header-logo header-logo

Corporate excellence

10 June 2010
Issue: 7421 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Merit, diversity & transparency to transform boardrooms

FTSE 350 directors will need to be re-elected annually by shareholders under new best practice guidelines issued by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) last week.

Changes to the Combined Code, now rebranded the UK Corporate Governance Code, include a recommendation that boards take gender diversity into account when appointing members. Companies will also have to demonstrate that recruitment to the board is based on merit against objective criteria and encouraged to improve risk management by making the board responsible for determining the extent of risk that the company is willing to take. Additionally, board chairmen will be expected to hold regular development reviews with each director and will need to pencil in external board effectiveness reviews every three years.

Speaking at NLJ’s corporate governance newscast last week, Frances Le Grys, a partner at Hogan Lovells, said the new regime reflected a general move, advocated by Sir David Walker, who is leading the inquiry into the corporate governance of banks and other financial institutions, towards “skilling up” the board and ensuring the tools for better stewardship are in place.

“In effect this means getting the right blend of people on the board, briefing and training them properly and then appraising them rigorously. The voice and confidence of non executive directors in particular should be strengthened by the new regime,” she said.

While the code is not binding, companies are required either to follow it or explain how else they are acting to promote good governance.  Lucy Fergusson, a partner at Linklaters, said during the newscast that the pressure shareholders have shown so far in supporting annual re-election rules out non compliance for the top firms: “It may be quite difficult for companies in the FTSE 350 to justify why they won’t opt for annual re-election. Some companies do this voluntarily already, and they haven’t seemed to have suffered because of it.”

Carol Shutkever, partner at Herbert Smith, who chaired the newscast, commented: “A lot of the changes in the code are just ones of tone and emphasis, but together they do amount to a significant shift in the behaviour expected of boards”.

The code applies to listed companies for financial years beginning on or after 29 June 2010.
 

Issue: 7421 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll