Introduction to the case facts
Discuss abou the Case Study of Groeneveld Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Nolten & Ors (No 3) [2010] VSC 533.
Groeneveld Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Nolten & Ors (No 3) [2010] VSC 533
This case is related to the breach of fiduciary and statutory duties directors’ owe to a company of for which they work or have worked as the case may be. The case involves a managing director who has been prosecuted for allegedly breaching the duties owed by him to the company. An allegation had been made in this case where it was stated that the director in context had failed to disclose a martial interest in the subject matter of a transaction which the company had entered into. Corporate matter in Australia are looked after by the Australian Securities and Investment commission which is a body enacted under the Australian Securities and Investment commission Act 2001 and has the responsibility of governing the provisions of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth). The case had been carried out in the Victorian Supreme Court. The paper has the objective of intruding the case facts and based on them determining the duties which have been breached by the directors in this case. The paper also has the objective of discussing the decision of the court and analyzing the decision in the light of the exiting corporation law. The paper also sheds light upon the future implication of the case on Australian Company Law.
Introduction to the case facts
The name of the defendant director in this case was Mr Nolten who was a managing director of the company in context Groeneveld Australia Pty Ltd. In this case the court had to consider several issues and situations where the defendant director, through the companies under his control or directly made considerable personal benefits which are not disclosed to the company in context. One of the primary claim in this case was in relation to maintaining the dignity of the put and call option which the directors had with respect to the shares in the Company.
A claim had been brought by the plaintiff organization in this case that the defendant director had violated the fiduciary and statutory duties owed by him to the company as well as his obligation under a contract to honestly due the put and call option he had over the shares of the company. In this case contractual rights had been provided to the defendant director with respect to the company and to used such rights in the best interest of the company. These rights were provided under two separate agreements which the company had formed with other related companies. In relation to the first agreement the defendant director had the right to call the issue of shares in the company over two lots. The circumstances in this case was such that the defendant director had used the second call option just before he was notified by the company that he has been dismissed for setting up a new company which competes with the plaintiff. Pursuant to the second call the shares had been refused by the plaintiff and there was a refusal by the related companies as well to act in accordance with the purchasing obligations they had under the call and put option agreement.
Duties breached by the directors in this case
Duties breached by the directors in this case
According to the facts of the case discussed above the statutory and fiduciary duties which have been breached by the director in this case with respect to of his actions are as follows.
Fiduciary duty
- The duty of act in good faith and proper purpose
- The duty to avoid being a conflict of interest position
Statutory duties
Section 180(1) – Duty of Care and Diligence – the care and diligence have to be of the standards of a reasonable director in the same situation while exercising their duties and discharging their powers. The directors in this case had not used proper skills and care to exercise their powers.
Section 181- Duty to good faith, proper purpose and acting in best interest of the company – under this duty the fiduciary duties discussed above have been covered – A person will be alleged to have violated this duty of such person is an officer or director of the company and acted in a bad faith which is in pursuit of personal interest and not for the proper purpose of the company. In the given situation it can be stated that the defendant director had violated the provisions of the Act as he placed himself on a conflict of interest situation and acted for personal interest rather than the interest of the organization
Section 182- The duty of not misusing position on the company – the duty is breached when any officer or director of the company may have misused the position provided to him in the company to gain personal interest or third party benefits while the company suffers detriments. In this case it was clear that Mr Nolten had misused his position to exercise the put and call options on the shares.
Section 183 – the duty of not misusing information of the company – the duty is breached when any officer or director of the company may have misused information provided to him by the company to gain personal interest or third party benefits while the company suffers detriments
Section 191 – The duty to disclose material interest in subject matter of the decision- this duty had also been breached by the defendant director as he failed to disclose all relevant facts to the board about his interest in the resolution which had been passed.
Decision of the court
In this case it had been stated by the court that while approving the share issue for the purpose of exercising the call option there was a misuse of power and position owned by the defendant director being the managing director for pursuit of personal interest rather than the interest of the company. The court stated that the director had placed himself in a position of conflict of interest which had been further not disclosed by the director to the company in context. It had been pointed out by the court in this case that when a fiduciary has duty of disclosing a conflict of interest, and even in the light of such duty get or proposes to get into a transaction which would be considered as a breach of duty, the fiduciary ha the duty to provide a full disclosure to the company or person to whom such duty is owned by the person about all the revenant facts about which the fiduciary has knowledge.
