Societe Anonyme: Remuneration of the Members of the BoD
The Board of Directors of the Société Anonyme acts, in principle, collectively. However, it is possible (: a rule without exceptions) to delegate the powers to bind and represent to a specific member. It is also common for board members to associate with the SA through special relationships. Indicatively, with contracts of employment, works, independent services or mandate. These contracts (also) provide for the fees that the SA (must) pay them for their specific, additional, services. These issues have already occupied us in our previous article [: Contracts of Board Members for the Provision of (Additional) Services]. In this article we will deal with the issues of remuneration of the members of the Board of Directors that the SA (sometimes) pays them in the context of their internal relationship. In the latter case, the legal basis for the payment of remuneration must be sought in the articles of association, in a decision of the General Assembly or in the remuneration policy that may be adopted by the SA (: obligatory if it is listed).
Establishment of a control mechanism in the remuneration of the members of the Board of Directors
As already announced by the explanatory memorandum of law 4548/2018, the remuneration regime of the members of the Board of Directors is reformed (with articles 109 et seq.). A specific framework is chosen for the protection of the SA and the minority shareholders. The justifying reason? The risk of impairment of the corporate assets of the SA due to exorbitant fees and other, disproportionate benefits.
It is noteworthy, however, that the specific provisions (Articles 109 et seq.) “… do not apply in the case of compensations and expenses paid under an approved by law, where required, legal relationship (eg expenses in the context of work or mandate) and / or provided by law (eg CC 723), as after all, it is still valid today, in accordance with the position of the case law”. In other words, what is regulated in independent contracts between the Company and the members of its Board of Directors: (a) is valid independently (we also addressed the specific issues in our aforementioned article) and (b) is not occupied by the regulatory scope of the provisions that we attempt to approach here.
Therefore, based on the type of remuneration that the members of the Board of Directors may receive in the context of their organic relationship, the terms, the procedure of their granting (but also the relevant restrictions in place) are analyzed as follows:
Fees and benefits that do not consist of participation in the profits of the year
Types of fees and other benefits
The remuneration of salaried consultants consists of a fixed, as a rule, “remuneration”. This, however, is not a rule without exception. The type of pay varies depending on the case. It may take, as an indication, the form of compensation per session or the award of a bonus. Other benefits may include housing, security and / or a car.
The determination of fees in the articles of association or in the remuneration policy of the company
Remuneration or other benefits are legally paid to the members of the Board of Directors – provided that there is a relevant provision in the articles of association or in the remuneration policy of the company (article 109 §1 law 4548/18). In more detail:
(a) Regarding the (possible) provision in the articles of association
The articles of association may provide for the granting of remuneration to specific (or all) members of the Board. This possibility seems more theoretical as we will rarely and in very special cases encounter it. These are fees, the granting of which concerns (obviously) the future. Retrospective forecasting is excluded. In addition: a mere reference to the articles of association regarding the right to receive remuneration is not enough. The fee must be specified (in the amount and the conditions of its payment) in the articles of association.
In case it is required to mediate a decision of the General Assembly for its determination, it is considered (and it is) a fee which is granted after the approval of the General Assembly (see below) and not on the basis of the statutory provision.
We should consider that the regulation of the remuneration determined by the statute also includes the provision for the maximum, the final amount of which is determined by a decision of the General Assembly. However, the same does not apply in those cases where the statute stipulates its minimum amount and it is left to the General Assembly to determine the amount to be finally paid. We must consider, in the latter case, that this is a fee determined by the General Assembly.
The statutory provision for the payment of remuneration to the members of the Board of Directors may exist in the initial statute of the SA- the one drafted for its establishment. It is, however, possible that the relevant provision will be introduced later – after an amendment, ie, of the statute by a decision of the General Assembly. Unless otherwise provided by the Articles of Association, the relevant decision shall be taken by the usual quorum and majority.
(b) Remuneration policy
The determination of fees in the company policy is regulated, specifically, by articles 110-111 of law 4548 / 2018. Remuneration policy arrangements are mandatory for companies with shares listed on a regulated market. Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that other companies will adopt a similar remuneration policy. For these latter companies, the relevant statutory provision is necessary in any case. The further analysis, however, of the remuneration policy will be the subject of a different article of ours.
The granting of fees after a special decision of the General Assembly
In the event that there is no provision in the law or the articles of association of the SA (and without prejudice to the provisions of the remuneration policy): “… remuneration or benefit granted to a member of the board of directors… shall be borne by the company only if approved by a special decision of the General Assembly…” (article 109 §1 law 4548/18).
In contrast to the pre-existing law (article 24 §2 b’ of law 2190/1920), article 109 refers to a decision of the General Assembly and not of an ordinary General Assembly. This does not mean, however, that the relevant responsibility is now assigned to the extraordinary General Assembly. The argument in favor of the exclusive competence of the ordinary General Assembly is not without value.
The above, approving, decision of the General Assembly should be specific. Therefore, the approval of remuneration or other benefits to the members of the Board of Directors should be an independent item on its agenda. The decision for the approval is taken with the usual quorum and majority. However, it is possible for the articles of association to introduce increased, respectively, percentages. It follows from the wording of the provision that the approval of the General Assembly for the granting of remuneration or other benefits can only concern the previous corporate year. A corresponding approval for future payments cannot take place – but it is possible to pay sums in advance for future fees (as we will see later on).
Fees from the participation in the profits of the year
For the granting of remuneration consisting of corporate profits, a prerequisite is the relevant provision in the articles of association of the SA. However, the general, relevant, provision is sufficient. The determination of the amount of these fees may take place following a decision of the General Assembly. The decision shall be taken, as defined in paragraph 2 of Article 109, by a simple quorum. A GA, in this case, is considered the ordinary one.
The fees in this case are taken from the balance of net profits that may remain after deducting the amounts corresponding to the formation of the regular reserve and the distribution of the minimum dividend (: articles 160 §2 and 161 Law 4548/2018). It is possible, however, in any case, for the articles os association to impose further restrictions.
The specific fees, therefore, are directly dependent on the existence of profits: It is not possible to approve (and, much more, pay) such fees when there are no profits. This works in favor of the company in two ways: (a) It is not possible for the company to be burdened when it has no profits and (b) It provides (indirect) incentive to the members of the Board of Directors to maximize the profitability of the SA.
The advance payment of fees
As already mentioned above, it is possible to pay an advance to members of the Board of Directors: “The General Assembly may allow an advance payment for the period up to the next ordinary General Assembly. The advance payment of the fee is subject to its approval by the next regular General Assembly” (article 109 §4 law 4548/18). The law does not specify the fees that may be paid in advance. However, it is not considered possible to pay a fee in the case of:
(a) Profit sharing
It is not considered possible to deposit fees that will eventually consist of a participation in the company’s profits. This is because, at the time of the down payment, it is not possible to make a secure prediction of the existence of net profits; much less to determine the net profits available to board members for remuneration.
(b) Fees provided by the articles of association
Advance payment of fees, the granting of which is provided for in the articles of association of the SA, is also not considered possible. The reason is that these fees are paid under the terms, conditions, time and procedure provided therein.
Judicial review of the amount of fees
The grid of regulations set by article 109 of law 4548/2018 does not let the decisions concerning the payment of remuneration to the members of the BoD go virtually unchecked even when the set conditions are met. In fact, the relevant choice of the legislator seems reasonable as it is not uncommon for the majority of the shareholders to decide to grant unjustifiably high salaries to members of the Board. Such decisions are usually taken in those cases where the majority of the shareholders (or persons related to them) happen to be members of the Board, without the latter really being entitled to the fees decided to be paid to them.
In these cases, the right of minority shareholders to oppose to the decision for the payment of remuneration or benefit, of any kind, to a specific member of the Board is recognized. A necessary (formal) condition is that the minority shareholders represent 1/10 of the paid up (according to the most correct point of view) capital of the SA. If the specific formal condition is met, the court may (at the request of shareholders, by those who objected, representing 1/20 of the paid up capital -article 109 §5 law 4548/2018) evaluate, based on the data which will be taken into account, that the remuneration decided to be paid to a member of the Board is excessive and should be reduced.
The application to the court must be submitted within an exclusive period of two months from the relevant approval of the General Assembly. It is noted, however, that the fees paid to the members of the Board on the basis of a special relationship / contract are outside the framework of this judicial review.
We should consider it reasonable and, at the same time, imperative to have a clear separation (first of all in our minds) of the qualities of the shareholder, the member of the Board of Directors but also of the employee / provider of services to the SA. In this context, we must accept that the specific persons (must) have a different benefit from their participation in the SA. The shareholder from the dividends due to them; the employee / service provider from the fees provided by the relevant contracts; the member of the Board of Directors from the fees provided (or not) by the statutory regulations and possible decisions of the General Assembly.
It is true that (especially) in the context of family SAs the aforementioned qualities are “blurred”. It is in these cases that, above all, there should be a separation of the company’s finances from the pocket of the entrepreneur, the establishment of (not mandatory but necessary-essentially) rules of corporate governance.
In fact, this is not only for the benefit of minority shareholders. It is mainly for the benefit of the company but also of its development.
P.S. A brief version of this article has been published in MAKEDONIA Newspaper (March 21, 2021).
Disclaimer: the information provided in this article is not (and is not intended to) constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be offered by a competent attorney and after the latter takes into consideration all the relevant to your case data that you will provide them with. See here for more details.