Lord Glennie was not satisified that WCC had an arguable case. His opinion is available here and it is important for several reasons:
[1] There is discussion of Section 171 and Section 172 of the Companies Act (2006). Section 172 imposes a duty on company directors to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the shareholders as a whole. In doing so, directors are required to have regard to various factors, including the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment and the need to act fairly as between members of the company. In Lord Glennie's view, Section 172 does "little more than set out the pre-existing law on the subject" (para. [21]). Some may question that interpretation because Section 172 sets out, for the first time in companies legislation, certain factors that directors are required to consider.
[2] There is the clear recognition that breaches of directors' duties can be unfairly prejudicial. This point remains controversial. Lord Glennie nevertheless observes: "... it is important to have in mind that fairness and unfairness (in the context of assessing whether conduct is "unfairly prejudicial") are not abstract concepts. They are used in the context of a commercial relationship, where the parties' rights and expectations are governed by contract, namely the articles of association, and, possibly, by other agreements or understandings, as well as by the fiduciary duties which directors owe to the company" (para. [19]).
The case has attracted widespread attention in the media because of the parties involved. See, e.g., The Scotsman, The Guardian and The Times.
The case has attracted widespread attention in the media because of the parties involved. See, e.g., The Scotsman, The Guardian and The Times.
Postscript (21 May 2008): The Guardian has reported that West Coast Capital has agreed to accept an offer from Tesco of £12 per share.
Comments
Post a comment on: Scotland: Directors' duties and unfair prejudice