THE ROLE AND DUTIES OF DIRECTORS IN THE PROMOTION OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE

Owing to global changes in the field of corporate governance and corporate law reform in South Africa, corporate governance has become an important aspect of the way in which corporations are doing business. Corporate governance is the collection of law and practices that is grounded in the fiduciary duties of directors. It regulates the conduct of those in control of the corporation. An important aspect of corporate governance is the establishment of structures and processes that enable directors to discharge their legal responsibilities. This article investigates corporate governance principles in South Africa and explores the importance of the role and duties of directors in the promotion of corporate governance principles.

7. Board composition—appointment and removal of directors

This chapter discusses the appointment and removal of directors. Directors are responsible for the management of the company’s business, for which purpose they may exercise all the powers of the company. This chapter considers three classes of directors: the de jure director, the de facto director, and the shadow director. It identifies the characteristics of each category and the liabilities which attach in the event that someone is classed as being a director. It also considers whether fiduciary duties are owed by shadow directors. The position of corporate directors is also considered. In addition, the remuneration of directors is addressed.

6. Corporate governance—board structure and shareholder engagement

This chapter discusses the appointment and removal of directors. Directors are responsible for the management of the company’s business, for which purpose they may exercise all the powers of the company. The chapter considers three classes of directors: the de jure director, the de facto director, and the shadow director. It identifies the characteristics of each category and the liabilities which attach in the event that someone is classed as being a director. It also considers whether fiduciary duties are owed by shadow directors. The position of corporate directors is also considered. In addition, the remuneration of directors is addressed.

From Bushfires to Misfires: Climate-related Financial Risk after McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust

The year 2020 proved to be a clarion call for global society. There is no longer doubt that increasingly we are experiencing unpredictable events, known as ‘black swans’, ranging from pandemics to financial meltdowns. One of the ’climate black swans’ against which experts have cautioned is the financial crisis caused by climate change. In this context, the Australian case of McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust for the first time tested climate risk and the fiduciary duties of retail pension funds. Settled in November 2020, the case has already raised the bar for climate risk practice in pension funds. In particular, McVeigh suggests that courts, as well as out-of-court settlements, may articulate a duty, rather than grant permission, for pension funds to consider climate-related financial risk in their investment decisions. The article builds on McVeigh to ask two questions. Firstly, what is the role of climate change litigation in promoting climate regulation by pension funds? Secondly, what is the relative importance of pension funds for the risk management of climate-related financial risk via due diligence compared with risk assessment via disclosure? Fundamentally, the article explains climate-related financial risk as a cultural phenomenon and argues that a discussion on pension fund fiduciary duties must consider disclosure in addition to due diligence. It argues that McVeigh articulated the need for a normative approach to pension fund disclosure duties and an extension of the field of climate-related risk disclosure to embrace climate-related risk due diligence.

Auditor’s Duty to Ensure Clients are Using Accounting Practices in Compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles: A Case Study of Infinity Business Group, Inc.

Infinity Business Group, Inc. (IBG), a company specializing in the collection of bad checks, was incorporated in 2003. IBG recorded its collection fees as Accounts Receivable even before the Not-Sufficient-Funds checks were collected, a method not in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; accordingly, IBG’s auditor should not have issued unqualified opinions on the financial statements during 2003-2008. A $23 million write-off of Accounts Receivable in 2009 had a devastating effect on the company and it declared bankruptcy in 2010. In 2019, the Bankruptcy Court ruled: (a) the auditor’s unqualified opinions violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and the auditor was forced to plead guilty to one felony count of securities fraud; (b) IBG’s CFO was dishonest when he responded to an inquiry from a lender about the Accounts Receivable; (c) Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. (MK), a brokerage and investment banking firm contractually affiliated with IBG, encouraged IBG to discontinue using the improper accounting method; (d) IBG’s President Cordell made a misrepresentation to MK in 2007 when he stated that all of the questionable Accounts Receivable had been written off; (e) in 2008, MK became aware that IBG might change the accounting method; (f) MK never encouraged IBG managers to breach fiduciary duties to IBG; (g) MK did not owe IBG fiduciary duties, but even if it did, there is no evidence of a breach because MK encouraged discontinuance of the improper accounting practice; (h) some of the managers and directors of IBG were innocent, they did not participate in daily operations of the company, and they did not have control of the company; and (i) notwithstanding the fact they did not commit securities fraud, some of the “innocent” managers and directors failed to discharge their duties to IBG by advocating for the continued use of the improper accounting method. On appeal in 2021, the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court, holding that: it did not make any legal errors; the Bankruptcy Trustee did not adequately prove damages caused by MK; and the Bankruptcy Trustee’s claims were barred by the Doctrine of in Pari Delicto.

Post-resignation Survival of Fiduciary Duties: Big Catch Fishing Tackle Proprietary Limited v Kemp (17281/18) 2019 ZAWCHC 20 (5 March 2019)

In Big Catch Fishing Tackle Proprietary Limited v Kemp (17281/18) 2019 ZAWCHC 20 (5 March 2019) the Western Cape Division, Cape Town had to determine whether a former director of a company continued to owe fiduciary duties to the company after he had resigned, and if so, whether he could temporarily be interdicted from competing with the company until the main action was heard in court. The court dismissed the company's application for an interim interdict. This article critically analyses the judgment in regard to the post-resignation fiduciary duties of directors. The judgment is noteworthy as it sheds light on the post-resignation fiduciary duties of directors – an area of law which is still developing in South African law. This article contends that the court incorrectly conflated the legal principles relating to the appropriation of corporate opportunities with the misuse of confidential information. It is further argued that courts should not lay down a closed list of instances when directors' fiduciary duties will continue post-resignation, as the court attempted to do in this case. It is suggested that courts should adopt a flexible and pragmatic approach in determining when a director's fiduciary duties will survive after his or her resignation.