Corporate Finance Newsletter

Charles Russell Corporate Finance Group
Click here for more information
>>more>>


Back to Corporate Finance Newsletter Index to view past copies
>>more>>


September 2005 Articles
1 Timing Of Announcement Of Trading Updates >>more>>
2 QCA Corporate Governance Guidelines For AIM Companies >>more>>
3 Prospectus Directive Update >>more>>
4 The Status Of Discretionary Brokers >>more>>
5 Directors Indemnities >>more>>

 

 

Public Companies Update September 2005

5 DIRECTORS INDEMNITIES

Another important development in the last few months relates to the changes, implemented earlier this year, to the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 (CA) concerning the indemnification of directors and other officers.

To re-cap, the pre-amendment provisions of CA (Section 310) effectively prohibited a company from indemnifying its officers (which includes directors, company secretary and senior employees) or auditors for breach of duty, although a company could indemnify them in defending civil or criminal proceedings in which judgment is given in their favour.

Largely because of these restrictions, it is commonplace for companies to purchase D&O insurance for their officers. Although, under ABI guidelines it is not best practice for AIM or fully listed companies to provide D&O insurance for the auditors.

It was felt by many that the legislation relating to indemnification was excessively restrictive and was having an adverse impact on the ability of companies to recruit directors.

The new law, contained in new sections 309A-C CA (which have been inserted by the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004), creates a new regime for the indemnification of directors which relaxes the old law in many respects, yet tightens it up in others.

The way in which the old law has been relaxed is as follows:

a company can now indemnify its directors (and those of its associated companies, i.e. companies in the same group) for any liability to third parties;
it can now fund the director's defence costs, whether incurred or to be incurred, during the course of civil proceedings (whether brought by the company itself or a third party) arising out of those proceedings and judgment is ultimately given in the director's favour. If judgment is given against a director, that director must repay (except where proceedings were brought by a third party, in which case the company can elect to forgive repayment);
it can also fund the director's defence costs, whether incurred or to be incurred, during the course of criminal proceedings for costs arising out of those proceedings (unless director ultimately convicted, in which case director must repay);
the company can fund the director's defence costs through the provision of a loan, so that section 330 CA (which, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits a company from making a loan to a director) is disapplied for these purposes.

However, it is important to note that a company cannot indemnify a director in respect of criminal penalties or regulatory fines (such as those imposed by the FSA or the SEC), but the indemnity could cover the cost of regulatory proceedings (say brought by the FSA for a breach by a director of the Listing Rules) but could not cover any civil fine imposed by the relevant regulatory body in these circumstances.

The new legislation imposes disclosure obligations where indemnities are given to directors - the directors' report must state that the relevant indemnity was in force and the relevant indemnity agreement between the company and its directors must be available for inspection by shareholders. This must be done each year the indemnity is in force, i.e. not just in the year the indemnity is created. This disclosure obligation will apply to any indemnity in a company's Articles that meets the requirements for a "qualifying third party indemnity provision". This means that, most companies will need to make a disclosure in the annual report and accounts.

It is very important to note that the new provisions relate only to directors, not other officers or auditors.

The old law (i.e. Section 310) still applies to auditors, but not to officers. This means that there are no statutory restrictions on a company indemnifying its officers who are not directors, such as company secretaries, but obviously the board will want to have regard to its fiduciary duties generally.


If you require further information on any matter covered in this note, please contact your principal contact at Charles Russell or Simon Gilbert, Clive Hopewell or Alexander Keepin (London), Francis Rundall , Richard Norton, or Adrian Mayer (Cheltenham), Catherine Drew or Geoff Sparks (Guildford) or Peter Elliott (Oxford) on 0207 203 5000.

To download these articles in pdf format, please click here


Please note that the summaries above are a general indicative guide only. They are not exhaustive. This information has been prepared by the firm as a service to our clients. As it is a general guide, we recommend that you seek professional advice before taking action. No liability can be accepted by the firm for any action taken or not taken as a result of this information. The firm is not authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 but we are able in certain circumstances to offer a limited range of investment services to clients because we are members of the Law Society. We can provide these investment services if they are an incidental part of the professional services we have been engaged to provide.