Hypothesising the hypothetical director: an unpredictable opponent

first_img IntroductionThe introduction of a new statutory procedure for bringing a derivative claim under the 2006 act immediately generated substantial speculation. Permitting a derivative claim to proceed was no longer to be confined to the application of the rule in Foss v Harbottle [1843] 2 Hare 461 and its exceptions. Both academic and professional commentators were quick to point to the wider ambit of the derivative claim and consequently to speculate that the new legislation would facilitate a rise in the number of such actions, or at least an enhanced prospect of launching a derivative claim. An assortment of other reasons were also put forward; hasty conclusions drawn. For example, certain analyses pointed to the twin effect of a new statutory statement of directors’ duties instituted by part 10 of the 2006 act and the new procedure contained in part 11. In so doing, they echoed concerns expressed during the bill’s passage through the House of Lords that this combination would lead to ‘a double whammy’ for litigants (679 HL Official Report (5th Series) col GC2 (27 February 2006)). Such prophecies have not (or not yet) been borne out by events. Certainly the statutory procedure will alert interested parties to the existence of the provision. The ambit of the derivative claim is also now wider than at common law; it covers any cause of action falling within the four categories of ‘wrongs’ listed in section 260(3) of the 2006 act. And the limiting requirements of fraud on the minority and control by alleged wrongdoers no longer operate (cf Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (No 2) [1982] Ch 204). However, part 11 came into effect on 1 October 2007. The past 18 months have seen only two reported decisions in which permission to continue a derivative claim under the new regime has been the subject of determination; in neither case has the court acceded to the application. In a third case, Fanmailuk.com Ltd v Cooper and others [2008] BCC 877, an application for permission to continue a derivative claim was adjourned for consideration, if necessary, after the trial of a preliminary issue. There is thus not yet reason to suggest that the position under the previous regime – whereby derivative claims were seldom brought and those which were brought were seldom successful – will be modified. Certainly both Mission Capital Plc and Franbar Holdings Ltd were concerned with an analysis of the facts at issue. The very nature of the substantive criteria according to which the court will now determine whether a derivative claim may proceed, as prescribed by section 263 of the 2006 act, means that each case will, on analysis, invariably concern questions of fact individual to that case. That notwithstanding, these two recent cases call for comment as they provide an (and the first) insight for putative litigant shareholders of a company as to how the courts will approach the new legislation. In particular, the cases are instructive in indicating the courts’ application thus far of the ‘hypothetical’ director test. Franbar Holdings Ltd was decided on 2 July 2008. The applicant company (Franbar) was a minority shareholder in Medicentres (UK) Ltd. Franbar sought permission to continue a derivative claim against the directors of Medicentres (the Respondents), on behalf of that company. Franbar claimed negligence, default and various breaches of duty of care owed by the respondents to Medicentres. The same substantive allegations founded a claim against the majority shareholder in Medicentres (Casualty Plus Ltd) for breach of a shareholders’ agreement it had entered into with Franbar and an unfair prejudice petition under section 994 against the respondents and Casualty Plus. First applying the hypothetical director test in section 263(2)(a), William Trower QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, summarised the different stances which could be adopted by the hypothetical director (at [30]). The discussion then focused on whether there were circumstances which, if made out at trial, may give rise to a cause of action. The case was judged to be one where there was ‘sufficient material for the hypothetical director to conclude that the conduct of Medicentres’ business by those in control of it had given rise to actionable breaches of duty’, leading to the conclusion that ‘I cannot be satisfied that a hypothetical director acting in accordance with section 172 would conclude that the case advanced was insufficiently cogent to justify continuation of the claim’. However, the balancing exercise carried out with regard to the factors at section 263(3) resulted in the refusal of permission. Applying the hypothetical director test in section 263(3)(b), Trower QC went on to set out certain of the considerations such a person would take into account (at [36]): ‘the prospects of success of the claim, the ability of the company to make a recovery on any award of damages, the disruption which would be caused to the development of the company’s business by having to concentrate on the proceedings, the costs of the proceedings and any damage to the company’s reputation and business if the proceedings were to fail. A director will often be in the position of having to make what is no more than a partially informed decision on continuation without any very clear idea of how the proceedings might turn out’. It was held that the hypothetical director would not presently attach great importance to continuation of the claim, as there was work still to be done in formulating a clear claim for breaches of duty which had caused actionable loss to Medicentres. This did not preclude the hypothetical director from attaching importance to its continuation at some future stage (that is when the complaints were in a form tending to that conclusion). It was also considered that the hypothetical director would be more inclined to regard its pursuit as less important in light of the fact that several of the complaints were more naturally formulated as breaches of the shareholders’ agreement and acts of unfair prejudice. In a similar vein, the availability (and use) of both the section 994 petition and shareholders’ action was attributed considerable weight, in a determination under section 263(3)(f). On an analysis of the facts, both the allegations of breach of duty to Medicentres and the losses it might have sustained were held likely to be relevant, respectively, to Franbar’s complaint of unfair prejudice as well as to the fair value of Franbar’s shares and attendant questions arising on the valuation. Consideration was also devoted to section 263(3)(d). In determining that certain of the conduct alleged may prove to be incapable of ratification, Trower QC construed section 239(7) of the 2006 act, which preserves any rule of law as to acts incapable of ratification, as including not only acts which are ultra vires the company in the strict sense, but also acts which, pursuant to any rule of law, are incapable of ratification for some other reason. He concluded that the proposition in North-West Transportation Company v Beatty [1887] 12 App Cas 589, 594 (that a company cannot ratify breaches of duty by its directors where it is oppressive towards those shareholders who oppose it) remained good law. Consequently, that where the question of ratification arises in the context of an application to continue a derivative claim, the court must still ask itself the question whether ratification has the effect that the claimant is being improperly prevented from bringing the claim (cf Smith v Croft (No. 2) [1988] Ch 144, 185B). Future consequences Mission Capital and Franbar Holdings illustrate that certain of the criteria listed in section 263 will involve similar considerations to those given to derivative claims under the previous regime. As such, for those factors assistance may be derived from decided case law in anticipating how the tests will operate in practice. For example, in relation to the issue of whether there is a personal claim that could be pursued without involving the company arising under section 263(3)(f) (cf Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce [2002] 1 WLR 1269; Jafari-Fini v Skillglass [2005] BCC 842; Mumbray v Lapper [2005] BCC 990). Or indeed under section 263(3)(d), as illustrated by Franbar Holdings. Anticipating judicial determination of the hypothetical director test will, it is suggested, present greater difficulty when advising a prospective litigant on risk. The usual uncertainties of litigation will inevitably bear on a court’s determination of what such a person would decide in known circumstances. The considerations attributed to the hypothetical directors discernable in the decisions above, despite reflecting the facts at issue, reveal a similarity of approach and constitute broader commercial considerations militating against continuation. To that extent the cases afford an insight as to how the test will operate in practice. The hypothetical director deciding whether to continue the claim would, in Mission Capital, consider whether it had a ‘real purpose’, and in Franbar Holdings, consider whether there was ‘sufficient material’ or a sufficiently cogent case to substantiate a cause of action. The hypothetical director deciding how much importance to attach to its continuation would, in Mission Capital, consider the availability of an alternative course of action which did not involve litigation as well as the extent to which it could be said that the company will suffer loss, and in Franbar Holdings, consider the facts that the complaints were not in a form supporting a clear claim for breaches of duty causing actionable loss and more naturally fell within other types of claims already being pursued. Of contrast is the position under section 172 of the 2006 act. Section 172 grants a discretion to directors to act in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company. Although the factors listed in section 172 will be relevant to the balancing exercises conducted under both that section and on an analysis under subsections 263(2)(a) and (3)(b), at common law the duty now contained in section 172 was held to be a subjective one. The question was not what a court may consider was in the interests of the company (cf Re Smith and Fawcett Ltd [1942] Ch 304; Re Regentcrest plc v Cohen [2001] 2 BCLC 80). This contrast in approach may, it is suggested, be explained on two bases. First, an act or omission challenged on an allegation of breach of the duty now contained in section 172 is conduct capable of