A shareholder in a company contended oppression by the other shareholders and demanded to have a right of veto in the board of directors in order to prevent its continuation and transfer all the powers of the board to him, even though he had never been involved in the company's affairs and lacks to skills to manage it.
The Court rejected the claim and stated that the shareholder's demands would harm the management of the company. Oppression is a situation of unfair distribution of the corporation's resources or unequal distribution of its profits, while harming the legitimate expectations of the minority shareholders. Nevertheless, there may be situations in which the negation of these expectations does not amount to oppression that justifies action to remove it. Here, the company has operated for many years without the active participation of the shareholder. In addition, he does not have the skills and experience to manage the company. Therefore, accepting the shareholder's demands may harm the company's operations and therefore also the majority shareholders and should therefore not be met.