Company Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Social Phenomenon ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Entity Theory ◽  
Real Entity ◽  
Organizational Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company

This book advances a real entity theory of company law. In this theory the company is a legal entity allowing an organization to act autonomously in law, and company law establishes procedures facilitating autonomous organizational decision-making. The theory builds on the insight that organizations or firms are a social phenomenon outside of the law and that they are autonomous actors in their own right. They are more than the sum of the contributions of their participants and they act independently of the views and interests of their participants. The real entity theory advanced in this book explains company law as it stands at a positive level. Companies are liable in tort and crime. The statute creates roles for shareholders, directors, a company secretary, and auditors and so facilitates a process leading to organizational action. The law also integrates the interests of creditors and stakeholders. The book states the law as of 1 August 2021.

A Real Entity Theory of Company Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-36
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
Agency Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Social Phenomenon ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Autonomous Action ◽  
Entity Theory ◽  
The Third ◽  
Real Entity ◽  
The Law

This chapter provides an overview of a real entity theory of company law. It begins by exploring three main theories of the company. The first theory explains the company as a contract; it forms the basis on which agency theory builds. The second theory conceives the company as a concession of the state, while the third theory characterizes the company as a real entity. The chapter then looks at a modern version of real entity theory and its application to company law. According to real entity theory, organizations or firms are social phenomenon outside of the law and they are autonomous actors in their own right. This occurs because human beings change their behaviour when they act as members of a group or an organization. Company law finds this phenomenon and evolves with a view to supporting autonomous action by organizations.

Conclusions

2021 ◽  
pp. 263-266
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
Social Structure ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Entity Theory ◽  
Individual Agency ◽  
The Social ◽  
Real Entity ◽  
Organizational Action ◽  
A Company ◽  
Over Time

This concluding chapter summarizes how the previous chapters explained company law through a real entity theory. According to this theory, the law does not create organizations but finds them as a real social phenomenon. When human beings interact, habits, routines, processes, and procedures form. These affect the way participants of an organization act and so are real in their consequences. Organizations are characterized by this social structure. There also exists individual agency, which enables participants to deviate from the social structure and over time also to modify it. At a positive level, company law can be explained as making it easier for organizations to act autonomously and also as supplying a decision-making process that assigns roles to directors, shareholders, auditors, and a company secretary. Not all organizations are companies and not every company operates as an organization. Company law is nevertheless designed with a view to facilitating autonomous organizational action.

Corporate Actions

2021 ◽  
pp. 77-102
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Entity Theory ◽  
Real Entity ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corporate Actions ◽  
Human Actors ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability

This chapter evaluates the rules that determine the attribution of the actions of human actors to companies. These contain elements that demonstrate that company law is designed for the operation of organizations and that therefore a real entity theory is best suited to explain the law as it stands, and also to formulate normative recommendations. Indeed, conceiving companies as serving real entities helps to explain the approach taken by the law in relation to corporate criminal liability. Companies are actors whose acts are sometimes determined by their shareholders and directors. But they do not fully control what companies do. Companies act autonomously through habits and procedures that have formed between the individuals who act for and contribute to them. These procedures cause companies to become independent of their individual actors and can lead to blameworthy conduct.

Corporate Personality

2021 ◽  
pp. 37-47
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Organizational Boundaries ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Corporate Form ◽  
Organizational Action ◽  
To Come ◽  
A Company ◽  
Corporate Personality

This chapter discusses how separate legal personality can be explained as a solution developed by company law to address the problem that organizations are social rather than brute facts. For a company to come into existence, certain documents need to be registered. These contain information that facilitates the interaction between the company and third parties. Registration as a company then gives an organization a public legal manifestation. The Companies Act does not limit the corporate form to organizational action. The corporate form can therefore be used for other purposes and organizational boundaries do not align with legal personality. But this does not undermine the observation that company law is designed for the operation of organizations.

14. Shareholders

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek French
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Annual General ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
Holding Company ◽  
Wholly Owned Subsidiary ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
Class Rights ◽  
A Company ◽  
The Way

This chapter focuses on the members or shareholders of a company and the way in which they take decisions on the company’s affairs by written resolution using a statutory procedure. It begins by considering the rules which determine who is a member of a company and the information on the members which a company must record. It then describes the mandatory rules of company law that allow members to participate in decision-making with regards to a company’s affairs; members’ class rights and the alteration of such rights; and the definitions of holding company, subsidiary and wholly owned subsidiary. Relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2006 governing written resolutions of private companies, meetings and annual general meetings, voting, adjournment of meetings and authorisation of political donations by companies are also discussed. The chapter analyses a number of particularly significant cases.

Protection of shareholders class rights in company law

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Nwafor
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Company Law ◽  
The South ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Class Rights ◽  
A Company ◽  
Business Challenges

Purpose A company that is registered with share capital may issue different classes of shares and may confer rights on members, which place them in different classes in the company’s organisational structure. This paper is concerned with the propensity for encroachment on such vested class rights as companies strive to wriggle out of business challenges spawn by the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study is to ascertain the extent of protection that the law accords to the different classes of shareholders and members in a company especially when the company seeks to vary the vested class rights. Design/methodology/approach A doctrinal methodology, which relies on existing literature, case law and statutory instruments, is adopted to explore the nature of class rights and the adequacies of the remedial measures availed by statute to the aggrieved bearers of class rights in the context of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 with inferences drawn from the UK companies statute and case law. Findings The findings indicate that accessing the remedies available to aggrieved shareholders under the relevant statutory provisions are fraught with conditionality, which could make them elusive to those who may seek to rely on such provisions to vindicate any encroachment on their class rights. Practical implications The paper embodies cogent information on the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions geared at the protection of shareholders class rights, which should serve as guides to companies and the courts in dealing with matters that affect the vested class rights of shareholders and members of a company. Originality/value The paper shows that protections offered to classes of shareholders under the law can also be extended to classes of members who are not necessarily shareholders, and that shareholders who seek to vindicate their class rights may conveniently rely on Section 163 that provides for unfair prejudice remedy to avoid the onerous conditions under Section 164 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008, which directly deals with class rights.

