DIRECTORS' DISAGREEMENTS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2141, 6 May 1914, Page 7

DIRECTORS' DISAGREEMENTS

1, r, ui-4^— • >* Tiro ''Law JotiFiiaP (toiidort) says: —"There- is nothing oMljmemly in a company's articles requiring a nicetfag of ■ SiMctors'to Ijfs held i-u ii teri room. It may be held—awl lias beeti valiul.j' the doarstM) of a ctab. Bttfc the chairman of the ttoarei—tlnira wore only tw« directors on ii>«-*m the ■British Sogunvito Company casp, recently, was tor itu.p-rovin-g; on tlite precedent. Jfcotiiig iris co-dkecte'r tiasuajfy'.■ ok tho platfown at ftiddrngtoi! Sfctioiii ■' ho said to Win—they Isad suarjclled. about an appointment °f n°w directors: '1 propose Mr. —■ — as director/ (Jftst then iiu engine- shrieked and swallowed up the, amine.) 'Bo you agree? _ 'Jlavo yotl an amendment? Then I -give- wy easting vote.' This travesty of n board; ijjeeti-hg was iMtiiallv sot up as const'ir tilting a valid appoiiitincvit of a- neW director, But the la* has its airowv aMes4flaity ef iiicin ■!—and it Was not this iiisistciioc: on a fehida. acta which Hiado tiro -tfimftnoss: o.f the- Aatavaii'-s ease. It was his UMfti.sonaMcness in ■ Using every effort to prevcjit his codircctor requisititining a meeting of : tho S'larehgitters nUd.' putting tho. matters ii! (flfociioe tiefOfo them, . When ; ;i d'eadkick oecm-s heiweoi-i tho directors on a. board sue!'; i\% thai in tlio ease, in qncs-tiott' and each faction disapproves ■ ■tile policy of tlte' other fa.et.io3}, vfe right course., and tlio only cmtrWi aS the •■Conrt of A-ppcal pointed <aiii in tsl'6 o.f Wight Railway' Company v. Taliourdoii, is to invoke ttio. aid of a general inoctiitg of stm.iehriders l They, ■ . tlifc shareholders in. mooting assoisbkd, are tho pes-Rpiw TO wliim tho supremo control of tho company is vested. They aro tlio persons whoso interests are at stake, and it is thoy who mast decidd on alt'cWiath* Jiiies tf policy. Tho 'Courts have always re 1 : Gogw's.od this .principle of rttoiit, and refused, where directors have. squabbled jwnoaig tlwrnsckes, to iiudes*taks the task of arbitrating between them. 'Go,' it says, 'to the cottstrt'i?-: ww-y of tho company.' It is a, o.cw>|ta.ry from this prifleipfe (tlio ,rfle;ignptioii of tho right'of iattipiuiios to iW* ape their own affairs) that live Court will .Jtefc grant any fei.jw«ttioU or put any obstacle hi tho way to jrrovont the siiiti'Glsoldorj? lioius bMfiht on tl» seeim ■at any crisis in tlio Poi'Mpsftv's fortnn.es, This is the iisoval-'-and a very important cno—inrpressod' by tho motion in In re British Se.g.nmi'to"C'ftnipa!iy.'''