subjective assessment – a judgment on past conduct rather than on a hypothetical. Second, the hypothetical director test is central to a permission application as the effect of permission being granted is to override the rights of a company’s directors to determine whether litigation should be commenced to enforce the company’s rights. That determination being displaced, the court steps into the shoes of a director to substitute its – hypothetical – view. The case lawThe first of the two cases in which permission to continue was refused was Mission Capital Plc, decided on 17 March 2008. Mission Capital’s former directors (the applicants) constituted a minority on its board. The board purported to terminate their employment and required them to resign from the board. Mission Capital obtained an interim injunction against the applicants, who: (i) counterclaimed for injunctive relief equating to specific performance of service contracts and reinstatement to the board; and (ii) brought a derivative claim against the remaining directors (a) contending that Mission Capital would suffer damage from their wrongful dismissal and the replacement director would act improperly and (b) claiming the same heads of relief as in the counterclaim. On the application for permission to continue the derivative claim, Mr Justice Floyd first addressed his mind to section 263(2)(a) of the 2006 act and the question whether a notional director would not seek to continue the claim. (The grounds for permission at sections 263(2)(a) and 263(3)(b) both require the court to apply the standard of the objective, reasonable director under section 172 of the 2006 act: see the 2006 act for the precise terms of the provisions). The debate focused on whether the derivative action was purely duplicative of the counterclaim. ‘Nobody brings a claim just for the sake of it’ (at [41]). Hence his conclusion that he could not be satisfied, negatively, that such a person would not seek to continue the claim, was premised on the finding that the derivative action was not duplicative of the counterclaim. Specifically, that: (i) the derivative claim might succeed where the counterclaim failed; and (ii) Mission Capital would be able to claim damages against the directors for damage it had suffered as a result of the applicants’ wrongful dismissal, not available to the applicants’ as shareholders. As such, there was ‘real purpose’ (at [42]) in bringing the claim. Floyd J went on to consider how to exercise his discretion under section 263(3) of the 2006 act. His refusal of permission was largely based on his judgment as to how important the hypothetical director would regard continuation of the claim within the meaning of section 263(3)(b). He held (at [43]) that, although he could not be satisfied that the notional section 172 director would not continue the claim, he did not believe that he would attach that much importance to it. His reasons were twofold: ‘Would a company which had wrongfully dismissed a director normally take action against those responsible for the damage that it has suffered? It would depend, but I suspect that the action it would take in preference would be to replace the directors. Moreover, on the evidence before me the damage… [Mission Capital] will suffer is somewhat speculative – another reason why the section 172 director would not attach great weight to it”. A second ground for Floyd J’s refusal seems to have been his brief consideration of section 263(3)(f), although not expressly cited (at [46]). He was not satisfied that there was anything sought by the applicants which they could not recover by means of an unfair prejudice petition under section 994 of the 2006 act. Georgina Peters is a barrister at 3-4 South Square and has contributed to The EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings: A Commentary and Annotated Guide and Company Directors: Duties, Liabilities, and Remedies, both published by Oxford University Press and available via the Law Society Online Bookshop (http://www.lawsocietyshop.org.uk). This article is abbreviated from an article which first appeared in the quarterly 3-4 South Square Digest. If you wish to be added to the circulation list please send an email to [email protected] Two interesting questions have emerged as relevant since the institution of part 11, chapter 1, sections 260-264 of the Companies Act 2006 (the 2006 act). They concern: (i) whether derivative claims will now have a better prospect of obtaining permission to continue; and (ii) how the courts will approach the ‘hypothetical’ or ‘objective’ director test established under those provisions. As to the first question of whether such claims will have a greater prospect of successfully proceeding to a hearing on the substantive merits of the claim, it is too early to tell. To observe otherwise would be frivolous. During the 18-month period since the provisions came into force, there have been only two reported decisions in which permission to continue a derivative claim under the 2006 act has been sought and determined: Mission Capital Plc v Sinclair and another [2008] BCC 866 and Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel and others [2008] BCC 885. The second question, however, has been the subject of judicial consideration on both those occasions.last_img read more

