The Shareholder’s Personal Claim: Allowing Recovery for Reflective Loss
Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Vol: 23, Issue: 0, Page: 863-889
2011
- 1,882Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,882
- Downloads1,622
- 1,622
- Abstract Views260
Article Description
An absolute application of the no reflective loss principle can result in unfairness. As such, retaining judicial discretion in the area will do much to ensure that genuine causes are not denied remedy. However, even as our courts appear prepared to allow a shareholder to recover for reflective loss, it is important that corporate autonomy is accorded due respect, and not be obscured by an overconsideration of policy concerns. To ensure this, the courts should allow recovery only if the right asserted by the shareholder is one that is separate and independent of the company’s right.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know