header-logo header-logo

Directors beware?

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

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll