The Director's Conflict of Interest
Sarah is a director of GreenTech Ltd, a company specialising in renewable energy solutions. In March, GreenTech's board considered a proposal to acquire a new solar panel technology from a startup, SunPower Innovations. Sarah, who is also a majority shareholder in SunPower, did not disclose her interest at the board meeting. The board approved the acquisition at a price significantly above market value. Later, GreenTech's shareholders discovered Sarah's connection and the inflated price. They wish to challenge the transaction and hold Sarah liable. The company's articles of association include a clause requiring directors to declare any interest in proposed transactions. Sarah argues that she was not required to disclose because the decision was made by the board collectively and she did not vote. Discuss the legal implications under company law and the duties of directors.
1. Analyse whether Sarah breached her duties under the Companies Act 2006, specifically the duty to avoid conflicts of interest and the duty to declare interest in proposed transactions.
Read the worked answer
Under the Companies Act 2006, directors owe a duty to avoid conflicts of interest (s.175) and a duty to declare an interest in a proposed transaction (s.177). Sarah had a clear conflict: she was a majority shareholder in SunPower, the counterparty. Section 175 requires directors to avoid situations where they have, or can have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts with the company's interests. This duty is not infringed if the situation cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict, but here the conflict is obvious. Section 177 requires a director who is interested in a proposed transaction to declare the nature and extent of that interest to the other directors before the transaction is entered into. Sarah failed to do so. Her argument that she did not vote is irrelevant; the duty to declare is independent of voting. The articles also expressly require disclosure, reinforcing the obligation. Therefore, Sarah breached both statutory duties. The consequences include the transaction being voidable at the company's instance and Sarah being liable to account for any profit or to indemnify the company for losses. The shareholders may also bring a derivative claim under s.260.
2. What remedies are available to GreenTech Ltd and its shareholders, and how would the court approach the inflated price?
Read the worked answer
GreenTech Ltd may seek to rescind the contract with SunPower, provided that rescission is possible (e.g., the property has not passed to a third party and the company has not affirmed). Alternatively, the company may claim damages or account of profits from Sarah for breach of fiduciary duty. The inflated price is evidence of the loss suffered; the court may order Sarah to compensate the company for the difference between the price paid and the market value. Shareholders can bring a derivative claim under ss.260-264 on behalf of the company, but they need the court's permission to continue. The court will consider whether a director acting in good faith would seek to continue the claim. Additionally, the transaction may be set aside under s.175 or s.177, and Sarah may be required to account for any benefit she received. The court will also consider whether the other directors breached their duties by approving the transaction without inquiry. The inflated price itself suggests a lack of proper scrutiny, potentially implicating the board. Overall, the remedies aim to restore the company to its pre-transaction position.