StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Company Law - Case Study Example

Cite this document
Summary
The paper "Company Law" tells us about provisions by which companies are to be governed, including the appointment of Directors, articles of incorporation, rights of shareholders, and procedures for legal action. Directors have a fiduciary duty to the Company, since under common law…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER93% of users find it useful
Company Law
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Company Law"

Company Law Issues: The major issues that must be considered in evaluating this situation is whether Paul, despite his resignation as Director, is still a shareholder in the Company, because his shares have not been bought out by anyone else. Any rights that may accrue to Paul will depend upon whether or not he is in breach of his fiduciary duties by joining a rival Company. Analysis: The Companies Act sets out the provisions by which Companies are to be governed, including appointment of Directors, articles of incorporation, rights of shareholders and procedures for legal action. Directors have a fiduciary duty to the Company, since under common law, the position of a director has been established1 to be similar to that of a trustee and the beneficiaries will be the shareholders of the Company. In the case of Fales v Canada Permanent trust for example, the trustees were held to be liable for their failure to act responsibly and for their lack of duty of care to the shareholders.2 This could prove to be a difficult issue for Peter and Mary if Paul is considered to be a shareholder. In this connection it must be noted that Paul, despite his resignation as Director, has not yet relinquished his shares in the Company which are a major 33 and 1/3rd percent. A high degree of impartiality and responsibility is expected of a person in the position of a trustee and a Director is in a similar position under common law.3 As a result, all directors will be expected to waive personal considerations and look out for the interests of the shareholders first before their own interests.4 Section 317 of the Companies Act of 1985 also places on directors a statutory duty to reveal any interest, profit or financial advantage accruing to them by virtue of their position. Applying the criteria above, it may be argued that Paul has been in breach of his fiduciary duties as a director because he has looked out for his own interests rather than that of the shareholders, by making a move to join a rival company. Justice Plowman in the case of Parke v Daily News Ltd5 held that the primary duty of the directors of a corporation is to their shareholders, superseding their duty to their employees. In the case of Mills v Mills, Latham CJ stated that a director must act “bonafide for the benefit of the company.”6 Therefore, since Paul has chosen to leave the Company to join a rival company, he has therefore acted in his own interests and not the interests of the shareholders of Ecofine, since these interests have in fact been compromised. Therefore, he is in breach of his duties as a director. A Director can resign any time, although he or she can only be removed by the shareholders7. However, Paul has gained a material advantage by joining the rival company and it may be argued that this is the result of his advantageous position as Director of Ecofine. Since Section 317 of the Companies Act of 1985 also places on directors a statutory duty to reveal any interest, profit or financial advantage accruing to them by virtue of their position, Paul needed to reveal the advantage gained by him through joining the rival company. Therefore, although he has resigned, there may still be a breach of his duties as director which has occurred through his joining a rival company. A Director of a company does not have to be a natural person8 and their decisions are to be conditioned by their own judgment of what they consider to be best at the time the decision is made.9 However, directors are expected to act in the best interests of the Company10 and therefore Paul’s action to join a rival company is in violation of their strict fiduciary obligation of a Director not to profit from their relationship with the Company.11 On these grounds therefore, Paul’s right to file suit under Section 459 may itself be contested. Although he is a majority shareholder, he has not acted in the best interests of the Company himself, therefore his grounds for filing suit against other directors may be contested. Section 459 of the Companies Act of 1985 allows shareholders to request the Court to pass an order decreeing that the affairs of the Company “are being conducted or have been conducted in a manner which is unfairly prejudicial to its members generally or of some part of its members.”12 The recent case of Bhullar v Bhullar has also re-established the court’s strict enforcement of the fiduciary duties of directors in the case of conflicts that arise when there is a clash of fiduciary duties and personal interests.13 Therefore, on these grounds, Paul may be guilty of a violation of the fiduciary duties of a director because he has allowed his personal interests to clash with his duties as director. In fact, he has allowed his personal interests to overtake his duties as director and has resigned from Ecofine to join a rival company. However, the fact remains that despite Paul’s resignation as Director, he is still a major shareholder in the Company and