Directors: Who are they? ● 吕俊昭 By Loo Choon Chiaw The recent formation of the Singapore Institute of Directors underlined the im-portant roles played by company di-rectors. It has further brought into focus the topic of Corporate Governance in general . The writer proposes to examine the legal issues of directors in a series of articles in this column commencing from this article. Unless otherwise specified, all references to statutory provisions are references to the Companies Act (Cap. 50) (hereafter referred to as ''the Act''). The readers may be surprised to note that despite its importance, the term ''di-rector'' is not statutorily defined. Section 4 of the Act (hereafter referred to as ''Section 4'') merely states that a ''director'' includes any person occupying the position of director of a company by whatever name called (hereafter referred to as ''de facto director'') and includes a person (other than a professional adviser) in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act (hereafter referred to as ''shadow director'') and an alternate or substitute director. Thus, pursuant to Section 4 and in the case of a de facto director and a shadow director res-pectively, a person may be a director though not designated as such. In con-trast, persons may be described as directors, for instance, Finance Director, Marketing Director or Human Resource Director, without their occupying the po-sition of directors within the meaning of Section 4. The terms ''de facto director'' and ''shadow director'' are not statutory terms. The extension of the term ''director'' to cover both a ''de facto director'' and a ''shadow director'' aims to prevent those controlling the company from evading their statutory liabilities and obligations as directors by simply not accepting appointment as directors. In practice, it is not always easy to establish a person as a shadow director of a company, which involves the proof that the relevant board of directors has been failing to exercise any discretion or judgment, contending instead to act upon the directions and instructions of the alleged shadow di-rector as a matter of practice over a period of time. In the present context, whilst both ''de facto directors'' and ''shadow directors'' are persons who have not been formally appointed to the relevant board of di-rectors, they are conceptually different and distinct. A de facto director is a per-son who assumes the functions of a di-rector. He is held out by the relevant company as its director, and personally claims and purports to act as such, although never formally appointed. In contrast, a shadow director does not claim or purport to act as a director. Indeed, he claims not to be a director. To borrow the language used in an English case, ''He lurks in the shadows, sheltering behind others who, he claims, as the only directors of the company to the exclusion of himself.'' The Articles of Association of a com-pany usually provide for the appointment of alternate or substitute directors. When duly appointed, an alternate or substitute director will, in the absence of the di-rector who appointed him, be entitled to perform all the functions of the latter. Functionally, directors may be cate-gorised either as an executive director or a non-executive director. Basically, exe-cutive directors are those directors con-cerned with the actual management of the company. Ordinarily, the Articles of Association of the company will confer upon them wide management powers. It is usual for executive directors to enter into service contracts with the company. Non-executive directors are commonly found in large companies, in particular, listed companies. Non-executive di-rectors invariably restrict themselves to purely advisory and supervisory roles. An ''independent director'' is a director who should be in a position to exercise in-dependent judgment in carrying out the functions of the Audit Committee of a listed company. We shall review in grea-ter detail the legal position of non-executive directors and independent di-rectors, and the important functions which they discharge, when the issues relating to an Audit Committee are examined. (The writer is the Senior Partner of Loo & Partners. He qualified as a Barrister-at-Law at Lincoln's Inn, London, and obtained his Master of Laws from London University. Mr Loo is also a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London.) 公司董事，何许人也？ 最近企业董事学会的创立，强调了公司董事饰演的重要角色，由 此更使到公司的管控课题成为存眷的核心。笔者将通过本栏的一系列 文章，从法令的角度探讨董事的课题。本文是系列的开头。 行文中除非还有说明，否则所谓的法定条文，指的都是公司执法 （第50章），或简称“执法”。 读者或者会感想惊讶，董事是重要人物，但“董事”一词却没有 法定的界说。执法第4节（下称“第4节”）只说“董事”包罗任何拥 有公司董事职权的人，不管职衔是什么（下称“实质董事”）；也包 括任何人（专业参谋除外），只要他发出的指导、指示，董事们习惯 上城市听命并加以执行（下称“影子董事”）；以及交替或后补董事。 因此按照第4节，就实质董事和影子董事来说，一小我私家可能没有 董事的职衔但仍是董事。反之，一个公司的职员可能有董事的职衔， 但实际上却没有董事的职权。例如财政董事、行销董事或人力资源董 事等，这些人就不算是董事。 所谓“实质董事”和“影子董事”，都不是法定名词。“董事” 一词包罗实质董事和影子董事，现代职业教育杂志社，用意是制止一些把握公司控制权的人 ，等闲地拒绝受委，以推卸他们身为董事的法定责任和义务。 就实际环境来说，要确定一小我私家是不是影子董事并不容易，这牵 涉到是否能够证明：有关的董事会持久以来推卸董事应尽的责任，而 仅遵照被断言为影子董事的人的指导、指示服务。 固然实质和影子董事都没有正式受委进入董事会，但观念上两者 照旧有区此外。实质董事固然没有正式受委，却包袱董事的职责，公 司对外人宣称他为董事，而他本身也以董事自居。 对比之下，影子董事不单不表白本身是董事，他甚至否定本身是 董事。 一家公司的章程，凡是有划定要委任交替或后补董事。适本地受 委后，交替或后补董事在委任他的董事不在时，有权执行后者的所有 职责。 董事在职能上，还可以分别成执行和非执行两类。根基上，执行 董事是那些确实涉及公司打点的董事。一般而言，公司章程授予他们 遍及的打点权力。凡是执行董事会和公司签署处事合约。 总体上看，范围较大的公司，出格是上市公司，才会委任非执行 董事。往往，他们的角色仅局限于咨询和监督的范畴。 “独立董事”是一个能够在执行审计委员会的成果时，做出独立 判断的上市公司董事。以后讨论到和审计委员会有关的课题时，我们 将对非执行董事和独立董事的法令职责，做更深入的探讨。 （本文作者是英国大律师，英国皇家仲裁学院院士，现为Loo & Partners法令事务所的主任律师。）
