Directors’ duties under the 2019 Companies Act of Ghana

The scope of directors’ duties forms perhaps the most important part of corporate governance. This paper considers the trajectory of the regulation of directors’ duties under Ghanaian company law from the Companies Act, 1963 (Act 179) to the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992). Using the 2017 to 2019 financial institutions’ insolvencies in Ghana as a backdrop, it considers whether the scope, formulation and structure of directors’ duties within the new legislation is capable of promoting corporately-beneficial director behaviour. It also discusses whether the framework is apt to deal with similar lapses in corporate governance marked by reckless and opportunistic director behaviour. It discovers that Act 992 places a greater reliance on specific rules while retaining the largely principles-based regulatory technique adopted for regulating director conduct under Act 179. The overall tenor of the framework of directors’ duties under the new Act points to a firmer legislative view of the serious consequences of reckless director conduct. The paper concludes that the language of the framework regulating director conduct is capable of promoting corporately beneficially director behaviour and is also apt to deal with the kind of lapses in corporate governance which led to mass financial sector insolvencies in Ghana.     

Criminal Liability of Directors of a Private Limited Company Seated in Germany

During the last decade, a great number of German businesses formed private limited companies by shares in England and transferred the company’s real seat to Germany in order to avoid the minimum capital rules for the German limited liability company. The discrepancy between the place of registration and the real seat leads to questions about the criminal liability of company directors under English and German law. This article shows that English courts have jurisdiction over certain offences regardless of the place the director acted. In particular, he may be convicted for failing to comply with statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006 as well as false accounting or false statements under Theft Act 1968 ss. 17, 19. With respect to German law, the company law reform of 2008 explicitly imposed the duty to file for insolvency on directors of foreign corporations. Also, the criminal offence for failing to file for insolvency in § 15a (4) of the Insolvency Code is compatible with the freedom of establishment under European law. If the director causes a financial loss to the company by breaching his director’s duties, he may be convicted for breach of trust under § 266 of the Criminal Code regardless of the fact that the relevant duties are regulated by English law. The German Federal Supreme Court recently held that recourse to English company law in order to establish a criminal breach of trust does not violate the principle of legal certainty in Article 103 (2) of the Basic Law. Furthermore, German bankruptcy offences may apply if the director violates the authoritative English accounting standards.     

我国《公司法》体系的重构——一种解释论的观点

1993年以来我国《公司法》虽经过多次修订、修改,但其体系结构并没有发生实质的变化。由于历史的原因,我国《公司法》最初是为现代企业制度的建立,而参酌各国公司立法经验,整合了有限责任公司法规范和股份公司法规范,采取“统分结合”的方式,形成了现行法上的规范体系。这一体系对法律解释和法律适用产生了困扰。各国现代公司法体系是19世纪自由竞争和工业经济的产物,是为大型公开公司的需求而设计的。多数国家以公开公司为基础,以封闭公司为例外,建立了公司法的体系,在立法形式上,采取这两类公司的分别立法或统一立法的模式。近年来,以英国和日本为代表的国家进行了公司法的改革,转变了原有的观念,以中小企业和封闭公司为基础构建一般规范,对公开公司作出例外规定或就某一事项作出单独规定。我国《公司法》的修订应顺应当代知识经济和数字经济的要求,在坚持现行法上将有限责任公司和股份有限公司统合于一部公司法典的基本模式的同时,建立从公司设立、存续到消灭等的同一事项中以具有封闭性质的中小公司为定位建立基础规范,对具有公开性质的大公司作例外或单独规范,以利于公司法的解释和适用。     

The inefficacy of private enforcement of directors’ duties

Company directors play an important role in society. Their activities have significant effects on the interests of their companies, shareholders and other stakeholders. Consequently, the law regards them as fiduciaries and imposes duties which set out behavioural expectations. The private enforcement regime is the primary mechanism adopted by many common law jurisdictions for securing compliance with directors’ duties. The crucial question is whether this regime is effective in securing enforcement of directors’ duties. This article addresses this question by examining the fundamental weaknesses of the private enforcement regime. In exploring these weaknesses, it focuses on the UK and Nigerian experience. It crucially argues that the private enforcement regime, due to its weaknesses, is unable to provide deterrence and compensatory benefits. It is therefore ineffective as an enforcement mechanism for breach of directors’ duties. This article therefore concludes that there is need for a complementary enforcement regime.     

