InvestSMART

Village dodges first strike through legal loophole

Directors of movie maker and amusement park operator Village Roadshow have used a legal loophole to vote their shareholding in favour of the company's remuneration report and avoid a first strike.
By · 6 Dec 2013
By ·
6 Dec 2013
comments Comments
Directors of movie maker and amusement park operator Village Roadshow have used a legal loophole to vote their shareholding in favour of the company's remuneration report and avoid a first strike.

It is a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years in jail or a $34,000 fine, for company management or people who are "closely related" to management to vote on remuneration reports.

However, Village Roadshow has confirmed a company controlled by executive chairman Robert Kirby, his brother, deputy chairman John Kirby, and managing director Graham Burke voted its 41 per cent stake in favour of the remuneration report at the company's annual meeting on Friday.

Village Roadshow chief legal counsel Simon Phillipson said the company which holds the directors' shares, Village Roadshow Corporation (VRC), was not "closely related" to management personnel or board members. This was because VRC "is controlled by a number of people, and not by an individual", he said. "None of them have individual control. VRC is able to and did vote on the resolutions last week."

An ASIC spokesman declined to comment.

Of proxy votes recorded at the Village Roadshow meeting on Friday, 95.7 million, or 84.8 per cent, were cast in favour of adopting the remuneration report.

If VRC had abstained from voting its 65.9 million shares, the percentage in favour of the remuneration report would have fallen to 63 per cent, earning the board a first strike.

A strike is recorded if more than 25 per cent of shares are voted against the remuneration report. If two consecutive strikes are recorded, the company must put up a motion considering whether there should be a meeting to spill the board.

The prohibition on directors and top executives voting their own shares in the remuneration report resolution at an annual general meeting was designed to stamp out a conflict of interest caused by executives voting on their own pay packets. However, how the rules are applied in practice depends on the legal definition of a closely related party.

Guidance to directors from the Governance Institute of Australia says directors and "closely related parties" are prohibited from casting a vote "in any capacity" on a resolution on executive pay. The document, which includes a foreword from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, says closely related parties includes a company that the director controls.

A stock exchange filing from earlier this year said the Kirby brothers and Mr Burke had an "indirect relevant interest" in VRC because they jointly controlled the power to vote or dispose of its holding in Village Roadshow.
Google News
Follow us on Google News
Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.
Share this article and show your support
Free Membership
Free Membership
InvestSMART
InvestSMART
Keep on reading more articles from InvestSMART. See more articles
Join the conversation
Join the conversation...
There are comments posted so far. Join the conversation, please login or Sign up.

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

Village Roadshow directors used a legal loophole by voting their shareholding through a company, Village Roadshow Corporation (VRC), which is not considered 'closely related' to management. This allowed them to vote in favor of the remuneration report and avoid a first strike.

It is a criminal offense because it prevents conflicts of interest where executives could vote on their own pay packages. The law aims to ensure fair and unbiased voting on remuneration reports.

VRC justified its ability to vote by stating that it is controlled by multiple people, not an individual, and therefore is not 'closely related' to management personnel or board members.

If VRC had abstained from voting its 65.9 million shares, the percentage in favor of the remuneration report would have dropped to 63%, resulting in a first strike against the board.

A 'first strike' occurs when more than 25% of shareholders vote against the remuneration report. If a company receives two consecutive strikes, it must consider a motion to potentially spill the board.

The Governance Institute of Australia defines 'closely related parties' as directors and any company that a director controls, who are prohibited from voting on executive pay resolutions.

The Kirby brothers and Graham Burke, who have an indirect relevant interest in VRC, used their control over VRC to vote in favor of the remuneration report, thus avoiding a first strike.

The article does not specify why ASIC declined to comment, but it is common for regulatory bodies to refrain from commenting on specific cases or ongoing investigations.