Director duties(part02)

s.171 CA 2006
Directors are also strictly charged to exercise their powers only for a proper purpose. For instance, were a director to issue a large number of new shares, not for the purposes of raising capital but to defeat a potential takeover bid, that would be an improper purpose.

However, in many jurisdictions the members of the company are permitted to ratify transactions that would otherwise fall foul of this principle. It is also largely accepted in most jurisdictions that this principle should be capable of being abrogated in the company's constitution.

Directors must exercise their powers for a proper purpose. While in many instances an improper purpose is readily evident, such as a director looking to feather his or her own nest or divert an investment opportunity to a relative, such breaches usually involve a breach of the director's duty to act in good faith. Greater difficulties arise where the director, while acting in good faith, is serving a purpose that is not regarded by the law as proper.

The seminal authority in relation to what amounts to a proper purpose is the Privy Council decision of Howard Smith Ltd v. Ampol Ltd. The case concerned the power of the directors to issue new shares. It was alleged that the directors had issued a large number of new shares purely to deprive a particular shareholder of his voting majority. The court rejected an argument that the power to issue shares could only be properly exercised to raise new capital as too narrow, and held that it would be a proper exercise of the director's powers to issue shares to a larger company to ensure the financial stability of the company, or as part of an agreement to exploit mineral rights owned by the company. If so, an incidental result (even desirable) that a shareholder lost his majority, or a takeover bid was defeated would not itself make the share issue improper. But if the sole purpose was to destroy a voting majority, or block a takeover bid, that would be an improper purpose.

Not all jurisdictions recognised the "proper purpose" duty as separate from the "good faith" duty however.

Promoting company success

 Corporate benefit
s.172 CA 2006, "to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole". It sets out six factors to which a director must have regards in fulfilling the duty to promote success. These are:
the likely consequences of any decision in the long term
the interests of the company’s employees
the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others
the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment
the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
the need to act fairly as between members of a company
This represents a considerable departure from the traditional notion that directors' duties are owed only to the company. Previously in the United Kingdom, under the Companies Act 1985, protections for non-member stakeholders were considerably more limited (see e.g., s.309, which permitted directors to take into account the interests of employees but that could be enforced only by the shareholders, and not by the employees themselves. The changes have therefore been the subject of some criticism. Directors must act honestly and in bona fide. The test is a subjective one—the directors must act in "good faith in what they consider—not what the court may consider—is in the interests of the company..." per Lord Greene MR.However, the directors may still be held to have failed in this duty where they fail to direct their minds to the question of whether in fact a transaction was in the best interests of the company.

Difficult questions arise when treating the company too abstractly. For example, it may benefit a corporate group as a whole for a company to guarantee the debts of a "sister" company,even if there is no "benefit" to the company giving the guarantee. Similarly, conceptually at least, there is no benefit to a company in returning profits to shareholders by way of dividend. However, the more pragmatic approach illustrated in the Australian case of Mills v. Mills (1938)  normally prevails: