Abstract:
Considering the recent corporate scandals over the past couple years – VBS Mutual Bank, McKinsey & Trillian, Steinhoff, EOH and possibly Tongaat Hulett to name but a few – many shareholders may seek to hold the directors and management of such entities personally liable for their involvement or negligence. Especially where their actions were tantamount to fraud, they benefited in some way and or as a result the company, and possibly the shareholders, suffered damages. This is especially true when a company as consequence is liquidated and cannot institute action on its behalf.
It is submitted that directors are rarely held personally liable for failing to fulfill their duties, let alone liable to the shareholders. The risk of failing to monitor internal controls or business risks, and to hold those acting on behalf of the company responsible and accountable for their actions, is dangerous due to the significant effect that such failure could have on the economy, for example the economic collapse with respect to the recent Steinhoff debacle.
Whereas the earlier Companies Act 61 of 1973 did not necessarily ‘spell out’ directors’ duties in detail, the Companies 71 of 2008 comprehensibly records their statutory and common law duties. To this extent the board is held accountable and can ensure proper governance in the company’s internal affairs.
Shareholders expect management to maximise the value of a company for the benefit of the shareholders and to act in their best interest. In achieving this, directors are required to act in the best interests of the company. However, directors may use their elevated position for their own personal gain and self-interests. Thus, in which circumstances will courts pierce the corporate veil, stepping aside from a company’s unique legal personality, to impute liability to the wrongdoers lurking behind?
The relationship between directors, a company and its shareholders is a fiduciary one which imposes certain duties upon directors. However, it is well established in law that directors’ duties are owed to the company itself.
Thus, considering common and statutory law, on what legal basis would shareholders be able to bring a claim against directors for the loss or damage they suffered due to an act of the directors? Considering the above, this paper seeks to explore directors’ liability to shareholders within South Africa’s common and statutory law, bearing in mind entrenched legal principles, such as the argument that fiduciary duties are duties owed to the company and not to individual shareholders; and that as a result only the company can impose liability on its directors.
