OOPS WRONG AGAIN - HLUMISA V KIRKINIS

The SCA and others seem to have the financial science wrong. When the company suffers loss as it did in Foss v Harbottle - the company suffered loss due interest payments etc. This reduced profits and the impact would obviously be a drop in the BOOK VALUE OF THE SHARE. It makes absolute sense that a shareholder cannot recover any loss as in fact they did not suffer any "actual loss". The loss suffered is indirect. Double jeopardy would obviously occur if the shareholder was allowed to recover as well. When a share price drops its the MARKET VALUE of the shares that drop and this may never have an impact on the BOOK VALUE of the shares. In this case the company does not record a loss in its books as a drop in the market price of its shares has nothing to do with the company. Market prices of shares drop for many other reasons other  than company performance. The shareholder suffers an actual loss when the market prices of shares drop, the company does suffer a quantifiable  loss. So the SCA has got the financial science wrong in stating that a drop in the market value of the shares is a reflective loss. It simply cannot be as a drop in the market price of shares may not have anything to do with the company and its related parties at all. There can be no double jeopardy when it relates to a drop in the market value of shares.