(a) Under the Companies Bill, class action suits can be commenced collectively by a minimum of 100 shareholders or depositors, or a minimum prescribed percentage of such shareholders or depositors, whichever is less.
Also Read
(b) A class action suit may be brought against the company, its directors, auditors or any experts, advisors and consultants for their inactions and wrongdoings. Hence, the Companies Bill attempts to cast a wide net on the erring management of the company.
(c) Upon admission of a class action application, all similar applications in any jurisdiction are required to be consolidated into one single application. This provision would reduce multiplicity of litigation on the same subject matter.
(d) However, banking companies have been granted immunity against a class action.
The features of a class action suit under the Companies Bill certainly carry benefits for investors of a company. It provides investors with a medium to fight as one unit against the errant company or management, thereby reducing multiplicity of suits, costs of ligation and increasing their chances of success in the process. No doubt, ‘class action suits’ under the Companies Bill may prove to be a potent tool to keep the accountability of a company/management in check and to contain any likely prejudice against the minority. However, on the flipside, such a concept may be open to misuse by unscrupulous minority shareholders in furtherance of their vested interest thereby hampering the efficacious functioning of the company.
Suffice to say that courts may need to exercise caution while hearing and deciding class action suits in order to ensure that a company is allowed to function effectively while keeping intact required minority investor protection.
Amish Tandon is a corporate lawyer. Views expressed in the article are personal