# Benefits of a majority shareholder?



## Tyler Durden (25 February 2012)

Just wondering if being a majority shareholder has any additional 'financial' benefits from other smaller shareholders?

What I really want to know is, can a company 'rip off' shareholders by paying a small or no dividend, yet the majority shareholder still get rewarded in some way?


----------



## McLovin (25 February 2012)

Short answer; yes. Long answer; not really.


----------



## Tyler Durden (25 February 2012)

McLovin said:


> Short answer; yes. Long answer; not really.




Intriguing. Please explain?


----------



## So_Cynical (26 February 2012)

Majority shareholders often have a seat on the broad especially if they are substantial holders (over 5%) but not always....Very substantial holders have some influence over the board and management because they have a block of shares/votes.


----------



## McLovin (26 February 2012)

Tyler Durden]Intriguing. Please explain? [/QUOTE]

Directors have an obligation to act in the best interests of all shareholders. Certain things will probably be overlooked (small related party loans to the majority shareholder etc) but if say the majority shareholder sells his struggling private company at a vastly inflated price to the public company then the directors who approve the deal open themselves up to legal action by shareholders.

Example: Company ABC has $100m in cash. Mr X is majority shareholder and wants the $100m for himself rather than sharing it around as a dividend. He decides to sell his private company XYZ to ABC at a vastly inflated price so he can take the $100m. The directors in this instance have the obligation to ABC to ensure that the purchase is in the best interests of all ABC shareholders not just Mr X.

It's a pretty fine line said:


> Majority shareholders often have a seat on the broad especially if they are substantial holders (over 5%) but not always....Very substantial holders have some influence over the board and management because they have a block of shares/votes.




A majority shareholder by definition has more than 50% of the shares on issue. They control the board.


----------



## Tyler Durden (26 February 2012)

McLovin said:


> Directors have an obligation to act in the best interests of all shareholders. Certain things will probably be overlooked (small related party loans to the majority shareholder etc) but if say the majority shareholder sells his struggling private company at a vastly inflated price to the public company then the directors who approve the deal open themselves up to legal action by shareholders.
> 
> Example: Company ABC has $100m in cash. Mr X is majority shareholder and wants the $100m for himself rather than sharing it around as a dividend. He decides to sell his private company XYZ to ABC at a vastly inflated price so he can take the $100m. The directors in this instance have the obligation to ABC to ensure that the purchase is in the best interests of all ABC shareholders not just Mr X.
> 
> ...




Ok, I get the concept now, I guess they just do it in more complicated ways. Thanks


----------

