Part 12

Next we may inquire, who can vote at such meetings? Unless prevented by charter, statute or by-law a stockholder may vote at any corporate meeting even though no certificate of stock has been issued to him. Nor does his indebtedness for his stock prevent him from voting. On the other hand if inspectors were not bound by the record of ownership in the company's books and went behind them to find out the real ownership of the company's stock, they would often have a grave task before them. Consequently in many, perhaps all of the states, only stockholders or those holding proxies for them can vote at a general election. By statute the stock record of ownership is usually made the conclusive test of the right to vote. Stockholders who thus appear on the stock books at the date of a meeting are entitled to vote the stock.

A trustee is the legal owner of stock standing in his name and may vote the stock for all purposes; but a testator may impose limitations on his voting power. Should trustees under a will holding a majority of the stock of a corporation disagree, and one of them should be enjoined from voting it, a minority stockholder would be entitled to an injunction to restrain the other trustee from holding an election or voting the stock alone until the right to vote the stock had been legally decided.

A different rule applies to a naked trustee who holds the title to the stock without any real interest in it. He can indeed vote, but in the way directed by the beneficiary or real owner. In Colorado, by statute, perhaps in some other states, a person to whom stock has been issued as trustee without the knowledge of the owner, is not a bona fide stockholder and cannot vote.

An executor has the power to vote the stock of his testator. And if one of joint executors issues a proxy authorizing the vote of the stock belonging to the estate, and the other executor is present at the stockholders' meeting, the vote of the stock by the executor who is present is deemed a revocation of the proxy given by his co-executor. And if a will gives to one of three executors the power to vote the stock, and directs the other two to give him a proxy for that purpose, which they decline to do, a court will order the proxy to be given. And whenever stock is held by executors who are not united in voting it, they cannot vote at all. A foreign executor should present to the inspectors of election an exemplified copy of his letters of administration, and having done so may vote on the stock standing in the testator's name. An administrator has the right to vote stock belonging to the estate, even though it has not been transferred to him in the corporation's books.

A partner of a firm who owns stock in a corporation may represent the stock in all meetings. He may therefore receive and waive notice of them, vote when attending them, in short, participate in all matters. And on the death of a partner the surviving partner has the right to represent the partnership and vote on its stock.

Two other kinds of stockholders still require mention, sellers and purchasers of stock and pledgors and pledgees. Until a transfer is entered on the books of a corporation, "the transferee, as between himself and the company, has no right beyond that of having the transfer properly entered. Until that is done, the person in whose name the stock is entered on the books of the company is, as between himself and the company, the owner to all intents and purposes, and particularly for the purpose of an election."

Many questions have arisen between pledgors and pledgees about their rights to vote the pledged stock. Of course, whenever an agreement has been made by them this must be respected. In other cases, if the record remains unchanged, the pledgor can vote the stock. But if the pledgor has transferred his right to vote the stock, he cannot ask a court to restore his right to vote it until the purpose for which it was pledged has been satisfied. Again a pledgor who pledges his stock not in good faith as security for a loan, but to enable the pledgee to vote it and effect an unlawful purpose, cannot do this and so defeat a statute which provides that the real owner, the pledgor, may vote his stock.

Passing to the pledgee, whenever he is registered as owner of the stock on the company's books, its officers will not look behind these to ascertain whether he is the real owner or not when he is voting his stock. A court of equity though may do this, and enjoin a pledgee from voting the stock whenever the pledgor's rights would be affected. Should the pledgor acquiesce for years in the control of the stock by the pledgee, who is the record owner, and not inform the company of his ownership until the holding of a contested election, he would be too late to claim the right to vote. Finally when a certificate of stock has been assigned in blank as collateral security, which is often done, and never transferred to the pledgee on the books of the corporation, a memorandum only having been made on the stub of the certificate in the stock book, the pledgee is not a stockholder and cannot vote the stock. It may be added that notices of meetings should be sent to whoever has the right to vote the stock, to the pledgor if the stock still stands in his name, to the pledgee if the stock has been transferred to him and stands in his name.

DIRECTORS.

Shareholders manage their corporations through directors or trustees elected for that purpose. The business of some corporations is managed by trustees who are named in the charter and who fill vacancies in their number by electing others themselves, a self-perpetuating body. Many savings banks especially are thus organized and continued. From their number they usually select a smaller number to manage or direct its affairs.

The directors are always shareholders, unless the charter of a corporation permits the election of outsiders, a thing that rarely happens. The national banking act requires that every director shall own at least ten shares of stock, and many other corporations have similar requirements. The charter or statutes prescribe at least the minimum number that must be elected, but the maximum number is left to the stockholders themselves. A national bank must have five directors, not infrequently the board is composed of ten, fifteen, or even more. A director is chosen for some real service that he is likely or willing to perform. An individual may be chosen a bank director who may not be able to do much in directing the affairs of the bank, yet by reason of his wealth or business relations he may be able to attract business to the bank and thus greatly promote its prosperity.

