Introduction
The removal company is lodging and transporting our things which are many excellent services includes that cater to our touching requirements. Following the recent spate of massive corporate collapses both in Australia and overseas, the focus of attention has been on how regulators can improve their supervision and control of corporate activity by reforming laws relating to continuous disclosure, auditor independence, and general corporate governance practices. In other words, the predominant response has been to look from outside the company in, and determine what could be done to improve the manner of corporate governance within companies to minimize the extent of egregious behavior that leads to poor performance and eventual financial disaster. Removals Company Essex sufficient attention paid to the internal operation of the company in a climate of corporate collapse. Surprisingly, there is a paucity of discussion as to the mechanisms in place under the Corporations to remove a director of a company before the expiration of his or her term of office. This is interesting when an obvious practical implication of a director or directors engaging in acts or omissions which lead to the collapse or near- collapse of the company, is that the company or its members might seriously wish to remove such directors from the company. This article will seek to address this omission in the literature.
Removal provisions under the corporations
A previous article written by one of the authors1 outlined the law at the time relating to the removal of directors in Australia, and the peculiarities with some of the provisions under the then Corporations Law regulating the removal of directors. Since that time, while there has been little in the way of case law in Australia dealing with the removal of directors, quite substantial changes were made to the statutory removal provisions under the Corporations Law with the enactment of the Clerp reforms in 2000, which are now included under of the Corporations Act of the article, the authors explain the removal provisions in the Corporations Act as they apply to public and proprietary companies. As the procedure for removal of directors in public companies, as outlined in the Act, is more comprehensive, this will be the focus of the authors’ discussion. In the article, the authors highlight some of the peculiarities existing in the current statutory removal provisions. The authors will point out that despite the clear reforms, many of the peculiarities raised in the earlier article still exist, and indeed some new peculiarities are present due to the drafting of the amendments to the removal provisions. The authors conclude that while the Australian statutory removal provisions for public companies are desirable, the provisions applicable to proprietary companies are troublesome. It is the authors’ view that this should be addressed by amending the Corporations Act so that there is one uniform removal procedure for both public and proprietary companies. As one of the authors stressed in the earlier article, there is no compelling reason for having different removal provisions for public and proprietary companies.
Conclusions
The statutory removal provision was the fall-back removal provision for public companies. If it was impossible or too difficult to remove a director under provisions in the constitution of a public company, the company could always use the statutory provision notwithstanding anything in the company’s constitution. Circumstances that could make it impossible or difficult to remove a director included provisions in the constitution requiring a special resolution to remove the director, the appointment for life, or appointment for long periods.