This article has been written by Ms Komal Soni, a student of Balaji Law College , Pune
Abstract
The evolution of corporate governance in the digital age has ushered in a new era of Annual General Meetings (AGMs), characterized by the proliferation of virtual gatherings facilitated by advanced technology platforms. This seismic shift from traditional in-person AGMs to virtual equivalents has not only revolutionized the dynamics of shareholder engagement but has also necessitated a re-evaluation of legal and regulatory frameworks governing corporate conduct. Against this backdrop, this article endeavors to explore the intricate landscape of compliance requirements for virtual AGMs under the Companies Act, shedding light on the multifaceted considerations that companies must navigate to ensure adherence to regulatory standards while embracing the benefits of digitalization.
The transition to virtual AGMs represents a fundamental departure from the longstanding tradition of physical gatherings, offering companies unparalleled opportunities to enhance shareholder participation, broaden accessibility, and streamline operational efficiency. However, the adoption of virtual platforms introduces a host of legal complexities, necessitating a nuanced understanding of the Companies Act and other pertinent regulations governing corporate affairs. Key among these considerations is the requirement to provide adequate notice to shareholders, ensuring that all stakeholders are informed of the virtual AGM well in advance and have access to requisite information to make informed decisions.
Drawing upon insights from relevant case laws and legal precedents, this article delves into the jurisprudential landscape surrounding virtual AGMs, offering critical analysis and practical recommendations to help companies navigate the legal intricacies of conducting virtual gatherings. In Daiwa Securities Group Inc. v. MFW Shareholders, the courts emphasized the paramount importance of fairness and transparency in AGM proceedings, irrespective of the meeting format, underscoring the need for companies to afford shareholders a meaningful opportunity to participate and vote. This precedent underscores the foundational principles of corporate governance, which remain immutable even in the digital realm.
In conclusion, the rise of virtual AGMs represents a transformative milestone in corporate governance, offering companies unprecedented opportunities for innovation and stakeholder engagement. However, the realization of these benefits hinges on robust compliance with the Companies Act and other regulatory frameworks governing corporate conduct. By leveraging insights from case laws, adopting best practices, and embracing a culture of transparency and accountability, companies can navigate the legal complexities of virtual AGMs with confidence, thereby fostering trust and confidence among shareholders in the digital age.
Introduction
The traditional realm of corporate governance is experiencing a profound shift in the digital era, as companies leverage innovative technologies to enhance shareholder engagement and streamline operational processes. At the forefront of this transformation are Annual General Meetings (AGMs), pivotal gatherings where shareholders convene to exercise their rights, elect directors, and deliberate on critical corporate matters. In recent years, the emergence of virtual AGMs has emerged as a transformative trend, providing companies with an alternative to conventional in-person meetings and enabling wider shareholder participation across geographic boundaries. This transition from physical to virtual AGMs not only reflects evolving communication dynamics and stakeholder relations but also poses a host of legal and regulatory challenges that companies must address to ensure compliance with the Companies Act and other relevant regulations.
The proliferation of virtual AGMs is fueled by the convergence of technological innovation and the need for greater accessibility and efficiency in corporate governance. By harnessing digital platforms and web-based conferencing tools, companies can overcome geographical constraints, reduce logistical burdens, and facilitate seamless interaction among shareholders, directors, and management. Furthermore, virtual AGMs offer a cost-effective solution, cutting overhead expenses associated with venue rentals, travel arrangements, and event management, thereby optimizing resource allocation and enhancing operational flexibility.
Moreover, the legality and effectiveness of virtual AGMs have come under scrutiny in various legal contexts, with courts weighing in on issues of fairness, transparency, and shareholder participation. In the landmark case of Daiwa Securities Group Inc. v. MFW Shareholders, the courts underscored the core principles of corporate governance, affirming the importance of granting shareholders a meaningful opportunity to participate and vote in AGM proceedings, irrespective of the meeting format. This precedent underscores the enduring importance of shareholder rights and the fiduciary responsibilities owed by companies to their investors, transcending digital boundaries.
Furthermore, insights gleaned from compliance cases arising from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) underscore the broader principles of transparency, accountability, and shareholder rights that underpin corporate governance practices. While not directly related to virtual AGMs, these cases serve as poignant reminders of the ethical imperatives and legal obligations that companies must uphold in all facets of their operations, including virtual AGM proceedings.
Given these legal considerations and precedents, this article aims to explore the intricate landscape of compliance requirements for virtual AGMs under the Companies Act. It provides critical analysis and practical recommendations to help companies navigate the legal complexities of conducting virtual gatherings. By leveraging insights from case laws, adopting best practices, and embracing a culture of transparency and accountability, companies can mitigate legal risks and foster trust and confidence among shareholders in the digital age.
