Yes, said that Court of Appeal in Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1468.
If a company (C) has a claim against a party (A) for losses suffered by C, the rule against reflective loss precludes a shareholder of C from suing A directly for any consequent loss in the value of its shares. The loss to the shareholder merely reflects the loss to C. If C were to recover its own losses from A, the value of the shares would be restored. The rule does not bar a cause of action; merely recovery of a particular type of loss.
In attempting to provide more certainty to this area of law, the Court of Appeal decided that the rule against reflective loss precluded a claim by an unsecured creditor of a company just as much as it did a claim by a shareholder. Flaux LJ noted that it was difficult to see why a claim by a creditor who had one share in a company should be barred whereas a claim by a creditor who was not a shareholder should not.
In Giles v Rhind [2002] EWCA Civ 1428, the Court of Appeal established an exception to the rule, by allowing a shareholder to bring a claim for loss that reflected the loss to the company in circumstances where the company was unable to pursue the claim itself. The Respondent in Garcia v Marex argued that this exception applied, as it alleged that the Appellant had dishonestly stripped two companies of assets, leaving them without funds to pursue a claim against him. The Court of Appeal concluded that this was insufficient to bring it within the exception.
Flaux LJ held that the Giles v Rhind exception was a narrow one, applicable only where the consequence of the defendant’s wrongdoing was that the company no longer had a cause of action and it was legally impossible for it to bring a claim. It did not apply where the company merely lacked the funds to bring a claim due to the defendant’s wrongdoing. If a third party, such as the Respondent, could put the company in funds to enable it to bring a claim, the Giles v Rhind exception did not apply.
The Court of Appeal’s decision has confirmed both a wide ambit for the rule against reflective loss and a narrow ambit for the Giles v Rhind exception. Successful claims for reflective loss are therefore likely to be few and far between in future.