Governance Under Pressure at a Family Manufacturer
Kellerman Engineering is a family-owned manufacturer with £48m turnover. The founder, now 74, remains chair and holds 55% of shares. His daughter is CEO and his son is sales director. The board has five members: the founder, his two children, and two non-executives who were appointed on the founder's recommendation and have served nine years. The company has a £12m bank facility with covenants tied to EBITDA. A major customer, representing 22% of revenue, has indicated it may move to a competitor. The audit committee is chaired by one of the long-serving non-executives and meets twice a year. The finance director recently resigned after disagreements about revenue recognition on a long-term contract. No successor has been appointed.
1. Assess the governance weaknesses revealed by this situation and explain how each creates risk.
Read the worked answer
Several weaknesses compound one another.
Concentration of ownership and control: the founder holds 55% and chairs the board, while his daughter is CEO and his son is sales director. Family control is legitimate, but when the chair, the CEO and a major shareholder are aligned through family ties, challenge is structurally weak. Dissent becomes personally costly.
Independence of non-executives: both were appointed on the founder's recommendation and have served nine years. Long tenure and appointment by the controlling shareholder erode the perception and reality of independence, which matters most when the board must scrutinise family decisions.
Audit committee: meeting twice a year is thin for a £48m business with a £12m facility, and chairing it with a long-serving, founder-aligned non-executive reduces scrutiny further.
Finance function: the finance director resigned over revenue recognition on a long-term contract and has not been replaced. This is a serious red flag, since revenue recognition on such contracts directly affects EBITDA and therefore covenant compliance.
Customer concentration: 22% of revenue in one customer adds commercial risk that the board should be actively monitoring.
2. Recommend governance actions, distinguishing those needed immediately from those for the next twelve months.
Read the worked answer
Immediate actions (next 30 days): appoint an interim finance lead with relevant contract-accounting experience, and have the audit committee review the revenue recognition treatment on the long-term contract before the next covenant test. This is the most urgent item because covenant breach could trigger the £12m facility. The board should also commission an independent review of the contract accounting if internal capacity is lacking.
Next, hold a board meeting specifically on the customer concentration risk, with a mitigation plan covering contract terms, service commitments and diversification targets.
Twelve-month actions: refresh the board. At least one non-executive should be genuinely independent, appointed through a proper process and not by the controlling shareholder alone. Consider separating the chair and CEO roles, or at minimum appointing a senior independent director. Increase audit committee frequency to at least quarterly and rotate its chair. Establish a succession plan for the founder's chair role, given his age and 55% holding, and document a family governance protocol covering board appointments and related-party decisions.
These changes should be sequenced so the financial controls are fixed before governance reform absorbs management attention.