Company directors, being human, may be tempted to promote their own interests rather than those of the companies on whose boards they serve. Directors are subject to a number of legal duties. A director has a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company. A number of other duties flow from this duty such as the duty to avoid a conflict of interests. The duty of a director not to appropriate a corporate opportunity belonging to the company of which he or she is a director, also flows from the duty to avoid a conflict of interests. The common-law duties of directors which have their origins in English law, have developed over a number of years. Because of the difficulty that directors had in establishing what their duties were, a number of jurisdictions embarked on a process of codifying or partially codifying these duties. South Africa, Australia and England are three countries that have promulgated legislation which has resulted in the codification or partial codification of directors’ duties. The purpose of the codification or partial codification of directors’ duties was firstly to clarify the duties of directors, and secondly to make the duties more accessible to those affected by them – the directors of companies. In South Africa the Companies Act 71 of 2008 has partially codified the duties of directors. Because directors’ duties have only been partially codified there is uncertainty regarding their scope. This dissertation will focus on the possible effect of the 2008 Companies Act on the duty of a director not to take a corporate opportunity falling to the company. In this dissertation I address two issues involving the effect of the 2008 Companies Act on the duty of a director not to appropriate a corporate opportunity belonging to the company. Firstly, I consider whether the partially codified directors’ duties are wide enough to cover issues involving the appropriation of corporate opportunities. Secondly, I consider the appropriate common-law test or tests to be applied in determining whether, in the specific circumstances, an opportunity should be classified as a corporate opportunity. In considering whether the partially codified duties of directors are wide enough to include the corporate-opportunity rule, I compare the approach to corporate opportunities and the corporate-opportunity rule in South Africa, Australia and England. / Mercantile Law / LL.M. (Corporation Law)

The Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“2008 Companies Act”) will have far reaching effects on the manner in which a company is formed and operated under South African company law and in particular entrenches the procedure that must be followed by a company when acquiring its own shares. The radical amendment of the capital maintenance rules by the introduction of the solvency and liquidity tests to the Companies Act 61 of 1973 has been carried forward under the 2008 Companies Act. These tests impose an obligation on a company to ensure that the company is both solvent and liquid at the time of the acquisition of its own shares and for a stated period thereafter. The 2008 Companies Act further brings the duties and liabilities of the directors in line with their current fiduciary duties in terms of common law. / Mercantile Law / LLM

This research looks at the need and enforceability of legal warranties that companies include in contracts and/or public displays/notices to limit the company’s liability exposure to third parties. It also discusses the liability incurred by a company and that of its directors in their personal capacities (if any) should the legal warranty implemented be found to be unenforceable. The liability that may be incurred by the company and/or its director/s is dependent on whether the legal warranty which it implemented is enforceable or not and therefore it is important to establish what would constitute an enforceable legal warranty. In order to determine what is likely to constitute an enforceable legal warranty the study looks back at what has previously been deemed to constitute an unenforceable legal warranty. This is done by analysing the common law principles of contract, being the freedom to contract and the sanctity of contract, and its development in accordance with our constitutional dispensation through case law precedents. