Shareholder Disputes Series (Part 5 of 10): Exclusion from management / No Involvement in important decision making

Is this happening to you?

Majority, you not allowing me to be a director or be employed by the company as expected. You’re not running anything by me at all!

Introduction

Proprietary companies are often controlled by a single shareholder or a group. The majority’s nominated directors will control the board and therefore the activities of the company. If the majority (whether as shareholders or with their nominated directors) run the company in their own interests, the detriment to the minority can be serious. The minority shareholders have limited options because they cannot vote the directors out, in a general meeting, without the majority’s support. Getting out is difficult because they cannot force the majority to buy them out. As it’s not a listed company, they are also likely to find it hard to find a buyer of their minority stake. They are locked in with no control of their investment. It’s a difficult position to be in.[1]

The following are the most common complaints made by minority shareholders[2]:

1. The majority are paying themselves excessive remuneration;
2. Little or no participation in profits;
3. The majority are diverting corporate opportunity / are operating a competing business;
4. Exclusion from management;
5. No involvement in important decisions;
6. Limited access to information about the company’s affairs;
7. Inability to prevent dilution of their equity stake;
8. No freedom to transfer shares;
9. No market for their shares;
10. Bad management by the majority.

The following is a consideration of the forth of these complaints, with recommendations on how a shareholders agreement will assist to prevent it.

Shareholders Agreement – What is it?                                                                                                        

Shareholders agreements are a fundamental tool to help a company’s shareholders establish expectations and manage their risk. They are particularly useful to establish rights for minority shareholders and arguably, its primary purpose is “to eliminate the tyranny of the majority”[3].

Starting Point – The Company’s Constitution

To properly appreciate how to address a risk in shareholders agreement, you first need to understand what the legal position would be without a shareholders agreement. To do so, the first point of call is the company’s constitution. This is because the company’s constitution contains provisions relating to the day-to-day internal management and proceedings of the company – the rules.

Legally, a company’s constitution has effect as a contract:

• between the company and each shareholder; and
• between the company and each director and company secretary; and
• between a shareholder and each other shareholder;

under which each person agrees to observe and perform the constitution and rules so far as they apply to that person[4].

Every company’s constitution will be different, depending on who originally helped the company founders establish the company. Typically, however, the constitution provides that the business of the company is to be managed by or under the direction of the directors. The directors may exercise all the powers of the company except any powers that this Act or the company’s constitution (if any) requires the company to exercise in a general meeting.[5].

Without any control of the board of directors, let alone having a director on the board (or having a nominee appointed) a minority shareholder has no say in the management of the company.

Protection

The shareholders agreement can incorporate the following provisions to protect the minority:

1. Nominee Director: a provision giving minority the right to appoint and replace a director should be considered.
2. Employment: a right for the minority to be employed by the company or provide services to the company incapable of variation or termination but for breach.

Veto: a power to veto critical management matters is also an option. This is usually achieved by requiring unanimity or concurrence of a higher percentage of voting units for a resolution.

Shareholder Disputes Rights and Remedies

This post is not a consideration of the legal duties and remedies that may prohibit the conduct or the remedies available when such conduct occurs. If you have, or anticipate, a dispute between shareholder in your company as a result of any of these complaints, please call Joe Kafrouni to discuss how we can help.

Author

Joe Kafrouni, Legal Practitioner Director, Kafrouni Lawyers

Disclaimer

The information provided by Kafrouni Lawyers is intended to provide general information and is not legal advice or a substitute for it. Business people should always consult their own legal advisors to discuss their particular circumstances. Kafrouni Lawyers makes no warranties or representations regarding the information and exclude any liability which may arise as a result of the use of this information. This information is the copyright of Kafrouni Lawyers.

References

[1] Lipton, Phillip; Herzberg, Abe; Welsh, Michelle, Understanding Company Law (Law Book Co, 17th ed, 2014 ), 629

[2] Cadman, John, Shareholders’ Agreements (Sweet & Maxwell Limited, 4^th ed, 2004), 190

[3] Duffy, Michael J. (2008) “Shareholders Agreements and Shareholders’ Remedies Contract Versus Statute?” Bond Law Review: Vol. 20: Iss. 2, Article 1 at 5 citing A Elson, ‘Shareholders Agreements: A Shield for Minority Shareholders of Close Corporations’ (1967) 22 Business Lawyer 449

[4] Section 140 Corporations Act 2001

[5] This is a Replaceable Rule – s 198A Corporations Act 2001