Directors and Shareholders: There’s Hope If You Forget Companies Act Compliance Requirements

A3The “new” Companies Act is pitted with clauses requiring that special resolutions be passed. There are also instances where as directors you are required to take certain actions such as recusing yourself if there is a conflict of interest.

It is important to note that transactions can be set aside if the necessary steps are not taken. Should this happen, a costly and time-consuming exercise would follow.

Can “unanimous consent” rectify non-compliance?

Both our “old” Companies Act and English company law allowed the concept of “unanimous consent” to override statutory non-compliance with certain requirements, such as the requirement for a special resolution to be passed authorising the sale of all (or the greater part) of a company’s assets. Simply put, if all of the shareholders were aware of the implications of a transaction and consented to the transaction, then the “unanimous consent” principle may be available to hold up the transaction despite the required statutory steps not having been taken.

In South Africa following the introduction of the “new” Companies Act in 2011, there was uncertainty whether “unanimous consent” would be accepted here until the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) recently pronounced on the subject.

What the SCA said

A company sold the major part of its assets and the directors had a conflict of interest in the sale. Part of the case revolved around setting aside the transaction as no special resolution was passed for the sale of the assets and the directors had not disclosed their interests. The company was owned by a single shareholder – a trust effectively controlled by one person.

The SCA said that the reason for requiring that a special resolution be passed was to “ensure that the interests and views of all shareholders are taken into account”. When reviewing the circumstances of this case the SCA found that the person who controlled the sole shareholder was party to the transaction and thus no special resolution was needed as the shareholder was clearly aware of and had effectively approved the transaction.

It used a similar line of reasoning in resolving the conflict of interest question.

The court specifically accepted the principle of unanimous consent, stating “that principle, long recognised in English company law, from which our courts have received much guidance, was accepted as part of our law relating to companies, under both the 1926 and the 1973 Companies Acts. I can see nothing in the current Act to suggest that the principle no longer finds application”.

The implications are that if a business is owner-managed or the board of directors are a tightly knit group then – even if in error you don’t tie up all the Company law requirements – the “unanimous consent” principle might be available to you.

Be sure however to seek professional advice – every situation will be different.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied upon as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your financial adviser for specific and detailed advice.  Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

This entry was posted in Business and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.