Share Capital and Creditor Protection: Efficient Rules for a Modern Company Law

This article examines the case for rules of company law which regulate the raising and maintenance of share capital by companies. The enquiry has practical relevance because the content of company law is currently under review, and the rules relating to share capital have been singled out for particular attention. The existing rules, which apply generally, are commonly rationalised as a means of protecting corporate creditors. The analysis considers whether such rules can be understood as responses to failures in the markets for corporate credit. It suggests that whilst the current rules are unlikely, on the whole, to be justified in terms of efficiency, a case may be made for a framework within which companies may 'opt in' to customised restrictions on dealings in their share capital.     

Recasting Competition Concurrency under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013

The concurrent enforcement power granted to certain sector economic regulators is one of the more remarkable features of UK competition law. In practice, regulators have tended to under‐enforce their competition powers, preferring to resolve market difficulties through regulatory interventions. Recent amendments to the concurrency framework, introduced by sections 51 to 53 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, seek both to strengthen the priority of competition enforcement and to provide plausible sanctions – including, ultimately, the removal of competition jurisdiction from regulators – for continued underuse. This article assesses these reforms in light of the history and (limited) application of the concurrent competition powers of regulators to date. It argues that the absence of an overarching policy rationale for this curious example of UK antitrust ‘exceptionalism’ complicates the determination of whether the reforms, which ostensibly seek to reinforce but potentially also undermine concurrency, are likely to have a positive market impact in practice.     

关于公司法实施中的若干问题

在公司法实施中暴露的主要问题是发起人虚假出资、控制股东行为不规范、公司人格混同及被滥用现象突出。完善公司立法应立足中国国情,统一公司与企业法,重构公司资本制度,降低公司设立门槛,完善公司治理,细化债权人保护规则以增强法的可诉性;在公司司法方面,宜完善司法解释并由最高人民法院公布公司案例,发挥其引导作用;在揭开公司面纱方面尤其应结合中国的国情和司法实践,而不宜机械地照般国外的理论。     

论上市公司高管薪酬的法律规制

上市公司高管薪酬机制中存在数额失控、市场竞争不能有效约束、董事会不能合理决定、高管薪酬和公司业绩不挂钩等突出问题,由此引发了民众不满、学者批评和政府行动。因此,市场机制、公司自治和行政干预方面采取的应对措施存在的不足。而上市公司高管薪酬问题兼具公共性与私有性,应合理划分公权干预与公司自治空间,完善上市公司治理结构,加强高管薪酬长期激励机制,完善相关披露制度,相机选择法律控制模式。     

Mitigating the Harshness of FCPA Enforcement Through a Qualifying Good‐Faith Compliance Defense

In recent years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have enforced the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) with increasing rigor. These zealous enforcement practices have been criticized for putting excessive pressure on companies to settle, often through nonprosecution or deferred prosecution agreements. The resulting proliferation of such settlements has created a dearth of case law interpreting the statute, resulting in legal ambiguity that reinforces pressures on companies to continue to settle rather than litigate, as uncertainty of the law adds to risk. This dynamic is exacerbated by the broad vicarious liability that firms face for the wrongdoing of individual actors. Given the need for government to enlist business as a partner in any effective battle against global corruption, the current highly adversarial relationship between enforcement agencies and firms is unreasonable and counterproductive. The law and its enforcement agencies should go further in providing incentives for businesses to develop and implement strong good‐faith FCPA compliance programs. They should establish standards for rigorous compliance programs that would provide qualifying companies with a defense against entity liability for the corrupt behavior of individuals. Creation of a qualifying good‐faith compliance program defense would help to prevent future FCPA violations, to recruit companies as partners in fighting corruption, to encourage ethics‐oriented corporate cultures, and to encourage upstanding firms to do business in regimes where rectitude is most needed.     

