Obligations and Rights of the Special Representative

We have already looked into the appointment conditions and the powers of the special representative for the exercise of the company’s claims against the members of the Board of Directors who have harmed it. Here we will examine their obligations and rights, their remuneration and, possibly, their replacement. Also issues of limitation of related claims.

Duties of Special Representative

Duty of Faith & Diligence

The special representative constitutes a body of the SA administration (judicially appointed, even). Given their capacity as such and in the context of their authority to exercise the corporate lawsuit, they are obliged to show the required diligence and loyalty towards the SA. They also have, towards the SA, the corresponding obligations of the members of the Board of Directors (: in general, its administrative bodies – e.g. substitutes). In this specific context, the law expressly provides that “the special representative has an obligation of confidentiality, just like the members of the board of directors.” (art. 105 §5 ed. c΄). In case of violation of the specific obligations, they are responsible for every fault, just like the members of the Board of Directors (art. 102 §§1 and 5).

Of course, due to the nature and limited competence of the special representative, the content of their responsibility is limited.

Since the special representative is not called upon to make business decisions, it does not apply: (a) The measure of diligence of the prudent professional (art. 102 §2) nor (b) the rule of reasonable business decision as a reason for exemption from their liability (Art. 102 §4).

Obligation to Provide Information

The duty of care of the special representative also includes the obligation to inform the SA bodies: expanded, vis-à-vis the General Assembly-limited vis-à-vis the Board. This differentiation seems perfectly reasonable as the special representative is appointed following the initiative of the shareholders. And, more precisely, because of the refusal, inaction or inability of the Board of Directors to accept the shareholders’ request for a corporate lawsuit. And let’s not forget that members of the Board of Directors are the ones against whom the corporate lawsuit is brought. Therefore, the scope of the obligation to inform the Board must not jeopardize the successful outcome of the trial on the corporate lawsuit. And even more: informing the Board of Directors should be limited to special cases only and should take place if certain conditions are met. Specifically, since the information in question is necessary for the exercise of the powers of the Board of Directors and, at the same time, the protection of the company’s claim for compensation is ensured.

The obligation to inform the General Assembly is, on the other hand, broad. In fact, it is considered that the special representative replaces the Board of Directors in its obligation to provide the General Assembly with information related to corporate affairs, upon request of any shareholder (art. 141 §6 paragraph a’). This obligation is reasonably limited to matters relating to the corporate lawsuit.

In two cases, there is an explicit obligation to inform the special representative vis-à-vis the General Assembly and the Board. Specifically:

(a) When, after the filing of a corporate lawsuit, a General Assembly has in its agenda the company’s waiver or limitation of its claims. “…At this meeting, the special representative that may have been appointed is invited to attend” (art. 102 §7 section c)

(b) When there is a question of waiver of remedies, in case of dismissal of the corporate lawsuit. In particular, in case of rejection of the lawsuit in the first or second instance, the Board of Directors can waive the remedies. This, following a relevant recommendation of the special representative (art. 105 §7).

However, it should be stressed that, according to the law, the differentiation of the obligation to inform the special representative vis-à-vis the Board of Directors and the General Assembly seems to be only theoretical. And this is because it would be difficult to imagine a Greek SA where the members of its board do not have access to the discussions and minutes of its general assembly and, not infrequently, participation in its work as a shareholder.

Rights of the Special Representative

Update – Access To Documents

The special representative is entitled to access the company’s documents in the exercise of their duties as an ad hoc body. Specifically: “the special representative has the power of access to documents and information, the knowledge of which is, according to a reasonable judgement, necessary for the exercise of the lawsuit and the conduct of the relevant trial.” (art. 105 §4 final ed.). They oblige, i.e., the company, upon their request, to provide them with access and copies of the company’s books, documents and files that contain critical information for the exercise and adjudication of the corporate lawsuit.

The specific right of the special representative is not unlimited. It should not, of course, violate the principle of proportionality nor exceed the purpose of the corporate lawsuit. This, however, in no case implies an absolute limitation of the actions of the special representative to access only the documents referred to on the historical basis, which is determined by the court during their appointment (art. 105 §5). A contrary position would render the right to information ineffective as this would concern information already known.

The discussions regarding the person against whom the said claim of the special representative is directed seems too theoretical. Will it be brought against the company, the board or the specific member of it who, if any, holds the corporate document? It will obviously be brought against the SA (which is legally represented by its Board of Directors) and, if a certain member holds an important document, also against the latter.

Fee And Expenses Of The Special Representative

The court, at its discretion, may award a reasonable fee to the special representative (art. 105 §5 final ed.), which shall be borne by the SA.

For the granting of the said “reasonable” remuneration, the court decides – according to the established relevant jurisprudence – “…taking into account the nature, number, duration, necessity and seriousness of the services provided by the applicant (special representative) during the dispute period of service, the effort made, the result achieved…” (57/1998 Court of Appeal of Piraeus, related 84/2016 Court of Appeal of Larissa, both in Nomos Legal Database).

The fee in question, however, is not reduced by the costs of the trial: The SA bears “the cost of the trial for the appointment of the special representative and the conduct of the legal battle…” (art. 106 §3). And also not reduced by the costs of notification of the decision of the Single Member Court of First Instance on their appointment.

Replacement of Special Representative

The special representative is a body of temporary administration, appointed by the court for a specific purpose only: the exercise of the corporate lawsuit. As such, it is possible to be replaced if there is an important reason (art. 786 §3 Code of Civil Conduct). After all, in this way, the effective pursuit of the company’s claims and the restoration of the damage suffered by the company are served.

In order to replace the special representative, the following are cumulatively required: (a) an application to the court by anyone who has a legal interest – even a shareholder acting individually (the special representative should, of course, also participate in the relevant discussion) and (b) the existence of an important reason.

Especially for the contribution of the important reason, risking the interests of the company is assumed. It is considered, according to the jurisprudence, that such (: great reason) occurs in the event that the special representative performs their duties improperly. That is, their exclusive authority, the content of which is the “… timely exercise of the corporate lawsuit and the conduct of the legal battle with the diligence required in the transactions, under the specific circumstances…” (189/2018 Supreme Court, Nomos Legal Database). In fact, it doesn’t matter if they act with malice.

Suspension of Prescription

The company’s claims from the management’s responsibility are subject to limitation. By law, the three-year statute of limitations is suspended while the person in charge is a member of the board of directors or the substitute body (art. 102 §6) and extends, at most, to ten years. The aforementioned deadline is suspended, further (106 §1 paragraph a), from the submission of the shareholders’ application to the Board of Directors for the exercise of the corporate lawsuit (art. 104) and until the issuance of the decision of the Supreme Court. Court of First Instance on the request of the shareholders (art. 106 §1 section b) In the event that, for any reason, a special representative is not immediately appointed, the suspension of the statute of limitations continues. And if the court rejects the shareholders’ request for the appointment of a special representative, the suspension continues until the decision becomes final.

It is worth noting that the suspension of the statute of limitations (art. 106 §1 paragraph a) does not restart if a new application is filed for the appointment of a special representative of the shareholders, in the event that they, before filing the corporate lawsuit, judge that there is no liability of members of the administration (art. 105 §6).

The special representative, in order to exercise the SA’s claims against members of the Board of Directors, is reasonably granted a series of rights. However, they are also burdened with a series of obligations. Any violation of the latter creates the basis, as an inescapable consequence, for their replacement. The main issue, always, is the best possible exercise of the rights of the SA against those who harmed it. However, when the exercise of the company’s claims against the specific persons is exhausted, are they released from their other civil and criminal responsibilities towards third parties? For the answer, see in our next article.-

Stavros Koumentakis
Managing Partner

The information contained in this article does not constitute (nor is it intended to constitute) legal advice. Such legal advice may only be provided by a qualified lawyer who has taken into account all the facts and circumstances of your particular case. Read more.