therefore entitled to have some say in Company affairs. The high fees the Directors have been drawing could make all three – Paul, Peter and Mary liable under new regulations. An attempt has been made to introduce increased regulation of Director incomes through the Directors Remuneration Report Regulations 2002. While existing listing rules already call for the listing of Director remuneration, this has now been made a statutory requirement under the amended Section 234 B of the Companies Act, with a new Schedule 7A that sets out detailed information that is to be included in the Directors Remuneration report.14 The directors may be deemed to have made profits for themselves by taking advantage of their fiduciary position – therefore the corporation can sue Paul, Peter or Mary, since they are accountable to the corporation for any profits made by virtue of the advantages of their fiduciary position.15 Paul owns 33 and 1/3rd% of the shares. However, despite being a minority shareholder, he will be protected from bullying by the larger shareholders through derivative claim mechanisms. Moreover the case of Foss v Harbottle16 provides minority protection, in that only a corporation can sue where a wrong arises that is ratifiable. However the terms where this minority protection will hold valid were spelt out in Edwards v Halliwell17 and a fraud should have been perpetrated on the minority18, if such protection is to hold good and the majority votes of the corporation are to be superseded. In the case of Paul however, it is unlikely that he can enjoy such protection, since he is the one who chose to violate his fiduciary duty as Director and profit from it by joining another Company. Therefore it may not be possible to support the position that a fraud has been perpetrated on him by the other directors, as a result of which he can enjoy minority protection. Conclusions: Penalization of directors and liquidators is provided for under Section 212 of the Insolvency Act and under subsections 1 and 2. Paul’s act to leave Ecofine and benefit a rival company could constitute breach of fiduciary duty, so that he may be compelled to repay or restore something to the Corporation.19 Under the same criterion however, Peter and Mary will also be liable. Directors must not cause or allow the business of the Company to be carried on in a manner that will create a serious risk or losses to the creditors of the Company.20 Therefore, all three directors may be liable under the Act, since the shareholders will be more carefully scrutinized when the Company is in liquidation, since directors must look out for the interests of the Company before their own interests.21 Since Peter and Mary have caused the Company to go into a near state of liquidation, it is possible that Paul may be able to file suit against them, because despite his resignation, he still remains a significant shareholder. Mary will also be liable because she is allowing her son to benefit at the expense of the Company, which is again a serious compromising of the fiduciary duties of a Director. Therefore, in conclusion it may be stated that despite Paul’s violation of his duties, his status as a shareholder may entitle him to file a suit under Section 459 of the Companies Act. However, he may not be able to successfully complete the suit and win a judgment in his favor, because he will be forced to reveal that he has himself compromised the interests of the Company and therefore has no standing to pursue action under Section 459. Bibliography Books: * Davies, Paul L and Gower, LCB, 1997. Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law 6th edition, Paul Davies. Sweet & Maxwell * Directors responsibilities [Online] Available at: http://www.winters.co.uk/factsheets/directors_responsibilities.html * Farrar, J.H., Hannigan, B.M. (1998) Farrar’s Company Law Butterworths * Goulding P, 1999. Cavendish Publishing Ltd, 2nd edition * Shutkever, Carol and Smith, Martin. The Directors Remuneration report Regulations 2002. [online] available at: http://www.mondaq.co.uk/i_article.asp_Q_articleid_E_19791 Cases cited: * Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Bros (1854) 1 Macq. 461 * Brown v British Abrasive Wheel Co (1919) 1 Ch. 290 * Bhullar v Bhullar (2003) EWCA Civ 424; (2003) WL 1202661 * Clemens v Clemens Brothers (1976) 2 All ER 268 * Cook v Deeks (1916) 1 AC 554 * Edwards v Halliwell (1950) 2 All ER 1064 * Fales v Canada Permanent Trust [1977] 2 SCR 302 * Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 * Great Eastern Railway Co. v. Turner (1872) 8 Ch App 149 * Mills v Mills (1938) 60 CLR 150 at 158 * Parke v Daily News Ltd (1962) 1 Ch 927 at 962-3 * Philips v Boardman (1967) 2 AC 46 YB93.239 * Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver (1967) 2 AC 134 * Re Lands Allotment Co [1894] 1 Ch 616 Legislation cited: * Companies Act 1993 * Insolvency Act of 1985 Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(Company Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words, n.d.)
Company Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words. https://studentshare.org/law/1707553-a-case-of-company-law
(Company Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
Company Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words. https://studentshare.org/law/1707553-a-case-of-company-law.
“Company Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”. https://studentshare.org/law/1707553-a-case-of-company-law.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Company Law

