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

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll