Activist shareholders: removal of directors

Published: 20 Feb 2020
Type: Insight

First Published in The Royal Gazette, Legally Speaking, February 2020

Shareholder activism is a growing trend among listed companies. Sometimes, the actions of directors are contrary to the wishes of shareholders or shareholders feel that the incumbents are not performing to the level expected, and a change in board composition is necessary.

A key activist strategy is the power to require directors to call a general meeting.  Under section 74 of the Companies Act 1981 shareholders may requisition a Special General Meeting, notwithstanding anything in the company’s bye-laws, provided they hold at the date of deposit of the requisition, not less than 10 per cent of the paid-up voting share capital of the company (or in the case of a company not having a share capital, the members represent 10 per cent of the voting rights).

The requisition must state the purposes of the meeting (and may include the text of a resolution to be put before the SGM), be signed by the requisitionists and deposited at the registered office of the company.

If the directors don’t convene the SGM within 21 days (i.e. dispatch notice) from the date of deposit of the requisition, the requisitionists, or any of them representing more than 50 per cent of the total voting rights, may convene a meeting, which must be held within 3 months of the date of deposit of the requisition.

Shareholders often requisition a meeting to consider resolutions to effect changes to the board. The Act, and typically the bye-laws of a company, provide that a director may be removed before the expiration of his period of office in an SGM called for that purpose.

The notice of intention to move a resolution for removal must:

  • be received by the director concerned at least 14 days before the meeting;
  • include a statement of the intention to remove that director; and
  • where the removal is for cause, a statement justifying the removal.

The director may attend the meeting and make representations. The deposed director may also have a right to damages for termination of office.

The bye-laws dictate the requirements for giving valid notice and service of notice.  Typically, notice must be prepared and served to: (i) all shareholders (save where the terms of their shares do not entitle them to attend/vote), (ii) all directors; and (iii) any resident representative of the company.

When shareholders attempt to remove a director, they may encounter challenges including:

  • Shareholders are entitled to register their shares in the name of a nominee and shares in a publicly listed company are often recorded in a “street name” (when a brokerage holds it on behalf of a client). A requisitionist may need to engage a proxy solicitation agent and a financial adviser to determine the shareholder base.
  • Legal or regulatory problems associated with the territory in which a shareholder is situated may impact the ability to send the notices to their primary address, a shareholder may be required to provide an alternative address for delivery of notices.
  • It may be necessary to coordinate the activities of the requisitionists so that a notice can be served. This is sometimes done by public announcements, press articles or social media describing the matter in issue and asking shareholders to respond. Alternatively, an informal meeting can be held following public advertisement during which forms of requisition can be signed.
  • Provided the board convene the SGM, the directors can respond to the requisition however they choose. For example, they can accompany the notice to shareholders with their own circular recommending rejection (subject to applicable listing rules).
  • The Act does not prescribe a time limit in which the board must actually hold the SGM once convened. The board could decide to delay the timing of the meeting to frustrate the wishes of the requisitionists but this may leave the board open to attack for breach of duties and conduct which is oppressive (e.g. a claim under section 111 of the Act).
  • A meeting convened on requisition cannot transact any business other than that covered by the terms of the requisition, except where the directors have put forward resolutions with due notice.
  • If the board fails to convene the SGM, the requisitionists may themselves convene a meeting. The arrangements for the meeting are generally under the control of the company. However, the requisitionists may be able to insist on certain ground rules (e.g. who will serve as chair, text of the resolutions, order of debate, time allowed for speeches, appointment of scrutineers, admission of press/legal advisers etc.).
  • There will be an element of cost and disruption to the company in permitting the requisitioned SGM. However, any reasonable expenses incurred by the requisitionists by reason of the failure of the directors duly to convene a meeting must generally be repaid to the requisitionists by the company or deducted from fees/remuneration due to the defaulting directors.

The ability of shareholders to requisition an SGM is a potentially powerful tool and is one that is being increasingly used to drive environmental, social and governance changes in the way businesses are managed and something directors should be mindful of.

This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice. Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.

Share
More publications
ICLG Fintech 21 cover
14 Sep 2026

Navigating BMA’s proposed AI guidance note

Now that the Bermuda Monetary Authority has shifted its focus from general principles about artificial intelligence to a concrete, actionable regulatory framework, board and executive teams of financial service companies must take note and decide whether to become involved in the consultative process.

Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
10 Sep 2026

AI in the Workplace: Emerging Legal Issues for Bermuda Employers

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of the modern workplace. It has moved quickly from being an experimental technology to an everyday business tool. Employers are already using AI to draft job advertisements, screen applications, assess candidates, analyse employee performance, monitor productivity and assist with disciplinary and termination decisions. For employers, the attraction is obvious. AI can process large quantities of information quickly, identify patterns and perform tasks that previously required significant human resources. But such widespread application of AI is also giving rise to legal risk as regulators and courts around the world consider what happens when an employment decision is made, or materially influenced, by an algorithm. It is a question that is likely to become increasingly relevant in Bermuda, as the law necessarily catches up with the technology.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
8 Sep 2026

Capital rich, softening rates, big opportunity: the growth dilemma

After several years of healthy profits, despite some softening, the reinsurance market remains in good shape – if discipline remains. Meanwhile, new and complex risks are emerging, including data centres, offering big opportunities for growth for those willing to take it on. They were some of the takeaways from 10 senior executives from the Bermuda market who met at a roundtable in Monte Carlo.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
8 Sep 2026

A refusal to stand still

Anchored by regulatory credibility and an unmatched marketplace, Bermuda continues to widen its offering with capital adaptability and innovation, says Brad Adderley, of Appleby.

Appleby-Website-Funds-and-Investment-Services
27 Aug 2026

Late-stage liquidity and the Bermuda fund toolkit

Private-market liquidity once followed an exit. Today, however, it must often be engineered. That matters in Bermuda, where asset management is not only a substantial sector in its own right, but also complemented by Bermuda’s re/insurance and insurance-linked securities market.

Corporate
13 Aug 2026

The limited liability company: ten years on

Nearly a decade after they were first introduced in Bermuda, parties have started to appreciate the benefits offered by limited liability companies — and consequently we have begun to see LLCs used with increasing frequency.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
11 Aug 2026

MGAs, capacity and control

Max Tetlow and Cathryn Minors of Appleby examine the forces pushing MGAs toward better alignment and more disciplined capital.

Technology and Innovation
28 Jul 2026

Bermuda’s digital asset foresight bearing fruit

The wisdom of Bermuda’s pioneering approach in the digital asset business space has been underlined by the latest global economic impact figures compiled by McKinsey & Company, the global management consulting firm.

050-Insolvency-Restructuring-Grid-Image
13 Jul 2026

Bermuda: Restructuring & Insolvency

This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Restructuring & Insolvency laws and regulations applicable in Bermuda.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
10 Jul 2026

It’s healthy to sometimes disagree with regulators

At some point, almost every regulated business will disagree with its regulator.