Re Barings plc (No 5)

Last updated

Re Barings plc (No 5)
Twilight view of Kobe, from a point near Shin-Kobe station.jpg
Court Court of Appeal
Full case nameSecretary of State for Trade and Industry v Baker (No.5)
Citation(s)[2000] 1 BCLC 523
Case history
Prior action(s)[1999] 1 BCLC 433
Case opinions
Morritt LJ
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Morritt LJ
Waller LJ
Mummery LJ
Keywords
Care and skill, Directors' duties

Re Barings plc (No 5) [2000] 1 BCLC 523 is a leading UK company law case, concerning directors' duties of care and skill. The case is formally identified and cited as "No 5", [1] though some observers regard it as the sixth in the saga of litigation concerning Barings Bank.[ citation needed ]

Contents

Facts

Nick Leeson was a dishonest futures trader in Singapore for the Barings Bank. He traded in the front office and also did work, in breach of an internal audit recommendation, in the back office, auditing his own team's trades. This allowed him to effectively act as his own supervisor. Leeson abused this situation to secretly make increasingly large unauthorized trades on his employer's behalf. He fraudulently doctored the bank's accounts, and reported large profits, while trading at losses. After the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the stock market went into a downward spiral, and the truth of his losses was uncovered, bankrupting Barings Bank. The Secretary of State sought director disqualification orders under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against three directors of Barings for their failure to supervise his activities. They were alleged to be incompetent, and therefore "unfit to be concerned in the management of a company" (sections 6-8).

Judgement

High Court

Jonathan Parker J held that the three directors should be disqualified. Unfitness was determined by the objective standard that should ordinarily be expected of people fit to be directors of companies. Directors must inform themselves of company affairs and join in with other directors to supervise those affairs. Having no adequate system of monitoring was therefore a breach of this standard. Directors may delegate functions, but they nevertheless remain responsible for those functions being carried out. Furthermore, the degree of a director's remuneration will be a relevant factor in determining the degree of responsibility with which a director must reckon. [2]

Court of Appeal

Morritt LJ, Waller LJ and Mummery LJ upheld Jonathan Parker J's decision in full. Morritt LJ delivered judgment for the whole court.

See also

Notes

  1. L Sealy and S Worthington, Company Law (OUP 2007)
  2. [1999] 1 BCLC 433

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barings Bank</span> Defunct English merchant bank

Barings Bank was a British merchant bank based in London, and one of England's oldest merchant banks after Berenberg Bank, Barings' close collaborator and German representative. It was founded in 1762 by Francis Baring, a British-born member of the German-British Baring family of merchants and bankers.

<i>In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation</i> Legal case and corporate law precedent

In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959, is a civil action that came before the Delaware Court of Chancery. It is an important case in United States corporate law and discusses a director's duty of care in the oversight context. It raised the question regarding compliance, "what is the board's responsibility with respect to the organization and monitoring of the enterprise to assure that the corporation functions within the law to achieve its purposes?" Chancellor Allen wrote the opinion.

Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 561 is a leading English company law case, concerning a director's duty of care and skill, whose main precedent is now codified under s 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The case was decided under the older Companies Act 1985.

<i>Keech v Sandford</i> English trusts law case

Keech v Sandford[1726] EWHC J76 is a foundational case, deriving from English trusts law, on the fiduciary duty of loyalty. It concerns the law of trusts and has affected much of the thinking on directors' duties in company law. It holds that a trustee owes a strict duty of loyalty so that there can never be a possibility of any conflict of interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom company law</span> Law that regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006

The United Kingdom company law regulates corporations formed under the Companies Act 2006. Also governed by the Insolvency Act 1986, the UK Corporate Governance Code, European Union Directives and court cases, the company is the primary legal vehicle to organise and run business. Tracing their modern history to the late Industrial Revolution, public companies now employ more people and generate more of wealth in the United Kingdom economy than any other form of organisation. The United Kingdom was the first country to draft modern corporation statutes, where through a simple registration procedure any investors could incorporate, limit liability to their commercial creditors in the event of business insolvency, and where management was delegated to a centralised board of directors. An influential model within Europe, the Commonwealth and as an international standard setter, UK law has always given people broad freedom to design the internal company rules, so long as the mandatory minimum rights of investors under its legislation are complied with.

<i>In Plus Group Ltd v Pyke</i>

In Plus Group Ltd v Pyke[2002] EWCA Civ 370 is a UK company law case concerning the fiduciary duties of directors, and in particular the doctrine concerning corporate opportunities. In the course of his appellate judgment, Lord Justice Sedley, sitting with Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, cast doubt on the correctness of the contract law case, Bell v. Lever Bros

<i>Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v Bryant</i> 2007 company law case in the United Kingdom

Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd v Bryant[2007] EWCA Civ 200 is a 2007 UK company law case, concerning the fiduciary duty of directors to avoid conflicts of interest. It follows some considerable unrest in the courts about the strictness of the law relating to taking corporate opportunities.

Directors' duties are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors' duties are analogous to duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries, and by agents to principals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 forms part of UK company law and sets out the procedures for company directors to be disqualified in certain cases of misconduct.

<i>Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Maxwell (No 2)</i>

Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Maxwell [1993] BCLC 814 is a UK company law case concerning a director's duty to act for proper purposes of the company. This case is an example of what would now be Companies Act 2006, section 171.

<i>Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co (GB) Ltd</i>

Daimler Co Ltd v Continental Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd [1916] 2 AC 307 is a UK company law case, concerning the concept of "control" and enemy character of a company. It is usually discussed in the context of lifting the corporate veil, however it is merely an example of where the corporate veil is not in issue as a matter of company law, since the decision turns on correct interpretation of a statute.

Creasey v Breachwood Motors Ltd [1993] BCLC 480 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.

<i>Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd</i>

Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] 2 BCLC 447 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil.

In re Walt Disney Derivative Litigation, 907 A 2d 693 (2005) is a U.S. corporate law case concerning the scope of the duty of care under Delaware law. Disney is the leading case on executive compensation.

<i>Re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd</i>

Re Sevenoaks Stationers (Retail) Ltd [1991] Ch 164 is a UK company law case concerning the test of being unfit to run a company under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 section 6.

Directors' duties in the United Kingdom bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company.

Shamji v Johnson Matthey Bankers Ltd [1991] BCLC 36 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.

<i>In re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation</i>

In re Citigroup Inc Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 964 A 2d 106 is a US corporate law case, concerning the standard under Delaware law for the duty of loyalty among directors' duties.

<i>VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp</i> 2013 English company law case

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp[2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 AC 337 is an English company law case, concerning piercing the corporate veil for fraud.

<i>Royal Trust Bank v National Westminster Bank plc</i>

Royal Trust Bank v National Westminster Bank plc [1996] BCC 613 was a decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the nature of a floating charge.

References