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 that apply to legal warranties are also analysed in order to determine the anticipated outcome of future case law where the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 may be applicable to a dispute involving legal warranties. Once what constitutes an unenforceable legal warranty is established, the study will discuss the legal position of a third party, and that of the company, where a third party has suffered damages as a result of the company’s acts or omissions and the company is unable to raise a legal warranty as a defence against such liability, as the legal warranty is found to be unenforceable. Thereafter the study will discuss the measures available to the company where the company is found liable to the third party for the aforementioned damages and the company wishes to mitigate its losses in this regard. Such measures shall include director insurance as well as the recovery of such liability against a director, in the director’s personal capacity, where the company either does not have director insurance or is unable to enforce the director insurance due to the actions of a director. In order to determine the director’s accountability to the company in this regard an assessment is made of the duties imposed on a director in terms of the common law and Companies Act 71 of 2008 to establish whether such duties are wide enough to include a duty on the director to ensure legal warranties he/she plays a part in implementing are enforceable. / Mercantile Law / LL. M. (Corporate Law)

Section 71(3) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 has introduced into South African company law a provision which for the first time permits the board of directors to remove another director from office in certain specific instances. A further significant innovation in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 is contained in section 162, which empowers a court to make an order declaring a director delinquent or placing him under probation in specific instances. The effect of section 162 is that a court is empowered to remove a director from the board of directors. The focus of this thesis is the removal of directors from office by the board of directors and by the judiciary. The thesis explores the underpinning philosophy of the statutory provisions relating to the removal of directors from office. It also examines the impact of the power given to the board of directors and to the courts to remove a director from office. The grounds and the procedures for the removal of directors by the board of directors and the judiciary are examined. The fiduciary duties applicable to directors in removing a director from the board of directors are also explored. In addition, this thesis examines the removal of directors holding multiple positions or capacities in relation to a company, such as an employee or a shareholder with loaded voting rights. The remedies which may be relied on by a director who has been removed from office by the board of directors are examined. Recommendations are made to strengthen and improve the provisions in the Companies Act 71 of 2008 relating to the removal of directors from office by the board of directors and the judiciary. Amendments to the Companies Act 71 of 2008 are suggested to remove ambiguities; to guard against the abuse of sections 71(3) and 162; to improve the grounds and procedures for the removal of directors by the board of directors and the judiciary, and to enhance the remedies that may be relied on by a director who has been removed from office by the board of directors. / Artikel 71(3) van die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 het ’n bepaling tot Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappyreg toegevoeg wat die direksie vir die eerste keer in staat stel om ’n ander direkteur in sekere spesifieke gevalle uit sy of haar amp te verwyder. ’n Verdere belangrike vernuwing in die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 word in artikel 162 vervat, wat ’n hof magtig om ’n bevel uit te vaardig wat ’n direkteur misdadig verklaar of hom of haar in spesifieke gevalle aan ’n proeftydperk onderwerp. Die effek van artikel 162 is dat ’n hof by magte is om ’n direkteur uit die direksie te verwyder. Die fokus van hierdie tesis is die verwydering van direkteure uit hul ampte deur die direksie en die regbank. Die tesis verken die onderliggende filosofie van die statutêre bepalings wat met die verwydering van direkteure uit hul ampte verband hou. Dit ondersoek ook die impak van die bevoegdheid wat aan die direksie en die howe verleen word om ’n direkteur uit sy of haar amp te verwyder. Die gronde en prosedures vir die verwydering van direkteure deur die direksie en die regbank word ondersoek. Die fidusiêre pligte van toepassing op direkteure by die verwydering van ’n direkteur uit die direksie word ook verken. Daarbenewens ondersoek hierdie tesis die verwydering van