The matter of who directs a company is rooted, legally, in the same place as the juristic personality of the company. This, in South Africa, is the Companies Act of $2008$ and the Memorandum of Incorporation that the Act requires.

The Companies Act of $2008$ states that: "Each incorporator of a company is a first director of the company, and serves until sufficient other directors to satisfy the minimum requirements of this Act, or the company$$s Memorandum of Incorporation, have been $[$appointed or elected$]($Companies Act No$\mathrm{.}71$ of $2008,$ Section $67).$

Furthermore, the directors together comprise the company$$s governing body $($its board$),$ whose first task is $$ in the words of King IV $$ to $$exercise its leadership role by steering the organisation and setting its strategic direction$($IoDSA$,2016,$ p$.49).$

Evaluate the conduct of Steinhoff$$s leadership contingent $($Board of Directors$)$ and how their actions, contrary to the Companies Act of South Africa $2008,$ might have contributed to the collapse of Steinhoff South Africa. Propose how companies can avoid similar outcomes as Steinhoff in the future by lessons learned from the Steinhoff debacle.