Company Law

As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.

In order to analyse the consequences of the two proposals the current law will be summarized so that an analysis of each can be advanced. The essay will then examine other available options. The essay will conclude that neither of the proposals is appropriate in that the theoretical consequences outweigh the practical benefits, moreover, provisions already exist that if strengthened would provide more effective solutions.

Current position

Currently, directors have no prima facie entitlement to be remunerated for their work (Hutton v West Cork Railway Co 1883), but Article 23 of the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 establishes that it is for directors to decide the lev...

... middle of paper ...

...e UK would be impractical due to an entire overhaul of the current system being needed.

Conclusion

It is concluded that neither of the above proposals are adequate in that any practical benefit that results from the proposal such as employee and shareholder engagement are outweighed by the theoretical impact of increasing the overlap of the organs which would alter the structure of company law. The legal side of directors’ remuneration appears to be sufficient with the directors’ duties legislation acting as an efficient preventative measure for the problems that directors’ remuneration creates. Furthermore, shareholders already must approve several payments as such this could be strengthened to tackle the issue and employees are to some extent taken care of within s172 as such it is these sections that need development rather than directors’ remuneration.