5) Managing companies: Shares and shareholders Flashcards
Consequences of shareholders owning the company and their investment being at risk in the company
Shareholdeers:
* Exercise ultimate control over the company
* Holp to rceive financial return on their investment
Two key ways shareholders exercise control over
- Determining the company’s constitution
- Voting on shareholder resolutions
s168 CA 2006
A key element of shareholders’ control is their power to vote on a resolution to remove directors from the board.
MA 17
The powers of shareholders derive from CA 2006, but also from the company’s articles
The powers of shareholders derive from
CA 2006
and the Company’s Articles
Directors’ Powers - Modern Articles
Directors have control of the company’s day-to-day management and necessarily have broad powers to carry out such management.
* Modern Article 3
* Modern Article 5
Directors’ Powers Come from
- Modern Articles
Companies Acts
Directors’ Powers Controlled By
CA 2006 ss170 -177
* Directors must disclose info about themselves and their dealings with the company.
* Shareholder approval must be obtained for certain transactions
* Shareholders have certain important decisions reserved to them (such as amending company’s articles of association, s21)
CA 2006 ss170 -177
- Directors must disclose info about themselves and their dealings with the company.
- Shareholder approval must be obtained for certain transactions
- Shareholders have certain important decisions reserved to them (such as amending company’s articles of association, s21)
Shareholders’ reserve powers
- Acts as a further check of power on directors and protection for shareholders
- Modern Article 4
Modern Article 4
Shareholders Reserve Power
* Shareholders may by special resolution, direct the directors to take or refrain from taking, specified action.
* No special resolution invalidates anything which the directors have done before the passing of the resolution.
The company’s articles regulate the relationship
- Allocate power between directors (who act as a board)
- Shareholders (acting through the GM)
The Model Articles envisage the role of the shareholders ….
- A minor one
- Power limited to constitutional decisions only.
Shareholders may act…..
Where the board of directors is unable to do so.
Barron v Potter 1914
Barron v Potter 1914
- Shareholders may act in place of directors, where there is no board of directors competent or able to do so.
- Directors not on speaking terms, so board meetings couldn’t be held.
- In view of the deadlock, the power to appoint directors reverted to the shareholders.
Appointment of further directors was valid
For shareholders to pass a resolution
- They need to vote at a GM
- Use the written resolution procedure
Written Resolution Procedure ….
Is only available for private companies and not available for resolutions to remove directors or auditors.
The General Meeting Procedure
- Usually called by directors s302
- Passing a board resolution at a board meeting - usually a simple majority.
- Need to give 14 clear days’ notice of GM (ss307(1) and 360)
- Unless the short notice procedure is used (s307(4) – (6)) - 90% majority
s302
General Meeting called by directors by passing a board resolution
ss307(1) and 360
Board needs to give 14 clear days’ notice of a GM
s307(4) - (6)
90% of shareholders with voting rights agree - then a GM can take place on short notice immediately after the board meeting.
Shareholders can also call a general meeting
ss303-305
ss303(1) CA 2006
Shareholders together holding not less than 5% of the paid up voting capital of the company can serve a request on the company.
The s303 request is to call a GM
Must state the general nature of the business the shareholders wish to deal with.
May include the text of the resolution they want to propose
Directors obligation on receipt of s303
- Must call the GM within 21 days of the date they became subject to the notice
- Must not be more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.
s304(1) CA 2006
What happens if the directors fail to call the GM
- Shareholders representing 1/2 of those who submitted the s303 request can call a GM pursuant to CA 2006
s305 CA 2006
s305(6) CA 2006
- Shareholders representing 1/2 of those who submitted the s303 request can call a GM pursuant to CA 2006
- Can recover reasonable expenses for calling the GM; company can recoup from directors
Annual General Meeting - private companies
- Abolished the requirement for private limited companies to hold an AGM
- CA 2006
AGM - Public Companies
- AGM must be called by directors (s302) on 21 clear day’s notice ( s307(2),
s360(2)) within six months of the financial year end - Directors of the company present an annual report containing info for the shareholders about performance and strategy.
Section 360
- 21 Clear Day’s Notice
- Clear means that the day the notice is given, and the day of the meeting are discounted in calculating the relevant number of days.
Voting at general meetings
- A show of hands - one shareholder has one vote.
- A poll vote - one vote per share held.
Show of hands
Each shareholder has one vote
Poll vote
Where each shareholder has one vote
Re Horbury Bridge Coal Co
- Lord Jessell MR
- Votes at all meetings are taken by show of hands
MA 42
A resolution put to the vote of a GM must be decided on a show of hands, unless a poll is duly demanded in accordance with the articles.
