Search

How can we help?

Icon

Directors duties and Pyrrhic victories – what are the ingredients for a successful claim?

The defection of directors to a competing company is often a matter of concern for their former employer.  There may be a natural suspicion that the directors will seek to unfairly exploit the information they gained in their previous role.  However, rushing off to Court is not always be the best solution.  As any law school student will know, a successful Claimant must show that a duty exists, the duty has been breached and that loss has been suffered as a result.

The Claimants in the recent case of Gamatronic -v- Hamilton & Mansfield ticked the first two of these boxes but fell down on the third.

The Defendants were directors and shareholders of Gamatronic.  They left to join a competitor (Vox) and entered into a share purchase agreement (SPA) to sell their shares to Gamatronic’s parent.  Gamatronic subsequently issued proceedings, alleging that the Defendants had breached their duties by helping set up Vox whilst they were still at Gamatronic.  It asked the court to rescind the SPA and order that the Defendants repay their Gamatronic salaries and account to Gamatronic for their Vox salaries.

The Court agreed that the Defendants owed various duties in their capacities as directors, employees and shareholders.  Gamatronic also established that these duties had been breached by the Defendants travelling to Denver to meet Vox’s founders and helping set up Vox’s price list.

However, the claim then ran into trouble.  Although the Defendants had breached their duties, they spent comparatively little time carrying out the competing activities.  The evidence showed that they had otherwise diligently discharged their duties to Gamatronic.  As a result, it would not be fair to order them to repay their Gamatronic salaries.

The Court also rejected the claim to account for the Defendants’ Vox salaries.  The Defendants didn’t actually receive a Vox salary until nine months after they left Gamatronic, so there was no link to the breach of duty.

The Court agreed that the Defendants owed various duties in their capacities as directors, employees and shareholders.

The Court agreed that this was a case in which rescission would be available due to the Defendants’ failure to disclose in the SPA their breaches of duty.  However, there was again a catch.  Rescission of the SPA would usually mean Gamatronic refunding the sale price and returning the shares to the Defendants.  However, Gamatronic had already stated that it did not want this to happen.  The Court held that there was no reason to depart from the normal position.  If Gamatronic did not want a rescission on the usual basis it could not have it at all.

This case is a good example of the importance of strategic planning at the outset of any claim.  It is easy to be distracted by what departing directors have done and forget to consider what has actually happened as a result.  All matters must be taken into account to best protect the remaining business.

For further information or support with Directors’ Duties, please feel free to contact our team.

About this article

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 07 February 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Talk & Golf : Thinking of Exiting your Business?

Join Stuart Mullins, Partner at Clarkslegal, and Nicky Goringe Larkin, Managing Director at Succession Planning, for a morning breakfast talk on preparing your business for exit, followed by a round of golf at the Eyston Course at Caversham Golf Club.

art
  • 06 February 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Cookies and Consent: the ICO’s Cookie Review

In the digital age, cookies play a crucial role in how websites operate and interact with users.

art
  • 05 February 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Growing Pains for Businesses

This thought piece considers some of the key issues and pain points facing a business planning to scale up

art
  • 03 February 2025
  • Employment

Indirect discrimination: How mandated office returns could discriminate against working mothers

In this article though, we will focus on one of the biggest potential hurdles, and the one that is garnering the most media attention and the most criticism. Is a return to work policy discriminatory on grounds of sex?

art
  • 24 January 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

UK Data Protection: A look back at 2024 and what to expect in 2025

On 15 January 2025, Louise Keenan and Shauna Jones hosted our webinar “UK Data Protection: what happened in 2024 and what’s in store for 2025.” Our webinar is available for you to watch, but in this article, we will provide a brief summary of what was discussed.

art
  • 22 January 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Deal Announcement: Clarkslegal’s Corporate team advise founder on exit from Bristol based hospitality business

Clarkslegal is pleased to have advised the exiting shareholder and director of a hospitality business in the South West on the sale of their shareholding and termination of their employment.