Japan nabs fourth victory at volleyball World Grand Prix

first_imgKimura hammered down 19 kills while scoring one block point and a serve point.“Yesterday, I didn’t play too well and neither did the team so we had to change,” Kimura said.Saori Sakoda followed with 14 points and Ai Yamamoto added 13 for Japan, which won the bronze at the world championships last year.Prisilla Rivera matched Kimura with 21 points in a losing effort for the Dominican Republic.“I’m satisfied with the way we played,” Japan head coach Masayoshi Manabe said. “Today’s game was different from yesterday. Today we kept our concentration. We didn’t show our real strength, though.”Also on Sunday, Serbia (4-2) handed the U.S. (5-1) its first loss of the tournament by winning 25-12, 17-25, 25-23, 25-15.Each of the 16 participating teams will play three more matches from Aug. 19-21 in Tokyo, Hong Kong and Bangkok. The top seven plus host China will meet in the Aug. 24-28 final round in Macao.Japan will next face Serbia, then South Korea and Russia. RELATED PHOTOS KOMAKI, AICHI PREF. – Saori Kimura tied a match high with 21 points as Japan beat the Dominican Republic on Sunday to improve its record to 4-2 in the preliminary round of the women’s World Grand Prix.Japan bounced back from its straight-sets loss to the United States the previous day to win 25-22, 26-24, 23-25, 25-20 in Pool H at Park Arena Komaki in Aichi Prefecture. The Dominicans dropped to 1-5. Japan’s Saori Kimura nails a spike during Sunday’s World Grand Prix game against Dominican Republic. | KYODO PHOTOcenter_img GET THE BEST OF THE JAPAN TIMES IN FIVE EASY PIECES WITH TAKE 5last_img read more

PNGFA extends EoI for Conference competition

first_imgSoccer The PNG Football Association has received ‘very encouraging’ results after calling for expression of interest (EoI) from clubs intending to participate in the 2019-20 Kumul Petroleum National Soccer League season. The EoI from clubs intending to participate in the 2019-20 season closed on Friday (October 18). However, the National Soccer League secretariat received 11 EoI forms for the premier competition, 10 forms for the conference competition and six forms for the women’s competition. The secretariat said in a statement yesterday that the premier competition had more than enough clubs to kick start the competition, with their quota being a maximum of eight clubs to start. The conference competition did not receive enough EoI forms from the four conferences. Southern with four, Northern with two, New Guinea Islands with two and Highlands with two. The quota for each region is six, therefore the secretariat is extending the period for both the conference and women’s competition for an additional 10 days. The new deadline is Friday (November 1). The National Soccer League secretariat is now opening up the invitation to any interested clubs within the four regions to come forward and request for an Expression of Interest Form. Email your request through to the following email addresses ([email protected]/ [email protected]/ [email protected]) and you will be sent an Expression of Interest form to complete and return to the same email addresses. The form must be accompanied with a non-refundable fee of K5,000). With the women’s competition the NSL Secretariat has received three EoI forms respectively for Southern and Northern conferences. The quota is four clubs in each of the two conferences and surely there are interested football stakeholders out there. The secretariat is expecting one more club in each conference to complete the quota.last_img read more

Australia and New Zealand PMs on board for World Cup bid

first_imgSoccer The final pitch from New Zealand and Australia in their bid to host the Fifa Women’s World Cup in 2023 is set to involve the leaders of both countries. Each bid has to prepare a 10-minute presentation for a Fifa Council meeting that will be held online at the end of June, a task complicated by the Covid-19 pandemic. NZ Football president Johanna Wood said this week that she had filmed her part for the video and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Australian counterpart Scott Morrison were also on the cast list. “Normally we would get together and we’d be able to interact with each other,” Wood said. “I’ve done my little bit over here, our Prime Ministers have done their little bit, and [Football Federation Australia chairman] Chris Nikou’s done his little bit, and then we’ve got the captains of the Ferns [Ali Riley] and Matildas [Sam Kerr] doing their little bit, but it’s all being done in isolation and it’s got to be pulled together.” The presentation from the trans-Tasman bid will be the first of four made to the Fifa Council – which Wood is a member of – followed by those from Brazil, Colombia, and Japan, the other countries in the running. The 33 council members that don’t have ties to one of bids will then conduct a public vote, with a majority needed to win, and the lowest vote-getter dropping out until a successful bid is found. There are less than four weeks to go until June 25, when the Fifa Council meeting will be held, but there is another key milestone before then – the release of the evaluation reports from Fifa’s bid inspection team. Visits were made to the prospective hosts earlier this year, before Covid-19 made global travel difficult, and while those involved with the trans-Tasman bid feel theirs went well, they are eager to see the final reports, which could be decisive in what is looking like a two-horse race between them and Japan. NZ Football chief executive Andrew Pragnell said it was “hard to gauge” the bid’s chances of success. “There’s plenty of advocacy going on, in terms of making sure the council members are aware of the strengths of our bid and that the key messages of our bid are getting through.” – stufflast_img read more

