In Marex and Miao Weiguo, the majority of the UK Supreme Court and the Singapore Court of Appeal opted for simplicity in the form of a bright-line preclusion against recovery of reflective loss by shareholders, ie, losses taking the form of a diminution in the value of shareholding and/or distributions. This article examines the law prior to these significant decisions, sets out the key points and reasoning of the courts, and upon critical examination, respectfully suggests that the law is seeing something that does not exist: there is no such thing as an independent principle of ‘reflective loss’.