He is elected by a majority of the votes of the shareholders. More recently the cumulative system of voting has come into general favor. By this system a voter may cast as many votes for each of the candidates as he holds shares of stock, or he may distribute or cumulate his votes on a smaller number. "Where the votes under such a system are cast and counted, the validity of the election must be determined precisely as in all other cases." Where the shareholders have failed, whether voting cumulatively or otherwise, to elect a quorum of the new board, at an annual meeting of stockholders, it is the privilege of the shareholders to ask for successive voting for directors to fill the board. The ruling of a chairman on one occasion, that because of a tie further balloting could not proceed, and that the old board held over was arbitrary and illegal. A stockholder who has votes enough to elect himself and other directors by cumulating his shares in voting, but refrains from doing so in consequence of a verbal agreement among the stockholders that he shall be chosen president, which they fail to carry out, cannot obtain any satisfaction from a court. A court says in effect stockholders should not be trusted to make such agreements, and will not aid the tricked stockholder by ordering a new election. Probably he will be fooled only once.

Having elected directors, the management of a corporation is confided to them. What authority do they possess? This is defined by charter, statute, by-law, and custom. Says Morawetz: "The rule limiting the authority of the power of the majority to the general supervision of the affairs of the corporation is established for the protection of the individual shareholders, as well as for reasons of practical consequence." Directors also have wide discretion in delegating their authority. Their rights and limitations in this regard are also bounded by charter, by-laws and usage. Formerly bank directors loaned the money of their bank; this was their most important duty. Of late years, especially in the larger cities, this business has been largely delegated to a committee, chosen from their number, or to two or three officials of the bank. The directors continue to meet, very much as before and at their meetings the action of those who have been entrusted with power to lend the bank's money is ratified. More and more authority to direct or do the greater things in a corporation are concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of individuals. Time is ever becoming a more important element, a smaller number of men can act more quickly than a larger number, and so business must be more and more concentrated to be done efficiently.

A director has no authority to act separately and independently. Only as a board, properly convened, does he represent his corporation. While this is the law, he can and does in fact often act singly, and his action becomes effective to bind his corporation by ratification. Such action plays a great part in the modern corporation.

Though a principal may at any time, as a general rule, revoke the authority he has given to an agent, this does not apply to the directors of corporations. Says Morawetz: "The majority of the board clearly have no power to expel an individual director, or to exclude him from inspecting the company's books and participating in its management, although they may believe him to be hostile to the interests of the association." A president or other official is chosen pursuant to the charter to serve for a year or other period, and is simply an agent in serving the corporation, he cannot be turned away like an ordinary agent. If he conducts fraudulently, he may be removed, but this is not an easy process as corporations long ago found out.

Directors in most cases receive no compensation though the practice is growing of rewarding them. Unless this is fixed by charter or by the stockholders they can get nothing, for they cannot legally vote salaries to themselves. A director who performs a different service, serves as an attorney, for example, may receive compensation for it. This is a salutary rule of the law, which the courts everywhere do not hesitate to enforce. By another rule, hardly less important, directors cannot bind their corporation by any contract made with themselves, or represent their corporation in transactions wherein they have an interest. This is only another application of a rule of agency, that an agent cannot act at the same time for both parties. Yet there is increasing difficulty in applying this rule because the business of corporations has become so intermingled, and also the business of directors, directly or indirectly, with that of the corporations they represent. From this state of things has come another rule, that the transactions between directors and their corporations are not actually void but voidable, in other words if they are tainted with fraud, they can be set aside provided proper action is taken as soon as the fraud is discovered.

Suppose directors had defrauded their corporation, but the fraud was not discovered until several years afterward. Once it was held that they could shield themselves behind the Statute of Limitations (see Statute of Limitations) if the discovery of the fraud did not occur until after the Statute had become effective to protect them. This is no longer the law. Action however must be begun against them within the proper time after discovering the fraud, otherwise the Statute may be interposed as a bar to proceeding against them.

The complication of business has led to the adoption of another principle in managing corporations. A majority of the directors may lawfully act as opposed to the minority; in other words if a majority are not interested in a matter that concerns one or more of the minority directors, the interests of the corporation are supposed to be properly safeguarded. Yet an illustration discloses the dangerous character of this method of doing business. Suppose each director of a bank wished to obtain a loan of money from it. They could not legally make such loans, for no one would represent the bank. Suppose a single director made such an application, that would be a proper thing for him to do and for them to grant, for the bank would be represented by all the directors except the applicant. Suppose it were agreed in advance that each would make an application at different meetings that should be favorably regarded, the series of loans would be in fact only a single transaction in which the bank was not represented.

