The two principal remedies in corporate law against abusive conduct toward minorities are the derivative action and the oppression action. The former allows a proper complainant to seek relief on behalf of the company while the latter provides non-controlling shareholders with various personal remedies where they establish oppressive conduct. The courts have recently proposed a distinction between an “essentially corporate wrong” (which members may purportedly only rectify under the derivative action) and a “personal wrong” (which is purportedly the only valid basis for the oppression action). It is suggested that focusing on the nature of the wrong is untenable given commercial realities that a wrong to a company can also readily prejudice members’ rights. Instead, the emphasis should be on the agreement or understanding of the parties and the specific reliefs being sought.

Cases all around the world have had to deal with statutory changes that have diluted capital maintenance rules. The duty on directors to act in the best interest of the company has had to fill the gap in situations in which returns to shareholders (even where enlightened) are no longer the only concern. Recent decisions on creditor interests in the vicinity of insolvency in the UK and Singapore are contrasted. The suggestion is that any indirect “creditor duty” is hard to specify and enforce given the continued focus on the company and its shareholders. Instead, the focus should shift from the company’s interest to the proper exercise of powers by directors viewed against the various statutory obligations of companies (that remain) in or around insolvency.