Company Directors’ Responsibilities

Directors in today’s global market are increasingly being held personally liable for their actions that harm their companies, as well as facing civil and criminal liabilities for failing to comply with the procedures and requirements of various laws. Further, there are several Acts, for which the violation thereof can result in criminal sanctions, including fines and even imprisonment. Directors can find themselves subject to criminal sanctions for such minor infractions as late filing or inadvertently filling out a form incorrectly.

By accepting the assignment as a director, the director establishes a contractual relationship with the company based on two distinguishable obligations:

  1. obligations relating to the functioning of the company; and

  2. management obligations.

Both categories are in the exclusive competence of the director. The obligations relating the functioning of the company pertain to all acts aimed at ensuring the operations of all corporate bodies, to which the director is responsible by law or by the Articles of Association of the company. In this context, the following can be included: the obligation to call the shareholder meeting; the responsibility to prepare and approve the draft budget and to convene the meeting for approval. Furthermore, the obligation to keep accounting records; to announce, register and fulfil the duties of the Business Register. The director is prohibited from acting in conflict of interest with the company or in competition with the latter.

The management obligations indicate all acts aimed to achieve the corporate purpose. For example, the obligation to provide the company with an adequate organisational and accounting structure, to guarantee safety in the workplace and to ensure that the company is acting in accordance with the law. From this point of view, the most important obligation is to act with diligence, i.e. to identify and implement all the necessary measures to take care of the interests of the company.

The scope of this obligation is measured on the basis of two criteria:

  1. nature of the assignment, where all characteristics of the company administered – such as size, activity performed, organisational structure and the position held by the director within the administrative body must be considered;

  2. specific skills, according to the particular knowledge of the director, his technical and managerial skills and his actual experiences need to be kept in mind.

In the event of a court judgment, the Judge will evaluate the director’s behaviour based on the aforementioned criteria. The level of diligence required from a long-experienced managing director of a multinational company may be different from that of a director of a private company with small turnover volumes.

If the following conditions are fulfilled, a Director is liable of non-fulfilment or incorrect fulfilment of his obligations:

  • the director has, in the performance of his duties, adopted a behaviour in violation of the duties and obligations provided law or by the Articles of Association;

  • this behaviour caused damage;

  • a causal link between the behaviour of the director and the damage exists (i.e. the damage is an “immediate and direct consequence” of the behaviour).

Actions to enforce the liability of a director of a limited liability company can be raised:

  • by the company itself,

  • by company’s creditors,

  • by individual shareholders and third parties, if the behaviour of the directors caused damage to them;

Directors can minimise their risks by being aware of their duties and responsibilities and ensuring that they are performed prudently and diligently. Among the steps that a director can take to minimise his liability are the following:

  • attend directors’ meetings regularly;

  • ensure that delegated authority is exercised properly;

  • ensure that directors’ decisions are implemented properly;

  • document measures taken to prevent mismanagement

It is notable that the director holds the position of the company’s legal representative according to the Companies House, based on which a lawsuit is in practice often filed together with a lawsuit against the company. For example, in an employee dismissal case, the director may be sued as the second defendant and claiming for compensation due to his authority to make a decision for the aforementioned act on behalf of the company. However, the law sees the director as a legal representative which is granted protection in terms of personal liability to third parties for any act that has been done prudently and diligently within the scope of his authority. By virtue of his legal representation, such action shall be attributed to the company.

If you need any assistance or require further information regarding company directors responsible please contact us on 0870 228 1999 or email us on info@stanleycarter.co.uk

Starting a business can be a risk

There are so many things that could go wrong and what business owners need to know is that compliance is one of the best ways to manage most risks that are inherent to Startups. Non-compliance to regulatory requirements results in fines, restrictions on operations, and license revocations. Therefore, Startups must observe compliance guidelines to ensure smooth operations. Compliance can be a complicated affair, especially when you realize just how much needs to be done.

Here are some aspects of compliance that are relevant to every Startup.

Choosing the Right Business Structure

Deciding whether your business will be a sole trader, partnership, limited company, or any other type is extremely important. There are regulations and tax requirements that are unique to each business structure. Understanding how your business structure relates to compliance is the first step for every entrepreneur.

You might have enough capital to register as a sole trader or require funding hence opt for a limited liability company.  Business capital is governed by a unique set of laws that you have to consider. Whichever the case, keep tax and other regulatory obligations in mind as you make this choice.

Most SMEs either comply with basic registration or overlook it completely. This is a grave mistake that could have serious legal implications. Take the time to understand the categories your business falls under and what is expected from you as far as registration goes.

Adhering To Audit and Tax Regulations

All businesses are required to carry out yearly audits and prepare annual audit reports. These reports must contain all financial transactions of the year. Startups and SMEs are not exempted from this regulatory requirement.

Auditing may not be a familiar concept for most people running startups simply because not everyone knows the ins and outs of recording transactions. To simplify auditing and ensure you comply with regulatory requirements, maintain a book of accounts. Hire an auditor to crunch the numbers and prepare a report.

