By Guest Blogger: Michael J. Lentz, Esquire
In November, 1787, James Madison, writing under the shared pseudonym Publius in the New York Packet, published one of the watershed documents in the constitutional development of our nation. In the tenth essay, in a series that later became known as The Federalist Papers, Madison argued that political factions were vitally necessary in a republic, because: “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” Madison was concerned that competing interests were vital in the absence of an ability to control the qualifications and interests of the elected decision makers.
Not long ago, I was reminded of Federalist #10 by a question posed by a colleague on a listserv:
“Can a minor serve as a director of a corporation?”
I think the answer to this admittedly-novel question is probably “Yes, but it probably isn’t such a good idea.” In the course of the discussion, though, I was struck by how little consideration is given to what “statesmen” will guide the helm at most corporations.
The only qualifications that directors of a Maryland corporation must meet are those set forth in the corporation’s Charter. Many, if not most, Charters are completely silent on the issue, meaning that no one is statutorily prohibited from serving as a director.
For many small business owners, the qualifications of their company’s board of directors may not seem immediately relevant, since the owner(s) and/or their family members are often the only directors. However, director qualifications can be an important consideration, either as part of a succession /contingency plan or when considering equity financing.
If an owner-director were to become seriously ill, so as to be unable to discharge the duties of the office, the corporation would likely have to function without that person as a director until his term expired. Directors’ duties are generally non-delegable, so even someone otherwise authorized to manage the director’s financial affairs (such as through a power-of-attorney) would likely not be able to serve as a director. Absent a qualification in the Charter, there would be little the corporation could do to remove the director in the interim.
Perhaps a more common concern arises when a corporation chooses to consider equity financing. The decision to take on an equity investor is a significant one that should not be undertaken lightly . . . see our earlier piece on the risks of getting married without dating first.
If your company decides to take on an equity investor, most substantial investors will request, in addition to equity in the company, some measure of control over the company. This control will usually come in the form of preferred stock that gives its holders the right to elect a certain number of directors. Such directors usually can only be removed by a majority (or super-majority) of the votes cast by holders of the shares that elected the directors. So, equity investors will often request what are essentially unassailable, permanent directorships.
While the investors own self-interest will usually lead him to elect competent, qualified individuals, there’s neither any guaranty nor any legal requirement that the investor do so. In such cases, the company’s easiest control over such board seats for the long term is a Charter provision setting out the qualifications that such individuals must possess.
Does this situation sound familiar?
Contact us for a free consultation!
Michael graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1998. After spending five years with large Baltimore firms and three years as a solo and small firm practitioner, Michael joined Wagonheim Law in 2006, where he continues to utilize his extensive experience in commercial, bankruptcy, and appellate litigation to work with companies throughout the mid-Atlantic region.