A disenchanted minority shareholder has an arsenal of potential remedies. The lawyer’s characterization of those facts, and the skill in adducing the relevant evidence, will affect the outcome. For example, a given set of facts may, depending on the slant, lend itself to characterizations such as breach of contract, misrepresentation, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and so on. Similarly, there may be factors which vitiate contracts, such as mistake, fraud or duress. On the same factual base, a plaintiff may persuade a court that the case warrants a finding of oppression under the Business Corporations Act. The court has broad equitable discretion to remedy an alleged wrong where the court is persuaded that there has been oppression, i.e., unfair conduct that, even if otherwise legal, disregards or negatively affects the legitimate interests and reasonable expectations of a shareholder. The firm is currently retained to defend in a case where a start-up company had, over the course of three years, achieved a value approaching $100 million, but the initial shareholders have complained that their shareholdings have been wrongly diluted through breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, fraud and conspiracy. For good measure, the plaintiffs have alleged oppression.