhi High Court’s remarks that prematurely pinned criminal intent on the Gandhis. While facing the charges in the law courts, Sonia and Rahul are simultane...

In Karl v. Herald case, the court held defined “oppressive conduct” as “any unfair or fraudulent act by a majority shareholder that inures to the benefit of the majority and to the detriment of the minority.” This definition is what held the case. The definition provided by the court will be used to determine whether the majority shareholder’s claim that the client’s dividend is her job constitutes an action that was unfair or fraudulent and would benefit the majority shareholder and would be detrimental to the minority. Example 3: Client and Don are partners in a business. Don owns 70 percent of the partnership and Client owns 30 percent. Client does not work for the business. Don runs the business and pays himself a large salary that always seems to equal the profits. Client thinks this is fishy and believes Don should have a set salary, and the profit above Don’s salary should be shared 70/30. There is no partnership case law in the jurisdiction addressing this question. The case in example 3 is not on point with the Karl v. Herald case. Step 1 There are some similarities in both cases, but they are sufficiently similar. Both cases involve small businesses in which one person is in control of the business, and the person with the most control of the business benefits from the business and the other person does not. But the differences out way the similarities, in this case the parties are partners in a business, and in the Karl v. herald case it was a corporation. Step ...