Sofie Cools escribe sobre la destituibilidad ad nutum de los administradores sociales

El artículo no aporta novedades en relación con el régimen jurídico o el sentido de la libre destituibilidad de los administradores sociales pero tiene interés para comprobar en qué se parecen y en qué se diferencian los EE.UU y Europa en lo que al Derecho de Sociedades se refiere. En un artículo de hace algunos años, esta autora llamó la atención sobre la enorme diferencia entre el papel de la Junta de Socios en Europa y en los EE.UU (la junta es casi soberana en Europa y en los EE.UU muchos autores defienden que el sistema se basa en la primacía de los administradores). Pues bien, coherente con esta relación, la destituibilidad ad nutum caracteriza esencialmente a los Derechos europeos por contraposición al norteamericano

First, “at will” means that the shareholders meeting can oust incumbent directors at any time. In other words, they are not obliged to wait until the annual general meeting and can proceed to the removal in an extraordinary general meeting. Second, if shareholders can truly remove directors at will, they do not need to show a good cause for removal. In fact, they do not need to mention any cause at all, and often it is considered prudent not to do so. This condition bears on the third component of at will removal, namely that removal cannot in itself trigger any duty to pay an indemnification or termination fee….a fourth condition must be added to this list, namely that the shareholders meeting is allowed to remove any number of directors at the same time…At will removability of directors, one can conclude, limits directors’ relative independence within the corporation, thereby mitigating their failure to align with shareholder interests while exacerbating the potential for conflicts of interest among controlling and minority shareholders

Still, at will revocability of corporate directors was foreign to American law as well as to English law. American jurisprudence and scholarship refers to common law as stipulating that “shareholders could remove a director only ‘for cause’”. The same holds for legislative efforts: according to the Official Comment on MBCA §8.08, the common law position was “that directors have a statutory entitlement to their office and can be removed only for cause – fraud, criminal conduct, gross abuse of office amounting to a breach of trust, or similar conduct.” This position was derived from “the conception that the power of directors was drawn from the statute and not solely from the shareholders”.