header-logo header-logo

19 July 2007 / Patrick Beale
Issue: 7282 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Directors beware?

Can directors mitigate the increased risk of claims under CA 2006? asks Patrick Beale

On 1 October 2007, the provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) governing directors’ duties and the rights of shareholders to bring claims against directors in the name of the company (so-called derivative claims) will come into force. Concern has been expressed that the changes will expose directors to increased litigation.

The effect of the directors’ duties under CA 2006 (see box on p 1034) is cumulative so that where more than one duty applies, a director must comply with each applicable duty. So, for example, the duty to promote the success of the company will not excuse a director from a breach of the duty to act within his powers, even if he considers that it would most likely promote the success of the company.

The most significant change is the duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of members as a whole. The meaning of this phrase is not devoid of uncertainty. “Success” in this context will usually mean “long-term increase in value”. In

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll