header-logo header-logo

In good company?

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll