The company lost money, did the director make a mistake

Illustrative image

A carefully studied project can disappoint, while another can make a profit despite weak procedures, so financial results alone cannot fairly determine a director’s responsibility, the central questions concern how the decision was made, which information was then available and whether the company’s interests actually guided it.

Assess the decision at the time

Reconstruct the picture before the project was approved, collect forecasts, studies, alternatives, approvals and warnings received by management, distinguish a known commercial risk accepted after assessment from a material fact ignored without justification, professional review needs reasons and a sequence of events, placing a loss figure beside a decision maker’s name is insufficient, the review also includes a decision not to intervene when circumstances called for study or action.

Understand the conditions for protection

Article 31 of the Companies Law provides conditional protection for a decision made in good faith, linked to the absence of a personal interest, appropriate knowledge of the subject and a reasonable belief that it serves the company, the claimant bears the burden of proving otherwise, this rule must be read with duties of care and loyalty and management liability, it is not general immunity and does not replace examination of breach, harm, causation and the circumstances.

Keep a record of the reasoning

A useful file identifies who prepared the study, which questions were raised, how missing information was handled and why the final option was chosen, keep the versions presented when the decision was made rather than only a report written after the loss, for a related-party transaction, distinguish disclosure and authorisation from commercial feasibility, identify the approver’s authority and delegation limits, sound commercial analysis alone cannot resolve a conflict of interest.

Turn the review into improvement

The review may lead to changes in investment approval, risk limits or implementation monitoring, or reveal grounds for examining a claim, begin with neutral questions and involve financial or technical specialists where needed, connect each concern to a document and a specific effect, understand other participants’ roles, market changes and opportunities for reassessment before reducing the issue to the conduct of one person.

• Record alternatives and risks before approval
• Keep disclosures and authorisations
• Set implementation review dates

Before accusing or defending management, assemble a decision timeline and its supporting materials, careful legal assessment connects conduct with harm and helps improve future decisions.

General educational content, not a substitute for advice on your facts and documents, and not a guarantee of any outcome.

Translations refer to Saudi law, consult the official legal text when applying it.