Access to information in a derivative action in terms of the Companies Act 71 of 2008: A comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The separate legal personality of a company is foundational to its existence. Where a wrong is done to a company, it, as a juristic person, acts as the proper plaintiff. The authority to initiate legal proceedings in the name of, or on behalf of, the company ordinarily resides with the board of directors as the authority to manage the company's affairs is bestowed upon them. In general, this arrangement appears both reasonable and logical. However, the rule can give rise to injustice and inequity - particularly in situations where the alleged wrongdoers are themselves in control of the company. The derivative action comes into play in instances where the majority shareholders or board of directors decline to institute an action on behalf of the company to vindicate a corporate wrong or where they themselves are the cause of such a wrong. The derivative action is a remedy by which a shareholder in a company (generally a minority shareholder) can institute legal action on behalf of a company to protect its rights and interests. To institute a derivative action an applicant may need access to the information of a company as proof of the wrongdoing. The necessary information to initiate a derivative action is often controlled by the company's managers and directors. A lack of access to inside corporate information presents a significant barrier to possible applicants, potentially deterring or preventing many derivative actions from its inception. The right to access to company records and information is essential in bringing such an action. This article evaluates the applicant's right to access company information in a derivative action in terms of the South African Companies Act. Furthermore, a comparative legal analysis with the positions in Ghana, Australia and Canada is conducted with the view of enhancing the position in South Africa.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".