header-logo header-logo

03 February 2012 / David Greene
Issue: 7499 / Categories: Opinion , Company
printer mail-detail

In good company?

What does the future hold for shareholder democracy, asks David Greene

The hot topic of the week is the control that shareholders have over executives’ remuneration and bonuses. Vince Cable has joined the throng with fresh proposals for change. The idea, however, that increasing shareholders’ control over this aspect of the relationship between their company and its senior employees will serve some wider social good is illusory, notwithstanding politicians’ declarations to the contrary. If they want to achieve control of executive conduct by shareholders, the way in which that relationship works would have to shift radically. In any event, are shareholders willing, able, or indeed the right people, to exert such control?

Primary responsibility

Directors’ primary responsibility is to the company with which they have contractual and other obligations. Their additional common law duties to the company are set out in the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) at ss 170–181. Much was made of these new provisions, but commentators recognise that they merely repeat what was previously enforceable at common law.

Some of the pre-publicity to CA 2006 suggested that the statutory duties

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