The knowledge of a director or other officer is imputed to, or regarded in the law as known by the bank on all matters relating to it. Thus if a director knew that a note was signed by a minor which was afterwards presented for discount at a directors' meeting at which this director was present, and he forgot to tell the directors what he knew and it was discounted, the bank would be regarded as having knowledge that the maker was a minor, who of course could not be held on the note. This principle has a very wide application, yet is very difficult to apply. The tendency of the law is to narrow the application of the rule, for directors do not in many cases impart their knowledge, either through forgetfulness or other cause, and it is not just to hold their corporation always for their unintentional neglect. Often they are busy men, have greater interests of their own, and do not remember the things they learn about matters relating to their corporation, and if it were always held as knowing as much as they do on all occasions, the way of a corporation would be fraught with a grave peril.

A proper distinction is made in the imputation of knowledge between that of a bank director for example who is engaged chiefly in some other business, and that of its president whose chief employment is the management of his bank. Suppose he should learn about a defective note before it was presented for discount, the bank would be very properly charged with his knowledge, because it would be his clear duty to remember what he had learned and impart it to his fellow directors.

Directors sometimes go astray and cases are constantly arising to determine their liability. When a corporation has failed or passed a dividend nothing is more common than to accuse its directors of negligence, incompetence or fraud. The legal rule of liability is quite a different thing. Let us try to give this in the fewest words possible. The charters of corporations, or statutes that apply to directors, prescribe some definite things which they must do or not do, and if these are violated they are clearly liable. The directors of a bank are required to make a statement of its affairs to a government official at a stated period, and if they neglect to do it, or intentionally make a wrong and deceptive one, they are liable. By many statutes they are forbidden to make loans above a certain amount, or a fixed proportion of their bank's capital, and if they violate this plain law they are liable. In all other cases where by charter or statute a plain rule of duty is prescribed for directors, they are liable, should they disregard it.

Besides these clearly defined lines of duty are other lines of duty in which the proper course of action is not so clearly defined, indeed is largely discretionary. From the nature of the business of almost any kind of corporation, it is impossible to prescribe in detail the course of action directors must follow. Much must be left to their judgment. They must on all occasions be honest and free from fraud. This is one limitation. If they are guilty of doing things tainted or marked with fraud, they are liable. Fraud may be of two kinds, omission and commission. If a director knew that his fellow directors were doing fraudulent things, and he kept away from directors' meetings because he did not wish to participate in their wrongdoing, or dared not go and try to stop them, or kept silent when he should have exposed them, he must suffer in the end as one of the number though entirely innocent of actual participation in the fraud. Many a director knowing or suspecting with good reason that his fellow directors were running the corporation in an illegal manner, has quietly sold out leaving the stockholders to find out afterwards and from some other source about the wrongdoing of their agents. In all such cases of omission of duty a director is held responsible for the wrongs of his associates.

Recently a court has declared that a director who desires to escape further responsibility by resigning his position must make sure that his resignation reaches the board. If therefore he should send it to the secretary, who failed to deliver it to the board, his resignation would not be effective and he would still be responsible like the other directors for whatever the board might do.

What acts are fraudulent are sometimes difficult to determine. Different courts interpret the same act sometimes in different ways. They do not differ so much on the application of the principle--for all acts of fraud, whether of omission or commission, directors are liable.

There is another series of acts for which they are liable, those of gross negligence. How gross must the act be? If it is so gross as to amount to a fraud, they are liable; if not so gross, if no fraud is found of any kind, nothing but negligence pure and simple, they are not liable at all. Most courts though go further and declare that if they are guilty of gross negligence, even though the smell or taint of fraud is not perceptible, they are liable. What, then, is the nature of the acts that constitute gross negligence? These cannot be easily defined, they differ in each case; so each case stands by itself. This is the conclusion of the highest court in the land and which is followed by many others. The same case therefore may be regarded differently by different tribunals. Thus some directors were tried not long since for wrecking a national bank. The lower court decided that all the directors were guilty of gross negligence, on appeal the reviewing court decided that the president only was guilty of fraud and acquitted the others.

DIVIDENDS.

One of the most cheerful things a corporation can do is to declare a dividend, especially if it be a large one. Until a dividend is declared the profits of a corporation are simply its assets, do not belong to the stockholders, and should it become insolvent must be used to pay creditors. But if a dividend has been declared and the corporation afterwards becomes insolvent before paying it, the stockholders may insist on its payment to them instead of paying it to the creditors.

Dividends must be paid from net profits. They can never be taken from the capital, for this would impair it and, if continued, result in the insolvency of the corporation. The laws everywhere forbid this, and, if violated, the directors are usually penalized. It is not an infrequent thing to declare a dividend that has not been earned in order to keep up the value of the stock, and enable the directors and their friends to sell out before the true condition of things has become public. Such action is a palpable fraud which the law recognizes and for which the guilty ones must answer.