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
Economic Substance
27 Apr 2026

Economic substance regime now falls under Cita

Recent amendments to Bermuda’s economic substance regime have transferred regulatory responsibility from the Registrar of Companies to the Corporate Income Tax Agency.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice
22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice-1905px-x-1400px
15 Apr 2026

Purpose trusts: Bermuda’s answer to modern asset structuring

Purpose trusts represent a notable development in modern trust law, particularly within offshore financial jurisdictions such as Bermuda. Unlike traditional private trusts, which are established for the benefit of identifiable beneficiaries, purpose trusts are created to achieve specific objectives or purposes. Historically, common law jurisdictions were reluctant to recognise such arrangements due to the absence of beneficiaries capable of enforcing the trust. However, legislative reforms in Bermuda have significantly expanded the scope of trust law by expressly validating noncharitable purpose trusts. Through the enactment of the Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’), Bermuda introduced a statutory framework that allows trusts to exist for defined purposes, provided certain legal requirements are satisfied. This innovation has made Bermuda a leading jurisdiction for the establishment of purpose trusts, particularly in the fields of international finance, corporate structuring and private wealth management. This article examines the legal foundations of purpose trusts under Bermuda law, focusing on their historical development, statutory framework, requirements for validity, enforcement mechanisms and practical applications.

Website-Code-Bermuda-1
10 Apr 2026

Bermuda Regulatory Update – Economic Substance Amendment Act 2026

On 31 March 2026, the Economic Substance Amendment Act 2026 and the Economic Substance Amendment Regulations 2026 (together, the “2026 Amendments”) came into force, enacting changes to the Economic Substance Act 2018 (“ES Act”) and Economic Substance Regulations 2018.

ICLG Fintech 21 cover
10 Apr 2026

Digital asset developments and Bermuda’s regulatory readiness

While frightening to some, “finance bros” and “tech bros” are now wearing the same gilets as traditional finance products and structures are being infused with digital asset adaptation.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
1 Apr 2026

Q1’26 Suggests Cat Bond Issuance Could Reach $20bn Again, Private ILS & Sidecar Surge to Continue

It’s been an exceptionally busy start to the year for the catastrophe bond sector, with Q1’26 officially becoming the second highest Q1 on record in terms of total catastrophe bond issuance, which indicates that 2026 could end up reaching the $20 billion+ milestone once again, Brad Adderley, Managing Partner at law firm Appleby has said.

Trust Disputes
27 Mar 2026

Privy Council decision in X Trusts – redefining the role of the protector

On 19 March 2026, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) delivered its long-awaited judgment regarding the role of a fiduciary protector in the administration of a trust (A and 6 others (Appellants) v C and 13 others (Respondents) [2026] UKPC 11, on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Bermuda). The decision of the JCPC was unanimous, with the judgment being given by Lords Briggs and Richards.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
26 Mar 2026

Latin American risks and the Bermuda market

Bermuda’s decades-long efforts to welcome Latin American risks to the island’s re/insurance market have borne fruit in the form of the many LatAm captive insurers that have become domiciled here.

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance
24 Mar 2026

Navigating Bermuda’s New Recovery Planning Requirements: A Roadmap for Commercial Insurers

On 20 March 2026, the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA) issued an updated Guidance Note for Recovery Planning Requirements (Guidance Note). The Guidance Note assists Bermuda commercial insurers’ compliance with the obligations set out in the Insurance (Prudential Standards) (Recovery Plan) Rules 2024 (Rules), which became operative on 1 May 2025.