1 2 . 1 0 s ▁per ▁share , ▁which ▁price ▁was ▁based ▁upon ▁independent ▁valu ation . ▁After ▁the ▁sale , ▁the ▁share hold ers ▁discovered ▁that ▁before ▁and ▁during ▁the ▁negoti ations ▁for ▁that ▁sale , ▁the ▁board ▁of ▁direct ors ▁had ▁been ▁involved ▁in ▁other ▁negoti ations ▁to ▁sell ▁the ▁entire ▁company , ▁which ▁would ▁have ▁made ▁those ▁shares ▁substantial ly ▁more ▁valuable ▁had ▁they ▁come ▁to ▁f ru ition . ▁The ▁pla int iff ▁su ed , ▁claim ing ▁bre ach ▁of ▁fid u ci ary ▁duty , ▁in ▁that ▁the ▁share hold ers ▁should ▁have ▁been ▁told ▁of ▁these ▁negoti ations . ▁ ▁Jud gment ▁Sw inf en ▁E ady ▁J ▁held ▁the ▁direct ors ▁ow ed ▁duties ▁to ▁the ▁company ▁and ▁not ▁share hold ers ▁individually . ▁ ▁Sign ific ance ▁ ▁Per c ival ▁v ▁Wright ▁is ▁still ▁considered ▁to ▁be ▁good ▁law , ▁and ▁was ▁followed ▁by ▁the ▁House ▁of ▁L ords ▁in ▁. ▁ ▁However , ▁it ▁has ▁been ▁distinguished ▁in ▁at ▁least ▁two ▁subsequent ▁cases . ▁ ▁In ▁Cole man ▁v ▁My ers ▁[ 1 9 7 7 ] ▁ 2 ▁N Z LR ▁ 2 2 5 ▁and ▁P esk in ▁v ▁Anderson ▁[ 2 0 0 1 ] ▁B CLC ▁ 3 7 2 ▁the ▁court ▁described ▁this ▁as ▁being ▁the ▁general ▁rule , ▁but ▁one ▁which ▁may ▁be ▁subject ▁to ▁exceptions ▁where ▁the ▁circumstances ▁are ▁such ▁that ▁a ▁director ▁may ▁o we ▁a ▁greater ▁duty ▁to ▁an ▁individual ▁share holder