Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related Content
CASE STUDY

“LexisNexis is great as I can find the answers I am looking for really quickly. I believe that nothing should be more than 6 clicks away - and the products from LexisNexis deliver on this standard”

Avensure

Access all documents on Swamping rights

Swamping rights meaning

What does Swamping rights mean?
Swamping rights describe deal terms that give a private equity or venture capital investor enhanced voting power on a trigger event, so the investor’s votes “swamp” other shareholders to secure control of key decisions. The expression is market usage rather than a statutory or case-law term. These rights are typically hard‑wired into the company’s articles of association (or constitution in Ireland) and mirrored in a subscription and shareholders’ agreement or investment agreement. Common triggers include: material failure to meet budget or financial milestones; material breach of financing documents; breach of the shareholders’/investment agreement; insolvency‑related events; or failure to achieve an agreed exit timeline. The mechanism often grants weighted or additional votes to the investor’s shares, or temporarily rebalances class voting, until the default is cured. Key legal features and constraints: - Must be set out in the articles to bind all members and comply with Companies Act class rights rules (UK) and the Companies Act 2014 (Ireland). - Operate alongside general company law, directors’ duties and unfair prejudice protections. - Used across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland with broadly consistent effect, subject to local company law terminology and drafting practice.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Swamping rights

NEWS
Unfair prejudice (s994 CA 2006) rejected: private equity 'swamping rights' valid on insolvency: Durose v Tagco [2022] EWHC 3000 (Ch), England and Wales

Durose & others v Tagco BV & others [2022] EWHC 3000 (Ch) Summary of the case Judge Bird held that the petitioners had entered a commercial arrangement whose terms were tightly controlled by a comprehensive suite of expertly drafted contracts and documents. On the evidence, he concluded the private equity investor had at all times adhered to the agreed terms. In those circumstances, it was fair and just to hold the petitioners to the legal agreements, and they were not entitled to protest that their treatment was unfair. The parties’ relationship was purely commercial, with all material dealings conducted through solicitors. The judge was satisfied that every signatory to the investment agreements had the opportunity to review the documents, contribute to their content and obtain legal advice on them. He found the petitioners knew this was not a risk‑free endeavour and that an insolvency event would trigger enhanced voting rights (swamping rights). He also found that the insolvency resulted from a combination of factors, including: ...

Read More Right Arrow