Cristiano Ronaldo’s sister hits out at Sport on Twitter

first_img Later she added another message. “It’s normal, he’s seen his father score goals that leave you without words, let him breathe, he’s a kid.” 07/03/2016 Sport EN Katia Aveiro, Cristiano Ronaldo’s sister, lit up the social networks with controversial tweets in which she leapt to the defence of the Real Madrid star. Upd. on 08/03/2016 at 00:51 CET Tweets which came in response to a Sport story which pointed out Cristiano Ronaldo’s son wasn’t interested in watching his goals against Celta Vigo and instead prefered to keep playing on his mobile.  It seems Katia Aveiro didn’t like this observation, and she tweeted: “At least he’s accompanying his dad, no? Others prefers to stay at home watching Peppa Pig.” last_img read more

FIFA World Cup 2018: England in high spirits as they begin their first training…

first_imgAdvertisement m24NBA Finals | Brooklyn Vs1144Wingsuit rodeo📽Sindre E8cq( IG: @_aubreyfisher @imraino ) 6na0g9Would you ever consider trying this?😱w5zoCan your students do this? 🌚t1zxRoller skating! Powered by Firework Advertisement (photo credits: Getty Images)The Three Lions look relaxed in their first training session as they were the recipients of a traditional Russian welcome by the hosts of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Before their first game against Tunisia at the World Cup, the England squad trained in front of around 400 people in Zelenogorsk, outside St. Petersburg.Advertisement Differing from the tactics of his predecessors, the England coach Gareth Southgate allowed the squad to come out to English rock band Stone Roses’s music. At the end of the session, the squad happily posed for photographs with the locals and signed autographs. However, Marcus Rashford was nowhere to be seen. The 20 year old, Manchester United forward was allowed to rest as a precautionary measure because of a knee-injury issue.Watch the video of their training session below:  Also Read: Football : USA, Canada and Mexico to co-host FIFA World Cup 2026FIFA World Cup 2018: 10 Underrated Players To Watch Out ForFIFA World Cup 2018: Players to watch – Neymar (Video) Advertisementlast_img read more

‘Battery humans’ fear

first_imgBy Kyra Gillespie The proposal for an estate “bigger than Warragul” on the eastern outskirts of Pakenham had residents and…[To read the rest of this story Subscribe or Login to the Gazette Access Pass] Thanks for reading the Pakenham Berwick Gazette. Subscribe or Login to read the rest of this content with the Gazette Digital Access Pass subscription.last_img

Galway and Mayo set for Connacht U20 football final in Tuam

first_imgGalway beat Roscommon in Kiltoom by 0-17 to 1-7 and after the game manager Padraig Joyce gave his reaction to Kevin Dwyer… GALWAY: O Burke, R Mahon (0-1), S Mulkerrin, E McFadden, L Boyle (0-1), C Potter, J Kirrane, M Barrett, M Collins, M Tierney (0-2fs), G Burke, B O’Connell, D Silke (0-3fs), P Costello (0-2, 0-1f)), R Cunningham (0-4) SUB L Costello (0-2), J Glynn, T Gill, E Mannion (0-1), C Newell, J ReillyROSCOMMON: A Brady (0-1, 0-1 45’), E Killoran, E Flynn, R Dolan, M Conroy, N Higgins, G Galvin (1-0), D Sumner, P Halpin, D Keenan, R Dowd (0-3, 0-2fs), J Fitzpatrick, P Carey (0-1f), D Ruane SUBS C Lawless, S Hanly, T Lambe, B Derwin (0-1 pen), C Corcoran, T O’Rourke After both sides won their respective semi finals on Wednesday evening last, Galway and Mayo will meet in the Connacht U20 football championship final in Tuam Stadium next Wednesday at 7.30pm. The U20 grade is considered a ‘new’ competition in Connacht, so a coin toss ordained that Galway would have home advantage in Tuam, rather than having to go to Castlebar as per the home and away agreement that existed between the counties at U21 level.center_img print WhatsApp Facebook Twitter Emaillast_img read more

