Welcome!

To all those reading this I am David Gibbs; I am a Lecturer in Company and Commercial Law at the University of Hertfordshire.

I created this blog as a general out-let of ideas for my research, as well as keeping those interested up-to-date on my research and general interests.

I completed my PhD thesis at the University of East Anglia in 2014. The thesis was recommended for the award of PhD with no corrections. My external examiner was Prof. Simon Deakin (Cambridge) and internal examiner was Prof. Morten Hviid.
My PhD research centred on directors' duties and company law. The thesis was titled 'Non-Executive Self-Interest: Fiduciary Duties and Corporate Governance'. It was a doctrinal and empirical study on whether self-interest was suitably controlled amongst non-executive directors.

My supervisors were Prof. Mathias Siems, Prof. Duncan Sheehan, Dr. Sara Connolly and Dr. Rob Heywood

All opinions of any existing or future blogpost are my own. They do not necessarily represent the views of any of my associated institutions.
ORCID 0000-0002-6596-8536


Friday, 1 May 2015

Frequencies on Derivative Claims

Having drawn out most of the raw data for the variables I have identified on derivative claims I thought I would publish a few frequency tables from them.

Table A shows claims dismissed for a mandatory bar

Mandatory Bar

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
11
73.3
73.3
73.3
Yes
4
26.7
26.7
100.0
Total
15
100.0
100.0


Table B shows claims permitted and refused

Permission

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No
9
60.0
60.0
60.0
Yes
6
40.0
40.0
100.0
Total
15
100.0
100.0

Table D shows frequencies for the strength of those cases

Strength of case

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
No reasons for
6
40.0
40.0
40.0
More reasons against than for
2
13.3
13.3
53.3
Equal reasons for and against
1
6.7
6.7
60.0
More reasons for than against
1
6.7
6.7
66.7
No reasons against
5
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
15
100.0
100.0

Table E shows 4 separate categories of the court's deliberation on granting or denying permission. The table represents cases where the case was either: 1) Permission granted with no reasons to dismiss; 2) Permission refused with reasons for permission; 3) Permission granted with reasons to dismiss; 4) Permission refused with no reason for permission. This is determined by whether the court felt a particular consideration under the Companies Act 2006 section 263(3) or other factor was in favour or against the claimant.


Permission Reason Values

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Granted No Against
5
33.3
33.3
33.3
Refused Against
3
20.0
20.0
53.3
Granted Against
1
6.7
6.7
60.0
Refused No Against
6
40.0
40.0
100.0
Total
15
100.0
100.0

No comments:

Post a Comment