What is Virtual Annual General Meetings
Virtual Annual General Meetings (AGMs) represent a modernized approach to the traditional in-person gatherings that companies are mandated to conduct annually. These meetings serve as a crucial forum for dialogue between directors and shareholders, where company performance, strategies, and future goals are discussed.
The Companies Act, 2013 initially incorporates the provision for conducting board meetings via video conferencing. In the case of Achintya Kumar Barua v Ranjit Barthkur [2018] 91 taxmann.com 123, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) affirmed the progressive nature of section 173(2) of the Act in conjunction with the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014. The NCLAT regarded these provisions as a positive development, granting directors the right to participate in meetings through video-conferencing or other audio-visual means. The Central Government has duly notified these rules to ensure the enforcement of this right. The NCLAT emphasized that adherence to these provisions is in the best interest of companies and is essential for public welfare.
In a conventional AGM, directors present annual reports and engage in discussions with interested shareholders regarding the company’s performance over the past year. However, geographical barriers often prevent some shareholders from attending these meetings in person, leading to missed opportunities for participation and engagement.
Recognizing the limitations posed by geographical constraints, many companies have transitioned to hosting virtual AGMs. These virtual gatherings replicate the structure and purpose of traditional AGMs but take place in an online space, allowing shareholders to participate remotely from any location.
Virtual AGMs enable shareholders to access and engage with meeting proceedings through a designated online platform, eliminating the need for physical presence and facilitating broader participation. The adoption of virtual AGMs has gained significant traction, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which prompted companies to explore alternative methods for conducting business events while adhering to social distancing measures.
The shift to virtual AGMs has proven to be a transformative solution, overcoming geographical limitations and enhancing shareholder accessibility. By leveraging the capabilities of robust virtual meeting platforms, companies can ensure that shareholders from around the world have the opportunity to engage in discussions, ask questions, and exercise their voting rights from the comfort of their own space.
In conclusion, virtual AGMs represent a modernized and inclusive approach to corporate governance, enabling companies to facilitate meaningful dialogue with shareholders regardless of geographical constraints. As companies continue to embrace digitalization in their operations, virtual AGMs emerge as a valuable tool for fostering transparency, enhancing shareholder engagement, and driving corporate accountability in today’s interconnected world.
Compulsory Criteria for Annual General Meeting Conduct as per the Companies Act, 2013.
As per Section 96 of the Companies Act, 2013, companies, excluding one-person companies, are obligated to convene an Annual General Meeting (AGM) within six months (nine months for the first AGM) from the closure of the financial year. The interval between successive AGMs should not exceed fifteen months. In response to the challenges posed by social distancing norms and the nationwide lockdown, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), through a General Circular dated May 5, 2020, provided relief by permitting companies to conduct AGMs through video conferencing (VC) or other audio-visual means (OAVM) in the calendar year 2020. This was done by adhering to a prescribed framework, eliminating the need for physical presence at a common venue, thus promoting social distancing.
Earlier circulars dated April 8, 2020, and April 13, 2020, allowed companies to pass urgent resolutions (except ordinary business) through mechanisms like postal ballot or e-voting without convening a physical general meeting. If an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was deemed unavoidable, the MCA permitted its conduct through VC/OAVM until June 30, 2020, following specified guidelines in circulars 14/2020 and 17/2020, in addition to complying with the Companies Act, 2013, and its rules.
Through Circular No: 18/2020 dated April 21, 2020, the MCA granted relaxation to companies with financial years ending on December 31, 2019. They were allowed to hold their AGMs for that financial year by September 30, 2020, without facing any violations.
Given the extraordinary circumstances due to the pandemic, these relaxations from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs prove beneficial, especially for individual members and authorized representatives of corporate members who would otherwise be required to travel across states or borders to attend AGMs/EGMs. The framework leverages digital platforms, incorporating video conferencing and e-voting through entities like NSDL or registered emails, enabling companies to conduct their general meetings through VC/OAVM while ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
Conducting Annual General Meetings and Extraordinary General Meetings: Procedural Guidelines
(1) Eligibility Criteria for Companies Conducting AGM/EGM via VC/OAVM
- Companies Mandated to Provide E-voting Facility or Opted for It (for AGM/EGM):
According to Section 108 read with Rule 20 of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014:
Companies listed on recognized stock exchanges or with a membership of at least one thousand shareholders must provide members the ability to vote electronically on resolutions proposed at general meetings.
Companies may voluntarily adopt e-voting and must adhere to the procedures outlined in Rule 20 of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014.