direkteure wat veelvuldige posisies of hoedanighede met betrekking tot ’n maatskappy beklee, soos ʼn werknemer of aandeelhouer met gelaaide stemregte. Die regsmiddele waarop ’n direkteur, wat deur die direksie uit sy of haar amp verwyder is, kan steun, word ondersoek. Aanbevelings word gemaak om die bepalings in die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008, wat met die verwydering van direkteure uit hul ampte deur die direksie en regbank verband hou, te versterk en te verbeter. Wysigings aan die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 word voorgestel om dubbelsinnighede uit te skakel; om teen die misbruik van artikels 71(3) en 162 te waak; om die gronde en prosedures vir die verwydering van direkteure deur die direksie en die regbank te verbeter, en om die regsmiddele waarop ’n direkteur wat deur die direksie uit sy of haar amp verwyder is kan steun, te versterk. / ISigaba 71(3) Somthetho weZinkampani 71 ka 2008 sewuze wangenisa emithethweni yezinkampani zaseNingizimu Afrika, umthetho ongowokuqala ovumela ibhodi labaqondisi ukuthi libe namandla wokugudluza omunye umqondisi esikhundleni sakhe ngaphansi kwezimo ezithile. Olunye ushintsho olusha kuMthetho wama-71 weZinkampani ka 2008 uqukethwe yiSigaba 162, wona ugunyaza inkantolo ukuthi ikhiphe umyalelo owazisa umqondisi ngokuthi unecala noma obeka umqondisi ngaphansi kophenyo, phecelezi “probation” ngesinye isikhathi. Inhloso yeSigaba 162 wukunikeza inkantolo igunya lokugudluza umqondisi kwibhodi labaqondisi. Impokophelo yale thisisi wukugudluzwa kwabaqondisi, bagudluzwe yibhodi labaqondisi kanye nomthetho/nobulungisa. Ithisisi ihlola ifilosofi yemithetho ekhishiwe emayelana nokugudluzwa kwabaqondisi ezikhundleni zabo, Kanti futhi ihlola umthelela wamandla anikezwe ibhodi labaqondisi kanye nezinkantolo ukuthi zigudluze umqondisi esikhundleni. Izizathu kanye nengqubo elandelwayo mayelana nokugudluzwa kwabaqondisi yibhodi labaqondisi kanye nomthetho nazo ziyahlolwa. Imisebenzi emayelana nokuthembeka eyenziwa ngabaqondisi ukugudluza umqondisi kwibhodi labaqondisi nayo iyacwaningwa Ngaphezu kwalokhu, le thisisi .iphenya ukugudluzwa kwabaqondisi abaqokwe ezikhundleni eziningi noma abanegunya elithize ngokwengqubo yenkampani, enjengesisebenzi, phecelezi “employee” noma umabelwa-mashezi onamalungelo amaningi okuvota, phecelezi, “loaded with voting rights”. Izeluleko ezingasetshenziswa wumqondisi ogudluzwe esikhundleni sakhe yibhodi labaqondisi nazo ziyahlolwa. Izincomo nazo ziyenziwa ngenhloso yokuqinisa kanye nokuthuthukiswa kwamandla oMthetho we-71 weZinkampani ka 2008, mayelana nokugudluzwa kwabaqondisi ezikhundleni yibhodi labaqondisi kanye nomthetho. Izinguquko zoMthetho wama-71 weZinkampani ka 2008 ziqonde ukususa izixakaxaka, ukulwa nokudlelezelwa kweSigaba 71(3) kanye no 162, ukuthuthukisa izizathu kanye nezingqubo zokugudluzwa kwabaqondisi yibhodi labaqondisi kanye nomthetho, ukuqinisa izindlela zokulungisa ezingasetshenziswa wumqondisi osegudluziwe esikhundleni yibhodi labaqondisi. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

As a company is a juristic person it can only act through human agency. A question that arises because of this fact is under what circumstances a company can be held to a contract by a third party where its representative was unauthorised to enter into such contract. There should be a careful weighing and balancing of the interests of the shareholders and the company on the one hand and the contracting third party on the other. It is further important to have legal certainty on the validity and enforceability of contracts concluded by and with companies as the absence of certainty can hamper business dealings with companies which would have an impact on the economy. The common-law principles of agency form the foundation upon which representation within the context of company law takes place. The law of agency has been adapted in the context of company law to satisfy the unique needs that have originated in this regard. One such adaptation is the creation of the Turquand rule by the English courts which rule was taken over by the South African courts. One of the primary reasons for creating the Turquand rule was due to the harsh effect that the common-law doctrine of constructive notice had on third parties dealing with a company. In this study an examination of the current legal position regarding representation of a company in South Africa was undertaken. The history and development of the common-law principles of agency and doctrines that are unique to representation in a company law context are analysed and the relevant sections of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 