Decision of the court
In relation to the issue of shares with respect to the call the director needed the assent of the board of directors of the company. The approval had been obtained by a way of circulating a written resolution which had been signed by the directors which also included the defendant director. In spite of the resolution recoding that there was a declaration of interest by the defendant director in the subject matter of the resolution there was a failure in his part to notify the company that his actions may regarded as a proscribed circumstance with the meaning of the term defined within the call and put option agreement. This situation would have allowed the plaintiff company to end the employment of the director with it, where the call options existing under the agreement would have immediately expired and would be no longer exercisable. It had been further noted by the court in this case that it was not adequate on the part of the defendant director to merely disclose the fact that he has material interest in the transaction related to the share issue but he had the duty to protect the company’s interest by letting the board known about any matters which were relevant to the company’s decision to issue him shares. The court held that the director of the company had the duty of making sure that the other directors in the board appreciated that the situation required for the termination in “proscribed circumstances” could have been satisfied in the case. The court further made a judgment that for the same reasons the second call option is also to be rendered invalid. In addition there was a finding made by the court that the use of the put options in relation to the related company was also not valid. The court also made a finding that the representation made by the defendant director in the period of 2005 to 2009 when he was discharging his obligations as a defendant director having imposed on him fiduciary and statutory obligations was misleading false and deceptive. The court stated that the other directors were found to have been misled by the deceptive and misleading conduct to authorize the issue of shares under the assumption that there was no ground to terminate the defendant directors employment in the proscribed circumstances. The conduct of the defendant director was also found by the court to be of nature which amounts to deceit and fraud. It was further decided that the in relation to both the option agreements there was a good faith implied term which made the contractual rights held by the defendant director was conditional and was subjected to the situation where he uphold his statutory and fiduciary obligations owed to the defendant company. Subsequently as per the facts of the case the terms relating to good faith had been breached by the defendant director. The court declared that the plaintiff company had the right to claim remedies against the defendant director for the breach of statutory and fiduciary duties in relation to every claim made by it.
The invalidity of the resolution declared by the court was pursuant to the decision provided in the case of Woolworths Ltd v Kelly (1992) 22 NSWLR 189 where similar matters had been discussed by the court. The court relied in the case of Resources Ltd v Australian Diatomite Mining Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 314 to indentify the implied term of good faith in the two agreements which the director had with the company. In relation to the breach of duties by the directors the court made a decision consistent to the decision provided in the case of Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Implication of the case
- The primary implication of the decision which has been made by the judges in this case is that it sets a periodic reminder in relation to the directors for the purpose of making sure that they are making frank and full disclosure of facts relating to a conflict of interest resulting out of their fiduciary position and where they do n t do so it is going to be regarded as a breach of duty on the part of the directors.
- Where a director is taking into consideration the entering of an agreement by acting on behalf of the organization they work for and the agreement makes the director eligible to receive a financial benefit it is the duty of the director to ensure that they act in the best interest of the organization in good faith and for a proper purpose and make disclosure about all the information which they think may be relevant to the board of directors.
Conclusion
Thus form the analysis of the case carried out above it can be stated that the decision which have been made by the court is fair and just for all the parties involved in the case. The court had correctly applied the provisions of the corporation Act 2001 in this case to find that the director in context had been guilty for the breach of the legislation. The court had also made a decision which is consistent to precedent case laws of company law in Australia and discussed above. The decision of the court signifies that the directors must be having a duty of making disclosure in relation to all relevant facts which are known to them a d a partial disclosure will also account to the breach of statutory and fiduciary duties
References
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Corporation Act 2001 (Cth)
Groeneveld Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Nolten & Ors (No 3) [2010] VSC 533
Resources Ltd v Australian Diatomite Mining Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 314
Woolworths Ltd v Kelly (1992) 22 NSWLR 189
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
