Reflecting on the corporate opportunity rule in company law through a jurisprudential review of Modise v Tladi Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2020 4 All SA 670 (SCA)

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Justice Mudzamiri
{"title":"Reflecting on the corporate opportunity rule in company law through a jurisprudential review of Modise v Tladi Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2020 4 All SA 670 (SCA)","authors":"Justice Mudzamiri","doi":"10.17159/2225-7160/2023/v56a15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Directors' fiduciary duties form part of foundational principles in corporate law. This concept has its foundations in the law of agency. Prior to the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Companies Act), fiduciary duties were governed under common law, however, the advent of the Companies Act resulted in the partial codification of fiduciary duties. One of the central fiduciary duties is the duty of directors to avoid conflict of interest. This duty restricts the directors of a company from having their personal interests impede those of the company. There are separate rules that flow from the directors' duty to avoid conflict of interests, including the corporate opportunity rule. The corporate opportunity rule dictates that directors must not use their position to unfairly benefit from the contracts and/or information that rightfully belongs to the company they are managing. The objectives of the corporate opportunity rule were clarified in Modise v Tladi Holdings (Pty) Ltd (the Modise case). In partially confirming the judgment of the court a quo the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the ambit of breaching the corporate opportunity rule includes the illegal use of the property and confidential information of the company by a director for personal gain. This article agrees with the reasoning of both the High Court (court a quo or trial court) and the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Modise case on the issue of prescription although the article raises concerns about the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal on a similar issue. Further, the article concurs with the reasoning of both the court a quo and the Supreme Court of Appeal in concluding that the applicants breached their fiduciary duty when they appropriated a corporate opportunity that belonged to the company. One of the major lessons that could be learnt from the Modise case is that directors, especially those who serve on multiple boards, should exercise extreme caution with potential conflicts of interest.","PeriodicalId":41915,"journal":{"name":"De Jure","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"De Jure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2225-7160/2023/v56a15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Directors' fiduciary duties form part of foundational principles in corporate law. This concept has its foundations in the law of agency. Prior to the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Companies Act), fiduciary duties were governed under common law, however, the advent of the Companies Act resulted in the partial codification of fiduciary duties. One of the central fiduciary duties is the duty of directors to avoid conflict of interest. This duty restricts the directors of a company from having their personal interests impede those of the company. There are separate rules that flow from the directors' duty to avoid conflict of interests, including the corporate opportunity rule. The corporate opportunity rule dictates that directors must not use their position to unfairly benefit from the contracts and/or information that rightfully belongs to the company they are managing. The objectives of the corporate opportunity rule were clarified in Modise v Tladi Holdings (Pty) Ltd (the Modise case). In partially confirming the judgment of the court a quo the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the ambit of breaching the corporate opportunity rule includes the illegal use of the property and confidential information of the company by a director for personal gain. This article agrees with the reasoning of both the High Court (court a quo or trial court) and the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Modise case on the issue of prescription although the article raises concerns about the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal on a similar issue. Further, the article concurs with the reasoning of both the court a quo and the Supreme Court of Appeal in concluding that the applicants breached their fiduciary duty when they appropriated a corporate opportunity that belonged to the company. One of the major lessons that could be learnt from the Modise case is that directors, especially those who serve on multiple boards, should exercise extreme caution with potential conflicts of interest.
从Modise诉Tladi Holdings (Pty) Ltd案的法理反思公司法中的公司机会规则2020 4 All SA 670 (SCA)
董事的信义义务是公司法基本原则的一部分。这一概念在代理法中有其基础。在2008年第71号公司法(公司法)之前,信义义务受普通法管辖,然而,《公司法》的出现导致了信义义务的部分编纂。董事避免利益冲突的责任是信托责任的核心之一。这一义务限制公司董事的个人利益妨碍公司的利益。在董事避免利益冲突的义务之外,还有一些单独的规则,包括公司机会规则。公司机会规则规定,董事不得利用职务之便不公平地从本应属于他们所管理的公司的合同和/或信息中获益。公司机会规则的目标在Modise诉Tladi控股(私人)有限公司(Modise案)中得到了澄清。最高上诉法院在部分确认法院的判决时认为,违反公司机会规则的范围包括董事为个人利益非法使用公司的财产和机密资料。该条同意高等法院(法院或初审法院)和最高上诉法院在Modise案中关于时效问题的推理,尽管该条对最高上诉法院关于类似问题的裁决表示关切。此外,该条同意法院和最高上诉法院的结论,即申请人在挪用属于该公司的公司机会时违反了其受托义务。从Modise案中可以吸取的一个主要教训是,董事,尤其是那些同时在多个董事会任职的董事,应该对潜在的利益冲突格外谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
De Jure
De Jure LAW-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信