Disputes Arising From Failure Of Corporate Governance Obligations
1. Meaning of Corporate Governance Obligations
Corporate governance refers to the system of rules, practices, and processes by which a company is directed and controlled. Governance obligations arise from:
Company law statutes
Articles of Association
Listing and securities regulations
Fiduciary duties of directors and officers
Shareholder agreements and board charters
Failure of these obligations leads to disputes between shareholders, directors, regulators, creditors, and other stakeholders.
2. Common Governance Failures Leading to Disputes
Breach of Fiduciary Duties – Acting in self-interest or bad faith
Lack of Board Oversight – Failure to monitor management or risks
Related-Party Transactions – Undisclosed or unfair transactions
Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements – Reporting and disclosure failures
Misuse of Corporate Funds – Diversion or unauthorized expenditures
Failure to Protect Stakeholder Interests – Minority shareholders or creditors
3. Legal Issues Typically Raised
Duty of care, skill, and diligence
Duty of loyalty and good faith
Director accountability and personal liability
Business judgment rule applicability
Corporate veil lifting
Regulatory and shareholder enforcement rights
4. Remedies Commonly Sought
Removal or disqualification of directors
Compensation and damages
Injunctions restraining further breaches
Rescission of unlawful transactions
Regulatory penalties
Appointment of independent directors or administrators
5. Key Case Laws on Corporate Governance Failures
1. Foss v Harbottle (UK)
Issue: Whether courts interfere in internal corporate management
Held: Courts generally will not interfere where the majority can ratify acts.
Principle: Established the rule of majority control, subject to exceptions for fraud and oppression.
2. Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver (UK)
Issue: Directors profiting from their position
Held: Directors were liable to account for profits.
Principle: Directors must avoid conflicts of interest, even if the company benefits.
3. Howard Smith Ltd v Ampol Petroleum Ltd (UK)
Issue: Improper exercise of directors’ powers
Held: Share issuance for improper purpose was invalid.
Principle: Powers must be exercised for proper corporate purposes.
4. Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co Ltd (UK)
Issue: Director negligence and duty of care
Held: Directors not liable due to prevailing standards of the time.
Principle: Highlighted evolution toward stricter governance standards.
5. Percival v Wright (UK)
Issue: Directors’ duty toward individual shareholders
Held: Duty owed to company, not individual shareholders.
Principle: Reinforced collective governance responsibility.
6. BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders (Canada)
Issue: Board duties toward stakeholders
Held: Directors must act in the best interests of the corporation, balancing stakeholder interests.
Principle: Governance duties extend beyond shareholders alone.
7. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd (India)
Issue: Removal of executive chairman and board governance
Held: Board actions upheld as compliant with governance norms.
Principle: Courts defer to bona fide board decisions made in good faith.
6. How Courts Assess Governance Failures
Courts evaluate:
Whether directors acted honestly and in good faith
Whether decision-making followed due process
Existence of conflict of interest
Compliance with statutory and contractual frameworks
Impact on company and stakeholders
7. Preventive Governance Measures
Independent and qualified directors
Strong audit and compliance committees
Transparent disclosure practices
Clear delegation of authority
Regular board evaluations and risk assessments
8. Conclusion
Disputes arising from failure of corporate governance obligations reflect tensions between managerial discretion and accountability. Courts aim to uphold ethical leadership, transparency, and fiduciary responsibility, intervening where governance breakdowns undermine corporate integrity or stakeholder trust.
RELATED Blog
comments