) ▁and ▁raised ▁the ▁question ▁of ▁bar ring ▁a ▁claim ▁if ▁attempted ▁to ▁recover ▁for ▁reflect ive ▁loss ▁( loss ▁to ▁the ▁company , ▁which ▁also ▁pre jud ices ▁a ▁member ). ▁The ▁case ▁is ▁a ▁notable ▁preced ent ▁because ▁it ▁makes ▁clear ▁that ▁a ▁nom ine e ▁share holder ▁is ▁also ▁a ▁legit imate ▁pet ition er ▁for ▁unf air ▁pre jud ice . ▁ ▁Fact s ▁Bright view ▁Ltd ▁provided ▁internet ▁services . ▁Its ▁shares ▁were ▁in ▁two ▁classes , ▁X ▁and ▁Y ▁shares . ▁Mr ▁Sh al son ▁held ▁the ▁majority ▁of ▁X ▁shares ▁through ▁another ▁company ▁called ▁Re ed best ▁Properties ▁Ltd . ▁Atlas view ▁Ltd ▁controlled ▁the ▁majority ▁of ▁Y ▁shares . ▁Bright view ' s ▁business ▁had ▁fal tered ▁after ▁it ▁failed ▁to ▁ful fill ▁an ▁immediate ▁demand ▁to ▁rep ay ▁a ▁loan ▁of ▁£ 5 . 2 4 ▁million ▁from ▁the ▁X ▁share hold ers . ▁An ▁administration ▁order ▁was ▁made . ▁Short ly ▁after , ▁Bright view ▁was ▁sold ▁to ▁another ▁company ▁owned ▁by ▁the ▁X ▁share hold ers . ▁ ▁Atlas view ▁compla ined ▁that ▁it ▁( with ▁Y ▁share hold ers ) ▁had ▁been ▁unf air ly ▁pre jud iced ▁under ▁Comp an ies ▁Act ▁ 1 9 8 5 , ▁section ▁ 4 5 9 ▁( now ▁s ▁ 9 9 4 ▁Comp an ies ▁Act ▁ 2 0 0 6 ). ▁It ▁argued ▁the ▁loan ▁terms ▁left ▁the ▁company ▁so ▁exposed ▁that ▁the ▁X ▁share hold ers ▁were ▁able ▁to ▁strip