Company Law - A Real Entity Theory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
Company Law ◽  
Entity Theory ◽  
Real Entity

scholarly journals PERLUASAN PENGATURAN PENGURUSAN PERSEROAN TERBATAS DALAM PEMBAHARUAN HUKUM PERSEROAN TERBATAS

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1495
Author(s):  
Pande Putu Indahyani Lestari ◽  
I Gede Agus Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
A Company

Tujuan studi ini untuk mengkaji perluasan pengaturan pengurusan perseroan terbatas dalam pembaharuan hukum Perseroan Terbatas. Dalam UUPT menyebutkan bahwa Direksi berwenang dan bertanggung jawab penuh untuk menjalankan pengurusan Perseroan. Studi ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif, yakni suatu penelitian menggunakan berdasarkan dengan pendekatan bahan hukum, baik hukum primer dan hukum sekunder. Hasil studi menunjukkan bahwa Direksi sebagai organ perseroan bertanggung jawab atas kepentingan Perseroan, apabila dalam suatu Perseroan tidak memiliki Direksi maka Perseroan tidak akan bisa berjalan atau beroperasional dengan baik selayaknya sebuah badan hukum. Kemudian dalam hal ini ketika masa jabatan Direksi sudah habis mengakibatkan terjadinya kekosongan kepengurusan Direksi, di dalam UUPT tidak ada yang mengatur manakala suatu Perseroan sudah tidak memiliki Direksi. The purpose of this study is to examine the expansion of management arrangements for limited liability companies in the legal renewal of Limited Liability Companies. The UUPT states that the Directors are authorized and fully responsible for carrying out the management of the Company. This study uses a normative legal research method, which is a research using based on the approach of legal materials, both primary and secondary law. The study results show that the Board of Directors as a corporate organ is responsible for the interests of the Company, if in a Company does not have a Board of Directors, the Company will not be able to operate or operate properly as a legal entity. Then in this case when the term of office of the Board of Directors has expired resulting in a vacancy in the management of the Board of Directors, in the Company Law no one regulates when a Company does not have a Board of Directors.

scholarly journals REPRESENTATION OF A COMPANY WHEN CONTRACTING WITH ANOTHER PERSON UNDER SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANY LAW Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd [2016] ZACC 13

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vela Madlela ◽  
Palollo Michael Lehloenya
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
South African ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
A Company

A company is an artificial person and has no mind, will or hands of its own. It is, therefore, compelled to act through human agents. The board of directors is responsible for the management and direction of the business affairs of the company. Under South African company law the directors’ powers of management are statutorily entrenched (S 66(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008). The board of directors may, however, delegate its powers to an individual director (or individual directors), a committee of the board, a managing director or other officers of the company. Before an individual director or officer of the company can conclude a binding transaction on behalf of their company, they must have the authority to do so. In South Africa, the issue of authority to enter into a transaction or agreement on behalf of a company is dealt with using the principles of the law of agency.The crisp issue in this note relates to the circumstances in which an individual company director or officer who, when contracting with another person, purports to be acting on behalf of the company will bind the company. In the recent case of Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd ([2016] ZACC 13 (hereinafter “Makate v Vodacom”)), which involved a claim for reasonable compensation by the inventor of the concept of “Please Call Me” against Vodacom (Pty) Limited (hereinafter “Vodacom”), the Constitutional Court dealt specifically with the authority of a director to conclude a contract with a third party on behalf of the company. This note discusses Makate v Vodacom and the approach of the court regarding when a company will be bound by contracts concluded by its director or another person purporting to represent the company in a transaction with a third party. It examines the main judgment of Jafta J and the concurring judgment of Wallis J in relation to the legal nature of ostensible authority in the absence of actual authority.The note further looks at the issue of prescription, which Vodacom in its defence raised against the claim for compensation brought by Mr Makate. It explores the circumstances in which prescription can be successfully invoked to deflect a contractual claim brought against a company, the impact of the Constitution in this area of the law and whether the claim lodged by Mr Makate amounted to a “debt” for purposes of the Prescription Act (68 of 1969). To this end, again, both the main judgment of Jafta J and the concurring judgment of Wallis J are examined. This is followed by critical insights on the implications of this case and some concluding remarks.

10. Company law II: directors, finance, and capital

2019 ◽  
pp. 143-159
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Minority Protection ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the law governing company directors and shareholders. The common law duties on directors have been codified and expanded through the Companies Act (CA) 2006. Directors are responsible to the company itself, not to individual shareholders. Minority protection (of shareholders) is provided through the CA 2006 to restrict directors’ acts that may unfairly disadvantage them. Public companies must have a company secretary and they must satisfy statutory requirements in relation to their qualifications. Shareholders have no automatic right of management in the company although, through attendance and the rights to vote at shareholder meetings, they may have influence over the business conducted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document