4) Managing Companies: Directors and the Board Flashcards
Directors Relationship Overview
- Manage company on a day-to-day basis
- Certain actions only taken by directors if shareholders given authority
- Owe duties to the company
Shareholder Relationship Overview
- Own the company
- Able to control key decisions through shareholder resolutions
Where does director’s control of the company originate?
Model Articles
Model Articles 3
Subject to the articles, the directors are responsible for the management of the company’s business, for which purpose they may exercise all the powers of the company
Model Article 4
The shareholders may by special resolution, direct the directors to take, or refrain from taking specified action.
Shareholder Protection from rogue director
- Model Aricle 4 - grants the shareholders a reserve power of special resolution
- Companies Act 2006 - eg power to control amendments to the company’s articles by special resolution (s21 CA)
- Removal of director by ordinary resolution (s168 CA)
s21 Companies Act 2006
Control amendments to a companies articles by special resolution
s168 Companies Act 2006
- Ultimate sanction that can be exercised
- Removal of director by ordinary process
Directors are …
Agents of the company, not of the shareholders.
Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd 1974
Directors may take decisions against the wishes of the majority of the shareholders.
Definition of director in Companies Act 2006
- Doesn’t define “director”
- s250 includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called.
Categories of director which we consider
- At law - de jure, de facto and shadow directors
- In practice - executive and non executive directors
- Company articles may also provide for alternate directors.
De jure directors
- A director validly appointed by law
s154 Companies Act 2006
- A private limited company must have at least one director and a public limited company must have at least two directors
s155(1) Companies Act 2006
Every company must have at least one director who is a natural person
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015
Not yet in force but Gov has indicated it will be implemented alongside identify verification checks
* Going to require company directors to be natural persons,
* Prohibits the appointment of corporate directors subject to certain exceptions.
Maximum number of directors?
- CA 2006 does not prescribe a limit
- Neither does MA
- Company can limit in own articles.
s157 CA 2006
A person cannot be appointed as a director until they’re 16 (or does not take effect until aged 16)
De facto director
Someone who assumes to act as a director but has, in fact, not been validly appointed.
Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd 1994
- Must be established whether someone is part of the corp governance of the company and undertook decisions which would normally be taken by a director rather than someone below board level.
No definitive test to identify whether someone is a de facto director
Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd 1994
Smithon Ltd (formerly Hobart Capital Markets Ltd) v Naggar 2014
- Necessary to assess the acts performed by the person and whether they are directorial in nature
- Look at the context and cumulative effect
- Whether company considered person to be director
- Whether 3rd parties considered the person to be a director
Question of fact in each case
Why is it important to recognise where a person is a de facto director
The same fiduciary duties and liabilities in insolvency apply to all directors
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Holland 2010
Basis of liability for a de facto director is an assumption of liabiity, with being part of the company’s corp governance structure
Shadow Director
S251(1) CA 2006
Defines a shadow director as “a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act”
Professional advisers are not regarded as shadow directors
s251(2)
* If conduct goes beyond the normal scope of professional capacity
* If effectively controlling the company’s affairs then = shadow director
Re Tasbian Ltd (No3) 1992
If effectively controlling the company’s affairs, then that person will be held to be a shadow director.
Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd 1994
Facts
- Can two directors of the parent company be deemed shadow directors of subsidiary company
- Liable for wrongful trading under s 214?
Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd 1994
**Test to establish if a person was a shadow director **
Need to prove
* Identity of the formally-appointed directors of the company
* The person in question directed those formally appointed directors as to how to act in relation to the company’s affairs.
* Those directors acted in accordance with that person’s directions
* The directors were accustomed to act in that manner
The question to determine if a shadow director
A controlling shareholder, holding company or directors of a holding company could be said to be a shadow director if the directors are accustomed to act in accordance with their directions
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Deverell 2000
Morritt LJ
Sufficient to show in the face of directions/instructions from alleged shadow director the properly appointed directors or some of them cast themselves in a subservient role
* Consultants were found to be shadow directors- as company’s board was accustomed to following them
Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding 2005
- Position of influence does not necessarily mean that there is a shadow director.
- Must be shown that governing majority of the board are accustomed to act in accordance with the directions of the alleged shadow director.
Difference between de facto vs shadow director
Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd 1994
* De Facto - claims and purports to be a director
* Shadow- shelter behind others who he claims are the only directors.