Southeastern Louisiana Wins First Southland Baseball Tournament

first_imgThe Lions answered the Bears’ four consecutive runs with a run the sixth inning. After Jacob Williams doubled to third base, Fisher brought home his first RBI of the tournament with a single to center field to up the Lions’ lead to 7-4. On his team…“I am extremely proud of these guys. Even though we didn’t finish our goal of winning the championship, we came together. We battled a lot of adversity this year with injuries and lot of different things. They came together at the end, and I am proud as heck with these guys. They fought hard and finished hard. That is what we talked about was to fight the good fight and finish the course and have faith.” Box Score (PDF)  |  Photos  |  ESPN3 Replay  |  Highlights  |  Interviews  |  Tournament CentralCONWAY, Ark. – Southeastern Louisiana went to the arm of relief pitcher Tate Scioneaux in the championship game of the Southland Conference Baseball Tournament to defeat Central Arkansas 9-4 to claim the school’s first league title. On Tate Scioneaux…“He came to me last night and said, “Coach, I want the baseball at some point in time tomorrow. I know we are going with Andro (Cuturo), but I feel great and I am ready to go. So if you get the chance to give it to me, I want it.’ You could hear it. You could hear it was definitely from the heart. It wasn’t just a coach speech or player speech, it was a true genuine ‘I want the baseball.’ And you saw it when he went in there and shut the door.” Southeastern Louisiana pitcher Tate ScioneauxOn his tournament performance…“I asked for the ball. I told coach that I had some outs in me. He said he was going to pull me in the seventh, and I told him, ‘no, one more coach.” And then the eighth inning came, and I told him that I am going to finish this.” The Lions will find out where they will go in the NCAA tournament on Monday. The tournament selection show will be televised on ESPNU at 11 a.m., CT. Central Arkansas Head Coach Allen GumOn coming up short in the championship…“The guys did a great job at the end of the year. We had a moment and got on a good run. Today, things just didn’t go our way. Southeastern Louisiana did a good job. They put pressure on us and took advantage of the mistakes we made. It was their day. The ball bounced their way. I am proud of our guys. We fought hard at the end. Even when we got down 6-0, we just kept fighting but we didn’t have enough left.” UCA would chip away from the Lions’ lead in the bottom half of the second inning. Tyler Langley and Scott Zimmerle would reach base for the Bears to start the inning. After both runners advanced on a sacrifice bunt from Justin Treece, Langley would come around to score on a sacrifice fly from Charles Deckard. Doug Votolato would get his eighth hit and fifth RBI of the tournament with an infield single, bringing home Zimmerle to make the score 6-2. Postgame Quotes…Southeastern Louisiana Head Coach Matt RiserOn today’s championship… “First, that Central Arkansas ball club is a tough ball club. It looked like we were going to run away with it, but they put the pressure on and put the pressure on, but it was a fantastic job by Tate Scioneaux coming in and finishing it off. The kids gave it everything they had because they wanted it. This is the ultimate goal. It was a motivating force for us with the last few years being runner up.” Saturday, May 24Championship: No. 5 Southeastern La. 9, No. 6 Central Arkansas 4 The Lions puts the game out of reach in the eighth inning by tacking on two more runs. Southeastern put together a two-out rally with three consecutive hits from Seward, Fisher and Godbold. Godbold’s single drove in Seward and Fisher to give the Lions the 9-4 lead. The Bears would added two more runs in the fourth inning after loading the bases with singles from Deckard and Carson Dowdle and Wesley Hoover reaching on a fielding error. Chris Townsend would pick up