Startups are required to declare their tax liabilities at the time of incorporation. Failure to do so creates inconveniences down the road.

If you need any assistance or require further information please contact us on 0870 228 1999 or email us on info@stanleycarter.co.uk

Authorities ramp up enforcement of foreign companies’ non-compliance with national anti-bribery laws

In recent years, multinationals have increased their efforts to mitigate the risk of commercial bribery in particularly given the wide-reaching applicability of the UK Bribery Act.

The prosecution of commercial bribery has once again become a key issue following the amendment of the Anti unfair Competition Act (AUCA). With the restructuring of the act’s anti-bribery provision, which dovetailed with the national anti corruption movement, the government appears to be cracking down on unlawful commercial activities by both domestic and foreign companies.

Foreign companies’ compliance with anti-bribery laws is set to become as big a focus area as domestic companies compliance with foreign laws.

What constitutes commercial bribery under AUCA?

The AUCA defines ‘commercial bribery’ as “using money, things of value, or other means to bribe with the purpose of obtaining transactional opportunity or competitive advantage”. Possible recipients of unlawful commercial bribery under the AUCA are limited to:

  • the employees of a counterparty to a transaction;
  • organisations or individuals entrusted by a counterparty to a transaction to handle relevant matters; and
  • organisations or individuals that use their power to influence a transaction.

In this sense, the AUCA not only includes counterparties as potential recipients for commercial bribery purposes, it also prohibits the provision of discounts to counterparties or the payment of commission to intermediates unless the discount or commission is offered and accepted in accordance with the agreement and in an honest manner. In addition, where commercial bribery by an employee is demonstrated, the AUCA requires the employer to prove its irrelevance; otherwise, the employer is liable.

If you have any concerns or require some assistant contact our expert team on 08702281999 or send us an email info@stanleycarter.co.uk

FRC needs greater transparency

Despite some negative coverage in recent months, the majority of the Financial Reporting Council’s (FRC’s) stakeholders still consider it to be independent of the auditing profession.

corporate governance, FRC, UK
More transparency needed within corporate governance

However, the UK audit watchdog could do more to help itself; particularly when it comes to convincing institutional investors who are the most concerned about its independence, by making its processes and outcomes more transparent.

Given the variety of areas that the FRC covers, nevertheless, a number of clear messages for the FRC come across, not least that as an organisation that holds others accountable, it also needs to be seen to be holding itself accountable to the same measures.

More than a quarter of institutional investors told researchers that they did not believe the FRC was independent of the audit profession. Reasons cited include the fact it hires many ex-auditors, it receives funding from audit firms, and a suspicion that it does not always hold auditors as accountable as they should be.

When you’re setting standards of governance for other companies and telling companies what they should be doing, then you have to be whiter than white.

Stakeholders want more transparency in the FRC’s disciplinary and enforcement activities.

One way round this issue would be for the FRC to step up its communication about its goals and activities, the researchers suggest. They point out that those stakeholders who are more engaged with the FRC have a greater understanding of its internal processes and constraints. Increasing outreach and communication with less-engaged stakeholders could help to improve favourability and perceptions of transparency.

In response, the FRC says that it has already made changes to meet many of the issues raised, including revising its governance structure to improve processes, publishing its register of interests and investing in its enforcement division.

For your corporate governance queries send us an email on info@stanleycarter.co.uk or check our website for details

www.stanleycarter.co.uk 

Our view on the proposals for a revised Corporate Governance Code

Governance code, banking, UK economy
UK Coprporate Governance Code

The FRC (Financial Reporting Council) proposals are a welcome move to improve corporate governance in the UK. The proposals place a much greater focus on organisational culture and employee voice, meaning that company boards will need to invest more time and thought on strategic workforce issues than ever before. This is a significant step forward in recognising the value of the workforce and the need for its voice to be heard at board level.

The FRC rightly recognises that in order to drive sustainable culture change and build trust in business, boards must focus more on values, behaviours and a wider stakeholder voice beyond that of shareholders, with particular attention to the voice of the workforce. We support the plans to encourage companies to enhance employee voice by either appointing a director from within the workforce, a formal workforce advisory council, or a designated non-executive director with responsibility for representing and understanding the wider workforce. No single approach can suit all firms’ situations so it’s important that there is flexibility for businesses in choosing an option that is most appropriate for them.

The proposal also broadens the role of the remuneration committee to oversee pay and incentives across the wider workforce rather than just focusing on executive pay. This is an important step in encouraging businesses to be more active in capturing and acting on their people data and for boards and the remuneration committee to improve their understanding and oversight of people data. Such a move will require fundamentally changing the role and makeup of the remuneration committee to ensure it has the right levels of expertise and necessary time and support to carry out its expanded remit.

We welcome the FRC’s efforts to evolve the UK’s corporate governance system and these latest proposals reflect many of the recommendations made in various consultations to government, including those directly linked to the UK Corporate Governance Code.

If you have any question on how this proposals may affect your business send us an email on info@stanleycarter.co.uk or check our website for further details www.stanleycarter.co.uk