De facto directors - act in the position of a director (eventhough) may not have been appointed as director but given powers to run company as a director. -Percival v Wright - a director was approached by a shareholder who wished to sell his shares on the seashore. The director agreed to buy them but failed to disclose the shareholder on information about an impending takeover bid at a higher price for the shares. The shareholder wanted the contract rescinded on the basis
De facto directors - act in the position of a director (eventhough) may not have been appointed as director but given powers to run company as a director. -Percival v Wright - a director was approached by a shareholder who wished to sell his shares on the seashore. The director agreed to buy them but failed to disclose the shareholder on information about an impending takeover bid at a higher price for the shares. The shareholder wanted the contract rescinded on the basis
De facto directors - act in the position of a director (eventhough) may not have been appointed as director but given powers to run company as a director. -Percival v Wright - a director was approached by a shareholder who wished to sell his shares on the seashore. The director agreed to buy them but failed to disclose the shareholder on information about an impending takeover bid at a higher price for the shares. The shareholder wanted the contract rescinded on the basis
1.Whos a director? S250 CA 06 Any person occupying the position
of director, by whatever named called, is regarded as a director and carries on duties as a director, is regarded a director in a company. De facto director Act in the position of a director (eventhough) may not have been appointed as director but given powers to run company as a director. De jure directors Formally appointed by the members of the company . A person is a de jure director if (1) the person has been appointed to the office of a director in accordance with the rules governing such ap [from the learning slide] Types of directors -Managing director -Executive and non executive directors Lord Pregwood said that the directors are embodied to whom is delegated the duty of managing the general affairs of the company. A corporate body can only act by agents and it is of course the duty of those agents so to act as best to promote the interest of the corporation whos affairs they are conducting. Such agents have duties to discharge of a fiduciary duty towards a principle. Lord Evershed MR in the case of Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas says, the phrase the company as a whole does not at any rate in such a case as the present mean the company as a commercial entity distinct from the corporators(epople who incoporate the the company) as a general body i.e shareholders, creditors, employees and also the general public. ^when talking about the company as a whole, it means that the director must also take care of the interest of the shareholders, general public etc because they make up the company. -Percival v Wright A director was approached by a shareholder who wished to sell his shares on the seashore. The director agreed to buy them but failed to disclose the shareholder on information about an impending takeover bid at a higher price for the shares. Th Director made a profit and the shareholder wanted the contract rescinded on the contract that has breache the fiduciary duty owed to him as a shareholder. The court rejected the claim made by the shareholder on the basis that the director owe a duty to the company as a whole and not to individual shareholders. -cf.coleman v Myers the managing director of a family company arranged for the company to be taken over for an undervalue by another company owned and formed by him. It was held that the managing director had breached his duty to the minority shareholders and had failed to disclose information concerning potential profits does misleading the shareholders into entering the
contract of sale. This is a case decided in New Zealand. The NZ
court of Appeal did not regard Percival v Wright as being wrongly decided, but held that in the special circumstance of coleman, there was a fiduciary duty between the members and the shareholders that caused the shareholders to habitually look to the defendants for business advice and when information on the true value of the shares were withheld from the other family shareholders by the defendant, the defendants were indeed liable. -Peskin v Anderson A dispute arose out of the demutualisation of the royal automobile culb, of which the members of the time of the sale, received a substantial payment. Forevermembers of the RAC claimed that he was stupid that the directors were in breach of the fiduciary duty to disclose the plan to demutualise they argued that had they known of the proposal, they would have been able to make a properly informed decision as to whether to remain as members. The court dismissed the claim and it was held that the directors did not owe any fiduciary duty. To the members who had terminated the membership on their own accord when no specific proposal causing contemplation.