an RBI after being hit by a pitch and Nate Ferrell would draw an RBI walk. Thursday, May 22Game Five:  No. 4 Northwestern St. 10, No. 8 Lamar 8 (Lamar eliminated)Game Six:  No. 3 A&M-Corpus Christi 3, No. 2 Nicholls 2 (Nicholls eliminated)Game Seven:  No. 5 Southeastern La. 1, No. 1 Sam Houston St. 0Game Eight:  No. 6 Central Arkansas 11, No. 7 McNeese State 3center_img 2014 Southland Conference Baseball All-Tournament TeamMVP     Tate Scioneaux, Southeastern LouisianaP             Jacob Seward, Southeastern LouisianaC             Jameson Fisher, Southeastern LouisianaOF          Andrew Godbold, Southeastern LouisianaP             Connor McClain, Central ArkansasOF          Doug Votolato, Central ArkansasOF          Nate Ferrell, Central Arkansas2B          Chris Townsend, Central ArkansasP             Steven Spann, Northwestern StateSS           Sam Bumpers, LamarOF          Andrew Guillotte, McNeese StateDH         Nick Heath, Northwestern State Singles by Seward and Fisher and a hit by a pitch by Andrew Godbold loaded the bases again for the Lions in the second inning. Southeastern would then bring four more runs across with two consecutive two-RBI singles from Hoffman and Midyett. Jason Greenleaf picked up the win for the Lions after 1.2 innings of work. Greenleaf, who moved to 1-0 on the year, gave up two unearned runs on three hits while striking out one. UCA starter Bryce Biggerstaff lasted only into the second inning after six runs, four earned, on seven hits and one walk. He struck out one in falling to 7-6 on the year. Southeastern jumped on the board early, pushing six runs across in the first two innings. In the top of the first, the Lions loaded the bases with a Jacob Seward single, Jameson Fisher fielder’s choice error and a Brett Hoffman walk. Daniel Midyett drove in the game’s first run with an infield single to pitcher Bryce Biggerstaff. Midyett’s shot hit off Biggerstaff’s glove, but it was too hot from the UCA pitcher to handle, which allowed Seward to score. Fisher would eventually score the second Southeastern run when Sam Roberson grounded out to second base. Central Arkansas finished its season 32-22 after reaching the championship game for the second consecutive year. The No. 5 seed Lions (37-23) claimed its first title after reaching the championship game the previous two seasons, including a 4-0 loss in last year’s championship to the Bears. The loss snapped UCA’s eight-game tournament winning streak. The win also locked up the league’s automatic bid into the NCAA Division I Championship, which will be the Lions’ third overall and first appearance since 1994. Scioneaux, the tournament most valuable player, came into the game in the fourth inning to stop the UCA hitting. The Bears scored four runs before Scioneaux entered the game. The right-hander pitched over five innings of shutout ball, giving up only four hits and a walk while striking out eight Bears. For the tournament, Scioneaux pitched 11 innings of scoreless ball while striking out 12 hitters and only surrendering nine hits and two walks. Scioneaux threw 91 pitches to pick up his first save of the year. Southland Conference Tournament ResultsWednesday, May 21Game One:  No. 5 Southeastern La. 5, No. 4 Northwestern St. 3Game Two:  No. 1 Sam Houston St. 10, No. 8 Lamar 4Game Three:  No. 7 McNeese St. 4, No. 2 Nicholls 2Game Four:  No. 6 Central Arkansas 3, No. 3 A&M-Corpus Christi 1 Friday, May 23Game Nine:  No. 4 Northwestern St. 4, No. 1 Sam Houston St. 1 (Sam Houston St. eliminated)Game 10:  No. 7 McNeese St. 7, No. 3 A&M-Corpus Christi 5 (A&M-Corpus Christi eliminated)Game 11:  No. 5 Southeastern La. 7, No. 4 Northwestern St. 3 (Northwestern St. eliminated)Game 12:  No. 6 Central Arkansas 8, No. 7 McNeese St. 6 (McNeese St. eliminated) On today’s game…“That’s baseball. You are going to have your up and downs, but you just have to keep grinding. And in the end, hope it is in your favor.”last_img read more

