The appraisal remedy and the oppression remedy under the Companies Act of 2008, and the overlap between them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The appraisal right of dissenting shareholders is a new remedy introduced to South African corporate law by the Companies Act 71 of 2008, which is aimed at maintaining the equilibrium between minority shareholders and controlling shareholders. The fundamental question must thus arise whether there is an overlap between the appraisal remedy and the oppression remedy, or whether the two remedies are mutually exclusive. Are minority shareholders entitled to rely on both remedies, or should a minority shareholder’s exercise of the appraisal right preclude his or her recourse to the oppression remedy? This burning question is the focus of this article, and is discussed with reference to both Canadian and United States law, as well as the South African case of Juspoint Nominees (Pty) Ltd v Sovereign Food Investments Ltd in which the High Court recently had the opportunity to consider this issue. Other important and related aspects of the appraisal remedy and the oppression remedy are also discussed in this article.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".