The Family Board and the Warehouse Lease
Lanka Marine Holdings PLC is a CSE-listed conglomerate with a market capitalisation of LKR 42 billion. The founder's family holds 38% and controls the board. Of nine directors, three are labelled independent: the chairman (CEO until 18 months ago), a retired banker who receives LKR 6 million annually in advisory fees, and the managing director's brother-in-law, who chairs the audit committee. The board meets quarterly; papers for the January meeting were circulated two hours before the meeting. In February, the company agreed a 12-year lease of a warehouse from a private company owned by the chairman's spouse at LKR 1.8 million per month, roughly 40% above an independent valuation. The related party was identified in the annual report only as 'a company in which a director is interested'. A minority shareholder holding 4% has written demanding an EGM and an independent review. The company secretary says the Code is 'comply or explain' and the board has explained its position in the annual report.
1. Assess the independence of the three directors and the board's compliance with Sri Lankan governance expectations.
Read the worked answer
Independence test. The CA Sri Lanka Code and SEC governance rules look at substance, not labels. The chairman was CEO until 18 months ago; a former CEO normally cannot be independent until a cooling-off period (commonly two years) has elapsed. The retired banker receives LKR 6 million a year in advisory fees, a material business relationship that compromises independence. The MD's brother-in-law is a close family member of a key executive, so he is not independent. On the facts, the board has no genuinely independent non-executive director, although three are labelled so.
Composition. The Code expects at least three independent non-executive directors or one-third of the board, whichever is higher; with nine directors, at least three are needed. The audit committee must be chaired by an independent director and composed of non-executive directors with a majority independent. The brother-in-law fails. 'Comply or explain' cannot cure a breach of mandatory SEC listing rules; it only explains departure from Code principles.
Theory lens. From an agency perspective, the controlling family can extract private benefits unless independent directors monitor related party dealings. A stewardship view may explain the former CEO's attachment to the firm, but attachment is not independence.
Conclusion. The board is not independently constituted and the audit committee chair is invalid. The board should reconstitute the committee and appoint genuinely independent directors.
2. Evaluate how the warehouse lease and its disclosure were handled, and what the board should do now.
Read the worked answer
Process failures. A lease from a company owned by the chairman's spouse is a related party transaction. The chairman has a direct conflict. He should have disclosed the interest to the board, abstained from voting, and not counted in the quorum for that item. The audit committee or an independent committee should have reviewed an independent valuation and compared it with market rent. The 40% premium is evidence that the transaction was not at arm's length; the board needs a forensic review and should consider renegotiating or rescinding the lease and recovering the excess.
Disclosure. 'A company in which a director is interested' is too vague. The annual report and CSE announcement should identify the director, the relationship, the nature and amount of the transaction, and the approval process. If the transaction is material under CSE related party rules, shareholder approval may be required and the interested director's associates should not vote.
Conclusion. This is not merely a disclosure defect; it engages the duty to avoid conflicts and the duty not to use position for personal benefit. The board should obtain legal advice, suspend further payments under the lease pending review, and correct the disclosure.
3. How should the board respond to the 4% shareholder's demand for an EGM and independent review?
Read the worked answer
A 4% shareholder may not meet the statutory threshold to requisition an EGM (the Companies Act generally requires 10%), and the board should not rely only on that technical point. The shareholder can complain to the SEC or CSE, seek a derivative action, or pursue minority remedies. The board should engage, establish an independent committee with independent advisers, and disclose the outcome. Voluntarily convening an EGM or commissioning an independent review can reduce reputational and regulatory risk.
The company secretary should also address the two-hour circulation of board papers: directors cannot properly prepare, which weakens the quality of board decisions. The board should review the related party policy, maintain a conflicts register, and minute abstentions. The demand should be tabled at a board meeting with the conflicted director absent. If the board refuses engagement, it strengthens the inference that the controlling family is entrenching private benefits rather than protecting the company.