Women’s Basketball: Dec. 16 Scoreboard

first_imgMaggie Proffitt led the Sugar Bears in scoring for the third time this season, posting 19 points in 30 minutes on 5-of-12 (41.7 percent) 3-point shooting, the third time this year and fifth time in her career she’s made five or more from long range. Mullins had 15 points, six rebounds, and led the team with four assists and seven steals in 38 minutes. Sadler had her best outing of the season with 11 points, eight rebounds, two assists, a block and a steal. Kendara Watts added 10 points, Brittany Agee had nine points and five rebounds, and Kelsey McClure adding six points. The Sugar Bears did much of their damage at the free throw line, shooting 85.5 percent (17 of 20) while holding WBC to 10 attempts. UCA had its best turnover margin of the season, committing just seven while forcing 16, getting 22 points off those turnovers including 10 fast break points. The Lady Eagles did have a rebounding advantage, getting 40 to the Sugar Bears’ 33, including 17 offensive rebounds. The Sugar Bears (5-5) trailed for more than 28 minutes, not taking the lead for good until the 8:40 mark of the second half after the Lady Eagles (4-7) had built a lead as large as nine in the second half. But after shooting just 28.6 percent in the first half, the Sugar Bears were 16 of 30 (53.3 percent) in the second half and limited the Lady Eagles to 29.6 percent in the half and just two field goals over the final 14:52 while forcing WBC into 13 second-half turnovers.  Lamar 93, Ohio Valley 42 Down 53-50 with just over 10 minutes to play, it was one of UCA’s nine second-half steals that got the game-changing rally started as Brianna Mullins got one of her career-high seven steals and got down the floor for an easy layup to cut the WBC lead to one. A few possessions later, with the score unchanged, Mullins put UCA ahead for good with a 3-pointer to make it 55-53. The run continued with a steal and layup by Terai Sadler, another steal and layup from Mullins, and a 3-point play from Brittany Agee to give UCA a nine-point advantage at 62-53 with 6:24 left. Lamar 93, Ohio Valley 42VIENNA, W.Va  – The Lamar Lady Cardinals used a balanced scoring attack to claim their first road win  of the season as they rolled to a 93-42 victory over Ohio Valley in a non-conference women’s basketball game Tuesday night.Twelve of Lamar’s 14 players scored as the Lady Cardinals registered their largest margin of victory this season.Kiandra Bowers led Lamar with 16 points, as she was one of three Lady Cardinals to score in double figures.  Dominique Edwards had 15 points and nine rebounds, finishing just one board shy of her third straight double-double. Edwards also had a career-high five steals. Addesha Collins had 11 points for Lamar.The Lady Cardinals (3-7) never trailed in the game. Lamar scored the first 10 points of the contest and never looked back.The Lady Cardinals shot a season-best 54.2 percent from the field (39-of-72). Lamar’s pressure defense caused problems for the Oho Valley offense, as the Lady Cardinals scored 40 points off of 31 OVU turnovers.Baileigh O’Dell and Lejha Smith had nine points for Lamar, while Shauna Long had eight points and a career-high six assists. JaMeisha Edwards also had eight points for the Lady Cardinals. Lamar had a 46-1 advantage in bench points.Lamar outscored the Fighting Scots 40-6 in the paint, getting a lot of good looks thanks to a season-high 21 assists.Danielle Dunnagan had 16 points to lead Ohio Valley (0-9), while Amy Brooks finished with 14 points.The Lady Cardinals are idle until Dec. 28, when they travel to Rice to close out the non-conference portion of the schedule. Lamar’s next home game is 4 p.m. Jan. 3, when Nicholls comes in for the Southland Conference opener. Thompson led WBC with 20 points, Alisha Stone had 11, and Meagan Goza added nine points, nine rebounds and a game-high five assists. Central Arkansas 73, Williams Baptist 57CONWAY, Ark. — Central Arkansas took Williams Baptist’s best shot on Tuesday afternoon, but the Sugar Bears overcame a sluggish start and were dominant over the final 11 minutes as they closed the game with a 25-4 run to defeat the Lady Eagles 73-57. Michaela Thompson scored inside with 6:09 left to get WBC to within seven, but it would be WBC’s last field goal of the game as the Sugar Bears scored 11 of the game’s final 13 points to improve to 7-1 all-time against the Lady Eagles and 3-2 at home this season. – Return to top – UCA will host Blue Mountain College, an NAIA member institution, on Friday at 2 p.m. in the final game before the holiday break. The Sugar Bears will then return to action on Dec. 30 against Austin Peay in the final game before Southland Conference play begins Jan. 3 at Abilene Christian.– Return to top –last_img read more