Thursday, January 18, 2007
Thursday, December 07, 2006
I am still waiting for the DTI and Parliament websites to publish the new Companies Act. I have been using the last draft distributed by the HOL, but I except scanning and publishing a 1200 clause act is a 'gargantuan' task as well. I am though going to settle for the electronic version, as I fear ordering the printed form will not only erode a significant part of the worlds forests, but also be the end of my mailman.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
I must admit that I cannot see reasons that are good enough for increasing the number of non - executives on the boards of listed
This provision leads to a far worse scenario for the companies in question from a business perspective, as the executives, with detailed, finger-on-the-pulse knowledge can easily be outmanoeuvred by non-executives who may not have sufficient understanding of the business and its needs. To move away from Cadbury's requirement of numbers that carry significant weight is taking it a step too far.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
I am curious about the lack of provisions, encouragement and even coverage on SMEs applying good corporate governance standards. Is this simply because they are smaller players compared to the big, listed companies and can choose to take notice of these provisions if they so desire? Is it because these standards, for instance in relation to NEDs, are in fact so difficult to apply that it is not really realistic for these small companies or is it simply the old problem of constructing and implementing most company law rules as a response to the needs and requirements of large companies?
The importance of SMEs on local economies is significant, both in terms of employment as well as wealth creation, so why does it not seem as important that they apply good corporate governance. Granted they could do more picking and choosing from these rules than the bigger companies, but all in all the structure, discipline and transparency that comes with a governance regime should benefit all companies, big and small.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Why do private shareholders avoid the hassle and confrontation that may be necessary at a company's AGM. I fail to see how private individuals can invest their hard earned money and yet not stand up for their rights and intervene in the governance of their investments when necessary. Are minority shareholders too protected? Do they perhaps not have much to worry about, are they too comfortable within the companies they invest in? Will their returns perhaps not encrease so much that it is worth the effort? Equally I find it strange how investment funds and other institutional shareholders view their obligations of voting at shareholders' meetings as somehow a lesser duty?
The AGMs and EGMs are a perfect venue and the system should not be changed to open up other possibilities for shareholders to intervene, but these venues should be enhanced. How exactly - well that is the dilemma.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
What does this really say, did Higgs just include this to say something, to mention something about a board's size? This says nothing. This is common sense but does stating it in the Combined Code make legal professionals, directors and shareholders take this into further consideration. Inexperienced directors perhaps, but certainly not legal professionals or those responsible for preparing agendas, nominations and resolutions before shareholder meetings.
Again why does he not include a consideration that the number of board members should preferably be odd and not equal or does the chairman of
Monday, October 09, 2006
I am still rather amazed of the development of UK Company Law over the last century and a half. My jaw has been half way to the floor during the weekend upon reading Roe's, Cheffin's and especially Alfred Chandler jr.'s theories and thoughts on political determinants in the