公司法律形态结构改革的走向

现行公司法上,公司法律形态存在着结构性问题。有限责任公司虽属封闭公司,但没有涵盖发起设立股份有限公司,而股份有限公司却容纳了公开公司和封闭性的发起设立股份有限公司。这种结构导致了封闭公司适用不同规则,公开性股份有限公司、封闭性股份有限公司适用同样的规则。公司法改革的取向是整合封闭公司资源,重塑有限责任公司形态,涵盖所有封闭公司,并使股份有限公司仅具有公开公司特点,不再涵盖发起设立的公司。在此基础上,同一法律形态的公司适用同样的规则,以利公司法现代化。同时,实现公司法体系一元化,外商投资有限责任公司与内资有限责任公司并轨,这是重塑有限责任公司形态的应有内涵。     

实践《公司治理规则》的法律途径--论修订后的《德国股份法》第161条

自经济合作与发展组织(OECD)制定了《公司治理结构规则》以后,很多国家都相继制定了自己的公司治理规则。德国不仅制定了《公司治理规则》,而且通过对《股份法》的修订,从法律的角度强化上市公司对公司治理规则的遵行,以期达到完善公司治理的目的。     

公司章程“排除”公司法:立法表达与司法检视

我国现行《公司法》中的"公司章程另有规定,从其规定"条款,消解了实践中公司章程"排除"公司法相应条款的合法性危机。然而遗憾的是,对于公司法中的"另有规定"条款之立法筹划与司法裁判问题学界少有系统性研究。从实现章程自治的制度初衷而言,未来公司法规则之修订应充分利用"假设交易"方法、"遵守反之则解释"方法与"单向缺省"方法重新塑构其中的缺省性规范,以进一步明确并扩展公司章程可"排除"的规则范围;同时,相关案件之司法裁判应抛弃公司合同主义的裁判路径和初始章程与后续章程二元界分的裁判标准,转而采用"目的性标准"与"公正度标准",以团体法标准从实质意义上判别公司章程"排除"公司法决议的效力属性。     

Regulating Political Donations by Companies: Challenges and Misconceptions

This paper analyses the regulation of company political donations in the UK. It argues that UK policy makers have failed to understand the nature of company donors and, consequently, that the UK Companies Act 2006 requirement for shareholder consent for company donations is not an effective solution to concerns about company donors. To this end, the paper presents a comprehensive empirical analysis of company donations to show that the vast majority of donor companies are closely held or owner‐managed entities where shareholder consent rules are ineffective. The paper highlights particular concerns that arise with donation by such companies and argues for a more accurate understanding of company donations in order to formulate effective policy responses to concerns about the role of company donors.     

Companies Making a Killing—New UK Proposals for Corporate Killing

After more than a decade of major public and media outcries for an effective corporate liability regime in relation to workplace deaths the Home Secretary finally confirmed in May 2003, endorsed by the Cabinet in November 2003, that he will prepare a bill during this Parliament Session introducinga new offence of “Corporate Killing”. The call for such an offence as well as individual offences directed at directors and other senior officers arose out of the failures in the current corporate manslaughter law of the UK to convict any middle or large size companies. Specifically, after public disasters such as the capsizing of the Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987 (193 deaths), the Kings Cross Station fire (37 deaths), the Piper Alpha Oil Platform explosion (167 deaths) and a host of recent rail crashes have led to wide public calls to ensure corporations be held responsible for management failings resulting in fatalities. This paper looks briefly at the current law of corporate manslaughter and its failure to deliver the general public's desire for corporate liability as well as the development and evolution of the new proposals.     

