Gibraltar: Fund Judgment Brings Gibraltar Director's Duties Into Focus

Last Updated: 29 July 2015
Article by Jonathan Garcia

Introduction

Corporate governance is an important live issue worldwide particularly in the alternative fund management space, fuelled both by scandals (for example Madoff and Weavering) and tightening regulation. The role of the Gibraltar fund director came under the microscope last week when the Supreme Court of Gibraltar ("Court") found that directors of a failed investment fund had breached their duties as directors. The judgment contains important commentary, although the implications for well-advised investment funds with competent and diligent directors are limited. Nevertheless, all directors should revisit their practices to ensure that they remain consistent with key corporate governance principles.

Background to the Advalorem Case

Advalorem Value Asset Fund Limited ("Advalorem") was a collective investment scheme registered under the Financial Services (Collective Investment Schemes) Act 2011 as an Experienced Investor Fund. Advalorem's investment objective was to invest in distressed assets on the terms set out in the offer document issued by Advalorem.

The Gibraltar Financial Services Commission ("FSC") conducted an investigation into Advalorem, between February and October 2013, following which it petitioned the Court for a protection order to protect the interest of participants and potential participants. The protection order was granted in January 2014 and the Court appointed an administrator to safeguard Advalorem's assets.[1]

Subsequent regulatory action by the FSC in respect of Mrs. Minette Compson (a director of a company that was itself a director of Advalorem) and Mr. Brian Weal[2] (a director of Advalorem), was taken in the public interest and to protect investors and in particular to address what the FSC considered were serious and significant corporate governance failings on the part of Mrs. Compson and Mr. Weal. In a nutshell, these related to investments made by Advalorem following inappropriate property valuations (the valuations made special assumptions that were inapplicable and unrealistic).

The FSC's decisions were appealed by Mrs. Compson and Mr. Weal, but in a judgment of 29 April 2015, the Court dismissed both appeals against the FSC's decisions[3] and not only did the Court confirm the expected duties and responsibilities of investment fund directors but also made it clear that it will not normally interfere with any sanctions imposed by the FSC (however severe) where directors choose to ignore their responsibilities as directors.

The Court's findings - Directors' duties

The Court found that this was a serious case of two directors ignoring their obligations as directors and that their conduct fell well below that which was required of them.

The judgment does not create any new directors' duties - it serves as a reminder that investment fund directors and others are required to exercise care, skill and diligence in the performance of their duties. Specifically, the judgment deals with the extent to which ignorance can constitute a defence in a director's breach of duties. The Court confirmed that the often cited principles of Jonathan Parker J in Re Barings Plc[4] as regards directors' duties form part of Gibraltar law, including that:

  • Directors have, both collectively and individually, a continuing duty to acquire and maintain a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the company's business to enable them properly to discharge their duties as directors; and
  • While directors are entitled (subject to the articles of association of the company) to delegate particular functions to those below them in the management chain, and to trust their competence and integrity to a reasonable extent, the exercise of the power of delegation does not absolve directors of their duty to supervise the discharge of the delegated functions.

In Advalorem, the Court rejected the argument put forward by Mrs. Compson and Mr. Weal, that since they were not the directors of Advalorem with particular expertise in property matters (they were not the only directors of Advalorem), they lacked the relevant knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the inappropriateness of the valuations obtained by Advalorem. The Court rejected this argument on the basis that the valuation processes were set out in the offer document which was a document that all directors should have been familiar with. Any director should have been able to identify that the offer document was being breached, irrespective of property-related expertise. The regulatory design of the Experienced Investor Fund regime means that great importance is placed on the declarations/warranties made by the directors in the offer document, including truth and accuracy of the contents of the offer document and it is apparent that the Court followed a similar approach.

The Court did accept that there were some matters, such as the commercial attractiveness of the land that could perhaps be the subject of reliance on the property expert directors. This however would not absolve Mrs. Compson and Mr. Weal of responsibility, that is, the duty to supervise cannot be delegated. This shows that although investment fund directors are not expected to be experts in every field, they are required to apply their minds to the appropriate issues and not rely solely on the explanations of others.

Ultimately, whether a director discharged his/her duty to display appropriate levels of knowledge, skill and experience will depend on the facts of each particular case, which assessment will necessarily include a detailed examination of that director's particular role in the management of the company and his/her own individual skills or experience. Likewise, the extent to which an individual director can rely on the expertise of other directors is fact-sensitive. In some cases it will be appropriate; in other cases it will not be. The Court did not rule on whether unfitness of directors was to be determined by an objective or subjective standard, given that the Court was ruling on the validity of the directions imposed by the chief executive officer of the FSC and there had been clear evidence to support a finding of breach. It is unclear what standard would be applied under Gibraltar law should such a case go before the Court. Under English law, the common law test was heavily subjective. Accordingly,              this allowed unskilled, inexperienced and incompetent directors to use their deficiencies as a shield against liability. Accordingly, a dual subjective/ objective test relating to the duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence was codified in England through the enactment of section 174(2) of the English Companies Act 2006. Gibraltar law does not have an equivalent. However, the Corporate Governance Code for Gibraltar Collective Investment Schemes issued by the Gibraltar Funds & Investments Association[5], although of voluntary application, imposes a dual test and this underpins not only the view of the industry on this matter but also that of the FSC, concerning the proper operation and governance of an investment company.

Regulatory action by FSC

The Court also considered the enforcement powers of the FSC specifically in respect of the imposition of sanctions and it is not the intention to set these out in full, suffice to say that the Court confirmed that the chief executive officer of the FSC is afforded significant discretion when enforcement action is concerned. The Court referred to the FSC and its chief executive officer as being likely to be better placed than the Court to determine what measures are necessary in order to protect the good reputation of Gibraltar, to protect consumers and to reduce financial crime, as well as pursuing the other regulatory objectives of the FSC. The Court endorsed the suggestion that deterrence of other directors from failing to monitor the activities of companies on whose boards they sit, is a justifiable regulatory consideration when imposing sanctions.

The Court went further and confirmed that it would have upheld the imposition of even stiffer sanctions on Mr. Weal, had the chief executive officer of the FSC so determined. This was the case notwithstanding that the Court in its judgment, found that Mr. Weal's involvement in the matters complained of was less than that of Mrs. Compson, that he was not a property expert and that he was not present at a specific board meeting where the approval was given to acquire certain special purpose vehicles which held land and notably, that no investor had lost money even presumptively from his action. The Court, having indicated that the imposition of stiffer sanctions for Mr. Weal would have been supported, makes it clear that whilst the Court is willing to consider the actions of individual directing minds of an investment company, it will not be sympathetic towards a director who has seriously breached his/her duties, irrespective of specific involvement nor will it be a defence that a director has held office for a short period of time. New directors should therefore ensure that they acquire key information when they are first appointed and that they are well versed with the investment fund's history and any major events affecting the investment fund. A comprehensive and formal induction should be provided so that a new director is provided with the information he/she will need to become as effective as possible in their role within the shortest practicable time.

Other points to note

Other matters of note arose from the proceedings although, as these did not form part of the case found by the chief executive officer of the FSC, such matters should be considered for information purposes only.

Firstly, directors must satisfy themselves that the terms of contracts with the investment fund are in the best interests of the investment fund and the directors cannot simply rely on a person who is not on the record as providing a function in respect of the investment fund to negotiate its terms, not least because such person may have a vested interest in the terms of contact with the investment fund.

Secondly, investment funds should be acutely aware of the use of Gibraltar funds as part of a pension liberation exercise. Investment funds are advised to refer to the letter sent by the FSC during December 2013, to every Experienced Investor Fund registered with the FSC, by way of a reminder.

Thirdly, there was no finding of dishonesty either by the Court or the FSC, even though a letter from the FSC to Mrs. Compson said that she furnished false, misleading or inaccurate information to the FSC. In the Court's judgment, there was evidence it said, on which the chief executive officer of the FSC could properly have come to the view that Mrs. Compson had furnished false, misleading or inaccurate information to the FSC. However, the chief executive officer of the FSC had made no finding that Mrs. Compson had deliberately lied to the FSC. Given the seriousness of such an allegation, it was incumbent on the chief executive officer of the FSC to make that allegation clear to Mrs. Compson and to make clear findings on it. Since the allegations of the chief executive officer of the FSC relied solely on failures to exercise due care, skill and diligence and these allegations were inconsistent with an allegation of dishonesty, the Court did not consider it right to make a finding of dishonesty.

Lastly, Mrs. Compson was dealt with by Court separately, had she been a directly appointed director of Advalorem, rather than having been a director of a body corporate which itself was a corporate director of Advalorem. Arguments were raised as to whether she did or did not owe duties to Advalorem. The Court took the view that because the case related to her fitness to be involved in the financial services industry, this was independent of that consideration and the Court was therefore not required to rule on whether it would look at the ultimate directing mind of an investment company, irrespective whether management and control is being exercised directly or through a body corporate.

Conclusion

This decision gives some guidance as to what, in practice, is required of directors of Gibraltar investment funds, as well as the steps directors ought to take to ensure they are properly discharging their duties. Since there is no statutory codification of the duties of directors of a Gibraltar company and the duties are derived primarily from English case law, the consideration by a Gibraltar court of directors' duties in the particular context of investment funds is welcome. However, this judgment has shown that good corporate governance is no less important for an investment fund than for any other entity regulated under any of the FSC's Supervisory Acts. Directors must strive to ensure that their role does not become a "tick-box" function and that they are fulfilling their high-level supervisory role.

The guidance that can be drawn from this case is not exhaustive but it shows the ongoing active role that directors must take in the affairs and business of the investment fund during its life, despite the usual delegation of their functions to the other members of the board. Directors must continually take active steps and apply their own judgement to satisfy themselves that the investment fund's business is undertaken properly. It does not matter that the directors may have used their powers of delegation to delegate certain functions to other directors. The fundamental duties owed by a director remain undiminished and directors must satisfy themselves that the director who is performing a delegated function is complying with all terms of the investment fund's offer document. This includes ensuring that any professional service providers appointed by such director (for example, property valuers) are performing their functions in accordance with their contractual obligations.

The Court also expressed its reluctance to interfere with a sanction imposed by the chief executive officer of the FSC, unless it is clearly wrong or if the chief executive officer of the FSC has taken irrelevant considerations into account. Therefore, it is clear that the term "fit and proper" as determined by the FSC and which is not defined in law, will continue to be defined based on the considerations which the chief executive officer of the FSC considers relevant. Lastly, whether or not the chief executive officer of the FSC intended to make a finding of dishonesty is not clear. However, if this was the intention, it was incumbent on the chief executive officer of the FSC, rather than the Court, to make clear findings on it.


[4] Re Barings plc (No 5) [2000] 1 BCLC 523

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.