Is it viable to initiate a simple case, with the ultimate aim of using the findings of the simple case to bolster a more complex case; or even just to 'soften up' the opponents to accept a reasonable settlement?
The final aim is to get a fair-price share buy out for a minority shareholder who is deprived of dividends on his inherited share holding, since the majority controllers, by voting themselves as directors are able to extract all profit for themselves as directors' fees.
The legislation, which attempts to protect minority shareholders of private companies is notoriously tricky despite being tweeked several times during recent decades.
The Articles of Association specifies that if a price for the shares cannot be agreed apon by the members, the auditor is to determine a "fair price as between willing seller and buyer".
At the AGM , when the auditor was confronted with the allegation that he had acted illegaly by trying to act as a broker for the majority [who employ and pay him] to buy-out the minority at a joke-price, it was seen that the Auditor did not know of the Articles' obligations on him.
So it is simple to prove that the Auditor is guilty of malpractice. But this doesn't achieve much of value, except possibly apply pressure on the majority controllers.
Would the next step be a Court application to replace the Auditor with a neutral/fair evaluator ?
Since the Articles obviously doesn't require the shares of the minority to be bought [at the fair price] and the majority would be happy for the minority to hold his shares, which [they make sure] yield no dividends; an application based on legislation which forces a buy out, based on unfair, prejudicial treatement would probably have to be brought.
What mechanisms are available to discorage the majority looters from taking the attitude : "we'll delay and fight him till he's depleted his litigating resources" ?
== TIA.