Corporate Mobility and Company Law

Globalisation has given commercial parties more freedom to choose the company law system that best suits their private needs. The growing range of techniques to facilitate choice between systems of company law reshapes the mandatory/enabling debate in countries where corporate mobility is a relatively new business phenomenon and where the past focus has mostly been on degrees of flexibility within domestic law. This article examines relocations, both out of and into the UK, as a source of learning on market preferences with respect to company law and on vulnerabilities. It considers the wider policy implications for the development of company law of more freedom of choice between company law systems. It concludes with a call to explore the potential for more optionality within company law to counter the rise of choice between systems of company law.     

董事注意义务的民事责任研究

在我国,关于董事注意义务的相关规定尚不规范,在公司法相关法律中也没有详细规定,且执法中受到查处的个案也比较少。这种现象与制度本身的不健全、对规定解读的多样化、查处手段单一等直接相关。本文以新公司法的内容和结构为基础,着眼于"董事注意义务的概念界定"、"董事注意义务的内容和判断标准"、"董事注意义务的民事责任"等内容对董事注意义务进行了分析,并根据近年来公司法理论和实务的最新发展对董事注意义务的立法完善问题提出了相关建议。     

国有独资公司董事长的权源结构与运行

国有独资公司董事长作为董事会之常设机构和代表职位 ,在国有独资公司内部居于领导者的地位。但由于目前我国公司法设计上的固有缺陷 ,且在董事长的权力源结构中 ,非规范性法外权力实际大大超过了公司法上赋予的规范性权力 ,致使董事长集董事会职权于一身成为可能 ,权力变型运作成为一种普遍现象。基于此 ,跳出现有制度框架 ,在现行《公司法》之外寻求对国有独资公司内部治理结构的制度创新 ,从规范董事会、董事长之权力源入手 ,改善监事会的结构 ,充实监事会的力量 ,提升监事会的地位 ,建立全新的由监事会→董事会→经理机构的二层制治理结构模式 ,应是解决目前国有独资公司治理结构进退维局面艰较为可行的制度方案。为此 ,把国有独资公司从现行公司法中析出 ,适时制定单行的《国有独资公司法》已十分必要     

有效合规管理的两种模式

自我国监管部门引入合规监管方式以来,有效合规管理大体形成了两种相对独立的制度模式。其中,日常性合规管理是企业在行政监管部门的指导和监督下,以预防相关合规风险为主要出发点,建立常态化的合规管理体系;合规整改则是企业在行政机关、司法机关的执法压力下,或在国际组织采取制裁措施的情况下,以减轻处罚或者取消制裁为目标,针对业已暴露的违法、违规或犯罪行为,采取有针对性的合规整改措施。在确保企业有效防控合规风险方面,这两种合规管理模式各有其制度结构和公司治理功能,也存在着各自的优劣得失。在企业合规管理体系的建构方面,这两种模式既可以相互转化,也可以相互补充和完善。     

董事忠实义务及其扩张

董事忠实义务在本质上是董事信义义务,与勤勉义务并列,成为约束董事行为的法定机制。董事忠实和勤勉义务均建立在公司与董事之间的信义关系基础上,均以维护公司整体利益为宗旨,但规制重点不同。忠实义务主要规范董事与公司之间利益冲突关系,勤勉义务旨在推动董事发挥聪明才智,两者共同成为评价董事履职的主要标准。忠实义务与民法中禁止自己代理和双方代理的规则之间关系密切,但在制度功能和义务要素上仍有重大差别,不能彼此替代或混为一谈。随着现代社会中公司交易复杂化以及公司集团现象普遍化,规制公司与董事利益冲突的公司法规则正在从“绝对禁止”向“禁止缓和”发展,忠实义务主体则已适度扩张至控股或主要股东,成为补充调整股东与公司关系的特殊机制。