Shareholder activism: the birth of a new phenomenon in South African corporate law
| dc.contributor.advisor | Snyman-Van de Venter | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lekhesa, Motlatsi William | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-09-21T09:46:41Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2015-09-21T09:46:41Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009-11 | |
| dc.description.abstract | English: Shareholder activism is a means by which shareholders voice their concerns or dissatisfaction in companies in which they invest. This phenomenon started centuries ago, but picked up momentum and developed in the United States of America (“USA”) in the 1930’s, after the fall of Wall Street in 1929. Soon thereafter, it spread to countries such as the United Kingdom and to the rest of the world. In the USA in 1934 the government passed the Securities and Equities Act, which also contains proxy rule Rule 14A-8. This rule is used as a tool to encourage shareholders to make proposals on matters to be voted on at annual general meetings. It introduced internal corporate governance approaches such as the “negotiated agreements”, the “nexus of contract” and the “one axis” approach. In South Africa, section 185 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 makes provision for shareholders to draw proposals to be presented at annual general meetings. Section 65 of the Companies Act 2008 will also afford shareholders to make proposals. A company is made up of shareholders. Shareholders are people or entities that have an economic interest in a company. Examples of shareholders include private individuals, directors, employees, customers, community, government, trade partners, media, creditors etc. Shareholders can be classified as individuals or institutional. Institutional activists include public pension funds and private equity funds. They can be business associations, social activists and labour unions. They can have a direct or indirect beneficial interest in a company. Shareholders can also be classified as preference, controlling, majority and minority shareholders. Companies can be incorporated as private or public. A company can be held liable for the actions of its directors. Shareholders have rights and duties in a company. These include the right to vote, monitor and elect directors etc. A company is juristic person with its own status. In terms of the rule in Foss v Harbottle a company can take legal steps against itself and if it fails any person can take legal steps on its behalf. A person who deals with a company is protected under the Turquand Rule. This rule allows persons who are dealing with a company to assume that all internal company matters have been complied with and that the agent of a company is not acting ultra vires. Companies are managed by directors who are appointed by shareholders. Directors should be natural persons who are not minors, or have committed serious offences or are unrehabilitated insolvents. Directors have duties such as to act intra vires, to exercise care, diligence and skill; to keep confidential information; to manage risks and to act as a board. Directors can be held jointly and severally for their actions. Directors can be executive, non-executive or independent non-executive directors. Directorship is terminated when a director has committed serious offences and are unrehabilitated insolvents or by agreement with a company. Reasons for shareholder activism include corporate governance. There are different systems of corporate governance such as “insider dominated”, “outsider dominated”, “comply or else” and “comply or explain”. Sometimes shareholder activism has an influence over the way companies are managed. Due to shareholder activism, a company can change its management style, transform and change policies. The media, such as press, internet, radio and television play an important role in shareholder activism and therefore shareholder activists avoid the lengthy judicial process and opt for media to raise their discontent. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Afrikaans: Aandeelhouersaktivisme is ‘n wyse waarop aandeelhouers hul kommer of ontevredenheid rakende ‘n maatskappy waarin hulle belê het, opper. Hierdie fenomeen het eeue gelede ontstaan, maar het eers momentum gekry en is verder ontwikkel in die Verenigde State van Amerika (“VSA”) in die 1930’s ná die ineenstorting van Wall Straat in 1929. Hierna het dit na die Verenigde Koninkryk en die res van die wêreld versprei. Die VSA het in 1934 die “Securities and Equities Act 1934” aanvaar. Die wet maak voorsiening vir ‘n volmag reël (proxy rule), die sogenaamde Reël 14A-8. Hierdie reël is gebruik as ‘n meganisme om aandeelhouers aan te moedig om voorstelle te maak rakende aangeleenthede waaroor daar op algemene jaarvergaderings gestem word. Dit het interne korporatiewe beheer benaderings soos die “onderhandelde ooreenkomste”, die “nexus van die kontrak” en die “een as” benadering bekendgestel. In Suid-Afrika maak artikel 185 van die Maatskappywet 61 van 1973 voorsiening daarvoor dat aandeelhouers voorstelle mag maak wat voorgelê kan word tydens algemene jaarvergaderings. In gevolge artikel 65 van die Maatskappywet 2008 kan aandeelhouers ook voorstelle maak. ‘n Maatskappy bestaan uit belanghebbende partye. Dit sluit in persone of entiteite wat ‘n belang in die maatskappy het. Voorbeelde van belanghebbendes sluit in aandeelhouers, direkteure, werknemers, klante, die gemeenskap, die staat, handelsvennote, individue of instellings. Institusionele aktiviste sluit in publieke pensioenfondse en ook private “equity” fondse. Dit kan wees sakeverenigings, sosiale aktiviste en vakbonde. Hulle kan ‘n direkte of indirekte voordelige belang in die maatskappy hê. Aandeelhouers kan ook geklassifiseer word as voorkeur-, beherende, meerderheids- en minderheidsaandeelhouers. Maatskappye kan as privaat of publiek ingelyf word. ‘n Maatskappy kan aanspreeklik gehou word vir die handelinge van sy direkteure. Aandeelhouers het regte en 187 verpligtinge in ‘n maatskappy. Hierdie sluit in die reg om te stem, om direkteure te kies en te monitor, ens. ‘n Maatskappy is ‘n regspersoon met eie status. In gevolge van die reël in Foss v Harbottle kan ‘n maatskappy self regstappe neem en as daar versuim is aan die kant van die maatskappy, kan enige persoon regstappe neem namens die maatskappy. ‘n Persoon wat sake doen met die maatskappy word beskerm deur die Turquand-reël. Hierdie reël laat toe dat persone wat met die maatskappy sake doen, kan aanneem dat daar aan al die interne vereistes van die maatskappy voldoen is en dat die agent van ‘n maatskappy nie ultra vires optree nie. Maatskappye word bestuur deur direkteure wat aangestel word deur die aandeelhouers. Direkteure is veronderstel om natuurlike persone te wees, maar nie minderjariges nie, ook nie persone wat al ernstige misdade gepleeg het of wat ongerehabiliteerde insolvente is nie. Direkteure het pligte soos om intra vires op te tree, om die nodige sorg, ywer en vaardigheid uit te oefen, om vertroulike inligting vertroulik te hou, om risikobestuur toe te pas en om as ‘n direksie op te tree. Direkteure kan gesamentlik en afsonderlik aanspreeklik gehou word vir hul dade. Direkteure kan uitvoerend, nieuitvoerend of onafhanklik nie-uitvoerend wees. Direkteurskap word beeïndig wanneer direkteure ernstige misdade pleeg en ongerehabiliteerde insolvente is of deur ooreenkoms met die maatskappy. Redes vir aandeelhouersaktivisme sluit ‘n gebrek aan korporatiewe beheer in. Daar is verskillende sisteme van korporatiewe beheer soos “insider dominated,” “outsider dominated,” “comply or else” en “comply or explain.” Soms het aandeelhouersaktivisme ‘n invloed op die manier waarop maatskappye bestuur word. As gevolg van aandeelhouersaktivisme kan ‘n maatskappy sy bestuursstyl verander, transformeer en beleide verander. Die media, soos die gedrukte media, internet, radio en televisie, speel ‘n belangrike rol in aandeelhouersaktivisme en vermy aandeelhoueraktiviste die lang regsproses en verkies hulle die media om hul misnoeë te opper. | af |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/1251 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Shareholder activism | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Corporate governance -- Law and legislation -- South Africa. Corporation law -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Directors of corporations -- Legal status etc. -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Stockholders -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Dissertation (LL.M. (Mercantile Law))--University of the Free State, 2009 | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Shareholders | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Directors | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Employees | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Transformation | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Companies | en_ZA |
| dc.title | Shareholder activism: the birth of a new phenomenon in South African corporate law | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Dissertation | en_ZA |