Search

How can we help?

Icon

Fiduciary duties to company shareholders

Earlier this year I discussed the importance of good corporate governance following the decision in Stobart Group v Tinkler. Paramount to good corporate governance is the adherence to the directors’ duties, whether contractual or fiduciary. Given the inherent lack of tangibility of any duties with a fiduciary persuasion, directors can often be found wanting when trying to quantify and qualify the positions where such duties might be owed to their shareholders.

Justice Jacobs sitting in the High Court has provided the following keen observations which will go some way to assisting directors and shareholders unsure of whether one exists. Whilst presiding over Vald. Nielsen Holding A/S, Newwatch Limited v Mr Victor Baldorino, Mr Richard Bennett and Mr Julian Mantell, Jacobs J reviewed a number of key authorities from English, Australian and New Zealand precedents. The claim in question was that the shareholders of a newco set up to facilitate a management buy-out were misled by the directors of the company and consequently sold to the newco at an undervalue. They claimed this was a breach of fiduciary duty.

Where a fiduciary relationship exists, the remedies for a breach of such a relationship can be onerous and far out weight those granted where just a contractual relationship is found. This guidance should therefore be noted.

Jacob Montague

Solicitor

View profile

+44 118 960 4613

“the cases where such duty has been held to exist mostly concern companies which are small and closely held, where there is often a family or other personal relationship between the parties, and where, in almost all cases, there is a particular transaction involved in which directors are dealing with the shareholders.”

Jacobs J posited the following:

  1. Firstly, he reiterated that “there is no doubt that the general position is that directors of a company do not, solely by virtue of their office of director, owe fiduciary duties to shareholders.” Fiduciary duties are special relationships and therefore require special circumstances. There must be an event, occurrence or happening that elevates the relationship beyond that of the legal one.
  2. “The directors’ superior knowledge of the business, compared to that of the shareholders, is not a special circumstance. It is the usual feature of the ordinary relationship between directors and shareholders.” Jacobs J observed that there is an inherent inevitability that the directors will know more about the company’s affairs than the shareholders – this is not, therefore, special.
  3. A fiduciary duty did not automatically arise when directors purchased shares from the shareholders, as was the case here. Referring to a New Zealand Court of Appeal decision that did find a fiduciary duty present during a director-shareholder-share purchase, the defining factor was, in fact, the closeness of the relationship amplified by its familial nature.
  4. In his concluding paragraphs Jacobs J found that: “the cases where such duty has been held to exist mostly concern companies which are small and closely held, where there is often a family or other personal relationship between the parties, and where, in almost all cases, there is a particular transaction involved in which directors are dealing with the shareholders.”

Given the above, Jacobs J found the relationship in Vald. Nielsen Holding A/S v Baldorino to be some way off one of a fiduciary one. Whilst this guidance from Jacobs J is useful and helps to clarify when a duty might exist, this remains a distinctly grey area of the law. Furthermore, we will have to wait and see how this decision is used by other Justices.

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.

Jacob Montague

Solicitor

View profile

+44 118 960 4613

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 21 November 2023
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Privacy matters: How the 8 data subject rights protect personal data

In this guide we explore the 8 data subject rights under the UK GDPR and discover how they play a vital role in preserving your organisation’s privacy standards in an increasingly interconnected world.

Pub
  • 21 November 2023
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Overview of Data Subject Access Requests

In recent months, we have witnessed a series of high-profile data breaches that have brought data protection issues to the forefront of the public’s mind and with this comes an increase in Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs).

art
  • 17 November 2023
  • Corporate and M&A

Should AI delete humans out of the legal sphere?

AI could potentially streamline routine legal tasks. However, there are consequences to consider when it comes to AI in the legal sphere.

art
  • 17 November 2023
  • Immigration

Controversial Immigration Health Surcharge Fee Increase and Budgetary Concerns

The proposed increase to the IHS has raised concerns, especially among businesses who financially support their sponsored workers’ visa applications.

Pub
  • 16 November 2023
  • Employment

TUPE Podcast Series: Service Provision Changes – Single specific events or tasks of short duration

In this fourth podcast in our TUPE Podcast Series, Amanda Glover will be looking at the second of the three conditions required for a service provision change transfer..

art
  • 16 November 2023
  • Commercial Real Estate

Navigating Telecom agreements: landlords beware

A telecommunications agreement, or wayleave agreement, is a contract between a service provider and a landowner which allows the service operator access to install infrastructure on the privately owned land, in return for wayleave fees.