Company Law - corporate governance

Some changes are made in case law (Company Law), to make the strategies of the companies and the aspirations of the stake holders to fulfilled.... In this manner the case law should deal with the sincerity, diligence of the directors and the skills of the employees.... The consequences when the policy of the company makes a director a victim or a loop hole in a law makes the company pay compensation for the victim on behalf of the employee can be examined....
14 Pages (3500 words) Essay

Company Law globalization

Company Law can help business or it can hinder it.... Company Law can encourage entrepreneurship, promote growth, enhance international competitiveness and create the conditions for investment and commitment of resources, whether of savings or employment.... oo much of British Company Law frustrates, inhibits, restricts and undermines.... The company remains the choice of corporate vehicle for over a million businesses, and the core principles established by Company Law have served our economy well for over 150 years....
20 Pages (5000 words) Essay

Company Law Reform Bill

The Companies Bill (earlier popular as the Company Law Reform Bill) is a major step towards extensive reform of UK Company Law.... Very often, directors have to take advice in these areas so as to ensure that they do not inadvertently breach any duty enshrined in the case law.... The government therefore believes that codification of directors' duties will make the law in these areas more consistent, certain and accessible.... Companies Act 2006 ('the Act'), which received Royal Assent on the 8th November 2006, codifies directors' duties including the long-established fiduciary duties as well as the common law duty of care and skill into a statutory statement of seven general duties. ...
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

Company Law- An Overview

This study discusses the role of Company Law.... The study focuses on some of the dynamics in the legal process to tremble some effects in Company Law.... Company Law includes the body of legal rules relating to the creation, management, financing and operation of companies.... Generally, the Company Law recognizes two types of persons, namely natural which is confined to human beings and secondly artificial persons which refers anything other than the human being which the law recognizes as having duties and rights....
9 Pages (2250 words) Case Study

Company Law liability

There are four types of business system such as Sole Trade, Partnership, Private Limited company and Public Limited company.... The further expansion of partnership firm inviting more capital to cop up the expansion of the business necessitates formation of a limited company.... In a limited company funds are pooled from the public in the form of shares.... Again this limited company need not be a conversion of partnership firm....
15 Pages (3750 words) Essay

The Company Law Review

From the paper "The Company Law Review" it is clear that generally speaking, the Act on Auditors responsibility according to the reform states that the law on the person having the right to sue the auditors need not be changed.... (Company Law reform: UK proposals published, Out-Law News, 18/03/2005, http://www.... This duty on the part of the directors is: The Company Law Review considered the following major issues in their proposals restructuring those parts of Company Law most relevant to small businesses, making it easier for them to understand what they need to do....
9 Pages (2250 words) Coursework

Company Law Cases

The following literature review "Company Law Cases" is focused on the fact that due to the nature of operations companies engage in, it became necessary that their operations regulated.... It is stated that it is for this reason that Company Law was drafted.... Company Law regulates the way a company chooses its a business name.... This law has been helpful in streamlining company operations by ensuring that fraudulent companies do not exist and also that all businesses carried out by companies are legit as prescribed in their memorandum and article of association....
9 Pages (2250 words) Literature review

Company Law: Directors Duties

"Company Law: Directors Duties" paper argues that the duties of a director are continuously been elevated as a corporate governance norm improvement that seeks to ensure correct decisions are made for the company at all times.... The statute provides guidance also on specific areas of Company Law such as the number of directors, their appointment, and restrictions.... The main difference between a company and other business organizations is based on two fundamental Company Law principles....
10 Pages (2500 words) Case Study
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us