a general meeting, then the court will not interfere (legal term). Developments The rule was later extended to cover cases where what is complained of is some internal irregularity in the operation of the company. However, the internal irregularity must be capable of being confirmed/sanctioned by the majority. The rule in Foss v Harbottle has another important implication. A shareholder cannot generally bring a claim to recover any reflective loss – a diminution in the value of his or her shares in circumstances where the diminution arises because the company has suffered an actionable loss. The proper course is for the company to bring the action and recoup the loss with the consequence that the value of the shares will be restored. Because Foss v Harbottle leaves the minority in an unprotected position, exceptions have arisen and statutory provisions have come into being which provide some protection for the minority. By far and away the most important protection is the unfair prejudice action in ss. 994-6 of the Companies Act 2006 (UK) (s 232 Corporations Act 2001 in Australia). Also, there is a new statutory derivate action available under ss 260–269 of the 2006 Act (and s 236 Corporations Act 2001 in Australia). Exceptions to the rule There are certain exceptions to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, where litigation will be allowed. The following exceptions protect basic minority rights, which are necessary to protect regardless of the majority's vote. 1. Ultra vires and illegality The directors or controlling shareholders of a company may not use their control of the company to commit acts which would be ultra vires or illegal. s 39 Companies Act 2006 for the rules on corporate capacity Smith v Croft (No 2) and Cockburn v. Newbridge Sanitary Steam Laundry Co. [1915] 1 IR 237, 252–59 (per O'Brien LC and Holmes LJ) for the illegality point 2. Actions requiring a special majority If some special voting procedure would be necessary under the company's constitution or under the Companies Act, it would defeat both if that could be sidestepped by ordinary resolutions of a simple majority, and no redress for aggrieved minorities to be allowed. Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064 3. Invasion of individual rights Pender v Lushington (1877) 6 Ch D 70, per Jessel MR ...and see again, Edwards v Halliwell [1950] 2 All ER 1064 4. "Frauds on the minority" Atwool v