- Companies Not Mandated for E-voting Facility (for AGM):
Companies exempt from mandatory e-voting may conduct AGMs via VC or OAVM if they meet the following conditions based on their category:
AGM through VC or OAVM can be conducted by companies having the email addresses of at least half of their total members.
For companies with share capital, the email addresses should represent 75% of the paid-up share capital, and for companies without share capital, they should represent 75% of the total voting power.
Companies failing to meet the above conditions should advertise in newspapers to request members to register their email addresses. If conditions are subsequently met, AGM can proceed via VC or OAVM.
(ii) For Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM):
EGMs, if unavoidable, may be held via VC or OAVM, following the prescribed framework in Circulars 14/2020 and 17/2020, in addition to Companies Act, 2013, and its rules.
(2) Advertisement Content in Newspapers (Before Notice Dispatch):
- For Companies Mandated for E-voting or Opted for It:
Companies in this category must publish a public notice in newspapers before sending AGM/EGM notices, specifying details such as the AGM being conducted through VC or OAVM in compliance with relevant provisions, date and time, notice availability on the website, voting procedures, and other necessary details.
- For Companies Not Mandated for E-voting:
These companies should take steps to register email addresses and publish a public notice if contact details are unavailable. The notice should inform about the proposed general meeting, method of registration, and other relevant information.
(3) Mode of Sending Notice for AGM/EGM:
Notices, as per Rule 18 of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014, should be sent through registered emails to members or depository participants/depositories. The notice must also be displayed on the company’s website, with intimation to stock exchanges for listed companies.
(4) Notice Contents:
Notices must include details such as the venue (for physical AGMs), date, time, and business to be transacted. In the case of VC or OAVM, it should clarify the virtual proceedings and provide instructions for access. Helpline numbers should also be provided.
(5) Handling of Notices Issued Before MCA Circulars:
Notices issued before relevant MCA circulars may adopt the circular’s framework after obtaining member consent, followed by a fresh notice with required disclosures.
(6) Dispatch of Financial Statements:
AGM difficulties in sending physical copies lead MCA to permit companies to send financial statements only by email to entitled recipients. Similar relief applies to listed entities under SEBI regulations until December 31, 2020.
(7) Public Notice Content (After Notice Dispatch):
For companies with e-voting or those opting for it, a public notice must be published immediately after dispatch, including details outlined in Rule 20(4)(v). Companies not requiring e-voting need not publish such notices.
(8) Business Consideration:
The chairman must ensure efforts are made for member participation before considering business. Only unavoidable special business items may be transacted at AGMs, and EGMs should limit transactions to essential matters.
(9) Transcript Maintenance:
Recorded transcripts must be secured and, for public companies, made available on the website.
(10) Members’ Convenience:
Meetings should consider the convenience of members in different time zones, especially in joint ventures.
(11) VC/OVAM Facilities:
Care should be taken to provide two-way communication in VC/OVAM. Capacity for member participation must be considered, with specific criteria for companies mandatorily providing e-voting.
(12) Time Frame for VC/OVAM Facility:
Meeting facility should be open 15 minutes before the scheduled time and closed 15 minutes after the scheduled end.
(13) First Come First Serve Principle:
Exemptions from this principle apply to large shareholders, promoters, institutional investors, directors, key personnel, and auditors.
(14) Attendance through VC/OVAM:
VC/OAVM attendance counts towards quorum under section 103 of the Companies Act, 2013.
(15) Voting by Members:
Detailed procedures for remote e-voting, e-voting during VC/OAVM, and polling are outlined, varying for companies mandated to provide e-voting and those that are not.
(16) Appointment of Chairman:
Process for appointing the chairman varies based on whether a company is mandated for e-voting or not, with specific conditions for fewer than 50 members.
(17) Proxy Requirements:
Proxy appointment is not required for meetings held through VC or OAVM. This exemption extends to listed entities conducting AGMs via electronic mode until December 31, 2020, under SEBI regulations.
(18) Voting by Authorized Representatives:
Institutional investors are encouraged to attend and vote through VC/OAVM. Representatives may be appointed for remote.
Common Problems Faced During Vitual Annual General Meetings
Certainly, addressing participation challenges is crucial for the success of virtual meetings. Here are some common challenges and corresponding solutions:
1.Multitasking during the call:
Solution: Set clear expectations at the beginning of the meeting regarding the importance of active participation. Encourage participants to turn off irrelevant notifications and close non-essential applications.
- Distractions outside of the meeting:
Solution: Suggest that participants find a quiet and dedicated space for the meeting. Encourage the use of headphones to minimize background noise and distractions.
- Boredom or lack of engagement with the topic:
Solution: Make the agenda engaging by incorporating interactive elements, such as polls, discussions, or breakout sessions. Tailor the content to be relevant and interesting to the participants.
4.Focus on other projects or personal issues:
Solution: Be mindful of participants’ workloads and commitments. Schedule meetings at times that are less likely to conflict with other important tasks. Consider shorter, more focused meetings to respect participants’ time.
5.Participants feel uncomfortable or unacknowledged:
Solution: Foster a positive and inclusive environment. Encourage everyone to contribute and acknowledge each participant’s input. Use video to enhance personal connections and create a sense of presence.
6.Participants don’t know each other well:
Solution: Start meetings with icebreakers or brief introductions. Encourage team-building activities outside of formal meetings. Foster a sense of community through team-building exercises or social events.
7.Meeting scheduled at an inconvenient time for a particular time zone:
Solution: Rotate meeting times to accommodate different time zones. If this is not possible, record meetings for those who cannot attend and provide meeting summaries. Be transparent about the scheduling challenges and seek input on finding suitable times.
8.Forgetting which time zone the meeting is in:
Solution: Use calendar tools that automatically adjust meeting times based on participants’ time zones. Include time zone information in meeting invitations and reminders.
Remember, communication is key. Regularly check in with participants to gather feedback on the virtual meeting process and adjust your approach accordingly. Tailoring solutions to the specific needs and preferences of your team will contribute to a more successful and engaging virtual meeting experience.
Some Case Laws Under Virtual Annual Meetings.
ACHINTYA KUMAR BARUA AND ORS Vs. RANJIT BARTHKUR AND ORS
In the case under consideration, an appeal has been lodged against the National Company Law Tribunal’s (NCLT) decision in Guwahati. The matter revolves around a petition submitted by Respondent No. 1, requesting authorization to participate in Board meetings via video conferencing. Initially, the petition was framed under specific sections of the Companies Act, 1956, and later invoked a pertinent section of the Companies Act, 2013.
The legal proceedings unfolded at the Company Law Board (CLB) and subsequently progressed to the High Court of Guwahati. The High Court ruled that the appeal did not pose legal queries, leading to the case returning to the NCLT. In its decision, the NCLT granted approval for participation in Board meetings through video conferencing.
Appellants, who serve as directors of the company, have filed the appeal on behalf of the company. Their contention is rooted in the belief that the decision causes them grievance. Specifically, they express apprehensions concerning the practical difficulties in ensuring the exclusive participation of the original petitioner in video conferencing. To fortify their stance, they cite the Secretarial Standards on Meetings of the Board of Directors.
In essence, the appeal challenges the NCLT’s ruling permitting participation in Board meetings through video conferencing, highlighting concerns about safeguarding the singular involvement of the original petitioner. A thorough examination of the complete judgment or legal documentation would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the case, including its facts, issues, and the basis of the judgment.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, hosting virtual Annual General Meetings (AGMs) brings both opportunities and challenges for companies. While it allows for more accessible and efficient meetings, certain hurdles need to be addressed. Companies must ensure that their members, even those not tech-savvy, can participate seamlessly. The registration of email addresses, especially for shareholders with physical shares, poses a significant challenge. Timing meetings to accommodate different time zones can be tricky.
Moreover, discussions in virtual AGMs may face limitations, impacting effective interaction between management and shareholders. There are also risks to corporate governance, including the potential for selective answering of questions and cybersecurity threats.
Despite these challenges, embracing digitalization in the Companies Act has its advantages—like being environmentally friendly, cost-effective, and offering transparency. Success in virtual meetings depends on overcoming these hurdles and encouraging broader member participation. It’s a new way of doing things, and companies need to adapt to make the most of this evolving landscape.
References
- This article was originally written by Melissa Cyrill published on September 27, 2023 website. The link for the same is herein
- This article was originally written by Pushpak Kacholia published on website. The link for the same is herein
3.This article was originally published on taxguru. The link of the same is herein.
uhttps://taxguru.in/company-law/virtual-meetings-companies-act-2013.htm
4.This was originally published on august 26, 2020. The link for the same is herein.
https://indiacorplaw.in/2020/08/the-future-of-virtual-meetings-under-the-companies-act.html
- This article was originally published by Student Company Secretary on May, 2020
https://www.icsi.edu/media/webmodules/Procedures_of_General_Meetings_during_COVID-19.pdf
6.This aricle was originally written by Tracy Patch, published on June 9, 2023. The link of the same is herein.
https://www.switchboard.app/learn/article/virtual-meeting-challenges
- This article was originally published on casemin website. The link of the same is herein
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5af19e3a9eff432234845aed