▁a ▁nom ine e ▁share holder ▁could ▁certainly ▁include ▁the ▁economic ▁and ▁contract ual ▁interests ▁of ▁a ▁benef icial ▁owner , ▁and ▁the ▁court ▁had ▁the ▁dis cret ion ▁under ▁s ▁ 4 6 1 ▁( now ▁s ▁ 9 9 6 ) ▁to ▁make ▁an ▁appropriate ▁award . ▁ ▁On ▁the ▁reflect ive ▁loss ▁argument , ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁good ▁reason ▁to ▁prevent ▁a ▁claim ▁for ▁bre ach ▁of ▁direct ors ' ▁duties , ▁even ▁if ▁they ▁are ▁ow ed ▁to ▁the ▁company , ▁because ▁the ▁word ing ▁of ▁s ▁ 9 9 4 ▁did ▁not ▁pre clude ▁it . ▁Nor ▁did ▁the ▁case ▁law ▁support ▁such ▁a ▁change , ▁since ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁reasons ▁for ▁the ▁unf air ▁pre jud ice ▁petit ition ▁being ▁introduced ▁was ▁to ▁" out fl ank " ▁the ▁restrict ive ▁procedure ▁for ▁derivative ▁actions . ▁ ▁Last ly ▁there ▁was ▁no ▁clear ▁ab use ▁of ▁process , ▁as ▁it ▁may ▁well ▁have ▁been ▁that ▁the ▁administration ▁pet ition ▁was ▁done ▁too ▁quickly ▁for ▁Atlas view ▁to ▁respond . ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁ ▁UK ▁company ▁law B h ull ar ▁v ▁Bh ull ar O ' D onn ell ▁v ▁Sh an ah an Re ferred ▁to ▁in ▁judgment Att orney ▁General ▁v ▁Bla ke ▁[ 2 0 0 1 ] ▁ 1 ▁AC ▁ 2 6 8 ▁Re ▁C ade ▁( J ▁E ) ▁& ▁Son ▁Ltd ▁[ 1 9 9 1 ] ▁B CC ▁ 3 6 0 ▁Re ▁a ▁Company ▁No ▁ 0 0