DIRECTORS' REMUNERATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 230, 28 September 1936, Page 4

DIRECTORS' REMUNERATION.

DUNLOP, PERDRIAU ACCOUNTS. SHAREHOLDERS' PROTEST. At the annual meeting of the Dunlop, Perdriau Company in Melbourne, a shareholder, Mr. J. F. Warren, protested against the lack of information in the profit and loss account. Expenses, lie said, were merely bunched together in the amount of £573,000, and no particulars were gjven of sums applied for depreciation. The chairman had stated that this year 'expenses had been reduced by £79,000, continued Mr. Warren. But lie did not say that last year expenses had increased by £77.000 compared with those of 1934. All shareholders were pleased that profits this year had risen to £305.000, enabling a dividend of 5 per cent to be paid on ordinary shares. Last year he had asked the chairman what remuneration the directors had received from the company, and had been given the astonishing reply that it was not compulsory under the Companies Act to disclose such information. This year he would ask again for the information. Replying to questions the chairman, Mr. W. A. Watt, said he had been asked whether he would disclose collectively and individually the reilftineration received by the directors. The company had articles of association binding directors to secrecy, and it would be unwise to give competitors too much information about the company. Opinion was growing, however, that directors' fees were not trade secrets. Ho had discussed the question with the board, and he now 6aw no reason why the information should not be disclosed. The. fees drawn by the directors of the company amounted to £7500 per annum, including every man 011 the board. The only two enjoying any special privileges were himself and Mr. H. Daniel. The company, from the point of view of capitalisation, stood among the first six in Australia. The responsibility of conducting a business, the turnover of which amounted to millions, was very great, and he thought that it was a very cheaply run machine. (Voices of dissent.) Addressing Mr. Warren, who had submitted a list of questions, the chairman said that he would deliver answers by letter. Voices: That's not fair! Bluff! To give "concrete expression of the dissatisfaction of shareholders at the form in which the balance-sheet was presented," Mr. J. Jolly moved that the joint remuneration of the two firms of auditors be reduced from £2000 to £1750. The motion was rejected by 42 votes to 29.