MA 44
Deals with the right to demand a poll vote
S 321(1) CA 2006
- Provision of a company’s articles is void in so far as it would have the effect of excluding the right to demand a poll at a GM on any question other than
- The election of the chairperson of the meeting
- The adjournment of the meeting
Ordinary resolution
Requires a simple majority (more 50%)
s282(1) CA 2006
Special Resolution
Requires a majority of not less than 75%
s283(1) CA 2006
- Required by the CA 2006 for certain key constitutional decisions
Notice
- Timely (s307) and appropriate (s311) notice to all shareholders entitled to attend a general meeting.
- General notice - 14 clear days (ss307(1) and 360)
Quorum for a general meeting
- Two shareholders under s318(2)
- Unless a single member company.
- MA38 - no business other than the appointment of the chairman if persons attending are not a quorum.
s324
- Shareholders may appoint a proxy to exercise any or all of their rights to attend and speak and vote at a general meeting.
s323
Corporate shareholders must appoint a representative to attend general meetings under s323
Bushell v Faith
- Clause is a mechanism by which a company’s directors who are also shareholders can seek to prevent themselves from being removed from office.
- Clause is inserted into the articles of the company and provides that, when voting on a removal of director.
The director/shareholder in questions that their votes weighted by a great enough magnitude that annot be removed.
Bushell v Faith clauses, do not change the requirement under s168
- that under s168 need to pass an ordinary resolution to remove a director; rather they
- rather they represent an internal agreement amongst the shareholders as to the weight their vote carries on a specific resolution - not something the courts intervene in.
Written Resolutions - Under s288
private companies may pass shareholder resolutions using the written resolution procedure, instead of at general meeting
Written resolutions - process
- Must be sent to all eligible members
- Time limit of 28 days applies for eligible members to respond.
- Written resolutions must be passed by the required percentage of all eligible members
Two resolutions may not be passed as written resolutions.
- They will always require a General Meeting
- Section 288(2)(a) a resolution under s168 removing a director before expiration of their period in office.
- Section 288(2)(b) a resolution under s510 removing an auditor before expiration of his term of office.
Section 288(2)
- General Meeting will always be required for
- (A) premature removal of a director
- (B) premature removal of auditor
Duomatic Principle
Informal resolutions agreed by all shareholders outside of a formal meeting will be valid and binding.
Must be the unqualified agreement of all shareholders….whether express or implied…. by verbal or by conduct
Re Duomatic Ltd 1969
- Informal resolutions agreed by all the shareholders outside of a formal meeting will be valued and binding.
- Liquidator of Duomatic claimed repayment of remuneration from a director.
- Payments not formally authorised by the company in general meeting
- Court allowed the decision to stand, as had the backing of shareholders
Schofield v Schofield 2011
- Neil Schofield 90% share holder
- Unsuccessfully argued that he and his son (other shareholder) had agreed to treat informally a meeting called without s307 notice to dismiss Lee
- Courts found that there was no unqualified agreement
Rights of share holders to vote - General principle
May vote in their own interests - they are under no fiduciary duty to the company, can vote as they wish.
Must be bona fides however
Clemens v Clemens Bros 1976
- Court refused to allow a majority shareholder to authorise an allotment of shares where the motive was to dilute votin power of the minority
Northern Counties Securities Ltd v Jackson & Steeple Ltd 1974
Citco Banking Corp NV v Pusser’s Ltd 2007
Shareholders may also vote as they wish to remove a director, provided due process has been followed.
Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v Walker 1992
A minority shareholder was ordered not to vote against a restructuring agreement - where the consequence of this would be that the company would collapse and his shareholding would become worthless.
In exceptional circumstances, the courts have made orders to restrain a shareholder from exercising their vote in an irrational manner
Standard Chartered Bank v Walker 1992
Voting on a decision to amend the articles
- Court considers whether reasonable shareholders would consider the amendment to be for the benefit of the company
- Shareholders must vote to amend the articles in good faith, and not undermine the substantive rights of minority shareholders.
If shareholders vote to undermine substantive rights of minority shareholders
Court may hold the amendment invalid.
Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd 1900
Shareholders must vote to amend the articles in food faith.
Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co 1920
- Company introduced a power to give directors to buy out at a fair price the shareholding of any member who competed with the business
- Upheld as was for the benefit of the company.
Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co 1920 - Priciple
Court held that the power to alter a company’s articles must be exercised bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole.