Avoid being on your own** (A safe Harbour in the Mariner, Part II)

Last week’s post summarised the leading Corporations Act case of ASIC v Mariner Corporation Ltd [2015] FCA 589. This post further considers the business judgment rule in more detail.

While the key principles in relation to the business judgment rule have remained largely constant for many years, ASIC v Mariner was the first case where the rule would have been successfully relied upon if the directors had been found to have breached their directors’ duties.

The business judgment rule, under section 180(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a director will discharge their duties whenever a decision is made in good faith, for a proper purpose, after a director fully informs themselves that the decision is reasonable and rational.

Importantly, pursuant to section 189 of the Corporations Act, a director may rely on information provided by a co-director, if they do so in good faith, after having made an independent assessment of it

At a practical level, the ability of a director to rely on the business judgment rule will depend largely on the records kept in relation to a decision. This means comprehensive meeting and diary notes in relation to board decisions are critical.

As usual, please make contact if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Blur song ‘On your own’.

View here:

Happy** to be a safe Harbour in the Mariner?

Today's post considers the decision in ASIC v Mariner Corporation Ltd [2015] FCA 589.

The case is particularly important because it highlights the interaction between directors’ duty and liability where a company breaches a Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

ASIC brought the case against Mariner and three of its directors alleging the directors had breached their directors’ duties of care and diligence by failing to comply with the takeover provisions under the Corporations Act. ASIC also argued the directors breached their duties regardless of whether the company itself had breached the Corporations Act.

ASIC argued the directors’ primary breach was in relation to their duty of care and diligence, under section 180 of the Corporations Act.

The court held that directors owe their duties to the company. As such, the key issue is whether actions taken by the directors jeopardised the company’s interests.

Here the evidence showed that the directors had considered the risk to the company of their decision and reasonably concluded that the benefit outweighed the risks. This meant there was no breach of section 180 of the Corporations Act.

The case is also important because it was the first time that the so-called ‘business judgment rule’ would have been successfully relied upon if the directors had been found to have breached their directors’ duties.

Next week’s post will explore the key issues in relation to the business judgment rule.

As usual, please make contact if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the Ned’s Atomic Dustbin song ‘Happy’.

View here:

Here we go again** - Another reminder - details do matter

Last week's post looked at the way in which the Corporations Act applies to the signing of documents.

A previous post has also considered the decision in the primarily superannuation related case of Re Narumon [2018] QSC 185.

This case also offers a related lesson, relevant for deeds of any form of trust, not simply super funds.

As mentioned last week, a sole director and secretary can bind a company where they sign and specifically note this capacity.

In the case here, a deed of variation was signed by the sole director and secretary of the corporate trustee, however the relevant capacity was noted simply as 'authorised representative'; and thus not in accordance with the Corporations Act.

Some years later the invalid execution of the deed of variation was identified by an adviser and a 'Deed of Ratification and Variation' was, validly, signed.

In apparently accepting that the approach that a deed of ratification can remedy errors in an earlier, ineffective, document the court also confirmed that care must be taken. In particular:

1. Any variation of any invalid document will need to rely on a variation power in the last valid deed in existence;
2. If no specific variation power is mentioned in the document purporting to amend the invalid document it should be possible to assume that the correct variation power is being relied on;
3. In contrast, if the deed purporting to make a variation specifically seeks to rely on a power in the invalid document it will itself likely be invalid; and
4. Practically, there would seem to be merit in retaining all previous versions of a trust deed, even if it is assumed they have been superseded by later variations.

As usual, if you would like access to any of the posts or the case mentioned in this post please contact me.

** for the trainspotters, the title here is riffed from the Whitesnake song, ‘Here I Go Again’.

How many (times) ** and directors does it take to bind a company?

As is generally well understood, section 127 of the Corporations Act confirms a company with 2 or more directors may execute a document by either:

1. 2 directors signing; or
2. a director and a company secretary signing.

Where a company has a sole director and secretary, that director can sign.

Perhaps less well known is section 126 of the Corporations Act that allows for a company to be bound by an individual acting with the company's express or implied authority.

In situations where section 126 is being relied on a company's constitution is also often relevant. For example, a constitution may provide that the directors can resolve that a specified director is authorised to execute documents.

Third parties will of course not necessarily be aware of the internal resolutions of a company. The Corporations Act under sections 128 and 129 therefore provides some protection for third parties confirming that they may rely on certain statutory assumptions as to valid execution.

These assumptions have a number of limitations however, for example they cannot be relied on where:

1. The person seeking to rely on the assumption knew or suspected that the assumption was incorrect.
2. The document is being executed relying on section 126, as opposed to under section 127. In other words, if 2 directors (or one director and one secretary) sign then the assumption can be relied on. However, if one director only signs who is not the sole director and secretary then the protection of the valid execution assumption is unavailable.

Practically, therefore where a sole director signs a document third parties should ideally:

1. obtain confirmation (for example by performing an ASIC search) that the person is the sole director and secretary;
2. obtain an extract of the constitution for the company and a copy of the resolution appointing the director as an authorised sole signatory; or
3. require the company to instead grant power of attorney to the relevant director. A copy of the power of attorney should then be produced at the time of signing.

** for the trainspotters, the title here is riffed from the Bob Dylan song, ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’.