are discussed. The integration of the common-law principles with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 is considered and recommendations are made in respect thereof. In support of the analysis, a comparative study was undertaken of the history and development of this subject matter in England. It was concluded that South African company law, with all its shortcomings and uncertainties is still to be preferred above the position in England. / Aangesien ‘n maatskappy ‘n regspersoon is, kan dit slegs deur middel van natuurlike persone as agente optree. ‘n Vraag wat as gevolg van hierdie feit ontstaan is onder watter omstandighede ‘n maatskappy deur ‘n derde party gebonde gehou kan word aan ‘n kontrak waar die maatskappy se verteenwoordiger nie gemagtig was om die kontrak aan te gaan nie. Daar behoort ‘n versigtige afweging te wees tussen die belange van die maatskappy en sy aandeelhouers aan die een kant en ‘n derde party wat met die maatskappy kontrakteer aan die ander kant. Dit is verder belangrik om regsekerheid te hê oor die geldigheid en afdwingbaarheid van kontrakte wat met maatskappye aangegaan word aangesien die afwesigheid daarvan besigheidsverkeer met maatskappye kan kortwiek wat ‘n impak op die ekonomie tot gevolg sal hê. Die gemeenregtelike beginsels van verteenwoordiging vorm die basis waarop verteenwoordiging binne die konteks van maatskappyereg plaasvind. Verteenwoordigingsreg is aangepas binne die konteks van maatskappye om voorsiening te maak vir die unieke behoeftes wat in hierdie verband ontstaan het. Een sodanige aanpassing is die skepping van die Turquand reël deur die Engelse howe, welke reël deur die Suid-Afrikaanse howe oorgeneem is. Een van die hoofredes vir die skepping van die Turquand reël is die onregverdige uitwerking wat die gemeenregtelike leerstuk van toegerekende kennis op derde partye gehad het wat met ‘n maatskappy onderhandel. ‘n Studie van die huidige regsposisie rakende verteenwoordiging van ‘n maatskappy in Suid-Afrika is hierin gedoen. Die geskiedenis en ontwikkeling van die gemeenregtelike beginsels van verteenwoordiging en leerstukke eie aan verteenwoordiging in die konteks van maatskappyereg is geanaliseer. Die betrokke artikels van die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 word bespreek. Die integrasie van hierdie gemeenregtelike beginsels met die betrokke bepalings van die Maatskappywet 71 van 2008 is oorweeg en aanbevelings in verband daarmee gemaak. Ter ondersteuning van die analise is ‘n vergelykende studie van die gekiedenis en ontwikkeling van hierdie onderwerp in Engeland onderneem. Daar is tot die slotsom gekom dat die Suid-Afrikaanse maatskappyereg, met al sy tekortkominge en onsekerhede nogsteeds bo die posisie in Engeland te verkies is. / Mercantile Law / LL. M.

This thesis critically examines the statutory unfair prejudice remedy provided for in section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (‘the Act’). Section 163 is evaluated against its equivalents in England, Australia and Canada. Section 163 is considered against its predecessors to determine whether problems associated with the formulation and application of its predecessors have now been eradicated. It is argued that although it is important to ensure that company legislation is able to provide protection of an international standard to shareholders to be able to attract capital investment in a competitive market, one has to be cautious of slavishly following legislative trends in foreign jurisdictions. The South African legislature indiscriminately incorporated only parts of the Canadian unfair prejudice remedy in section 163. This approach also resulted, amongst others, in the introduction of foreign concepts. The legislature further failed to take cognisance of the unique historical developments relating to the unfair prejudice remedy in South Africa. This has led to the reintroduction of problems experienced with previous formulations of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy in South Africa and left certain problems relating to the interpretation and application of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy unresolved. Consideration is also given to the interrelationship between section 163 and some of the statutory remedies in the Act. Section 163 is also assessed in the context of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. In conclusion, recommendations for possible legislative amendments are made and an interpretational framework for the interpretation and application of the statutory unfair prejudice remedy in section 163 is provided. / Mercantile Law / LL. D. (Mercantile Law)