Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

An evaluation of section 232(4) of the Corporations Law and the directors' duty of due care, skill and diligence

Article Abstract:

The enactment of amendments to section 232(4) of Australia's Corporations Law under the Corporate Law Reform Act of 1992 should increase the standards of due care and diligence imposed on corporate directors but enforcement will still depend on judicial interpretation. Guidance and interpretation are still needed on issues such as the extent of such duties and the delegation of duties which were not adequately considered under the common law. Section 137 of New Zealand's Companies Act 1993 establishes an objective test that more clearly identifies the duty of skill imposed.

Author: Cassidy, Julie
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1995
New Zealand

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Has the "sleeping" director finally been laid to rest?

Article Abstract:

The Daniels v. Anderson opinion regarding the duty of care imposed on corporate directors in Australia appears to be stronger than the standard imposed in AWA v. Daniels. The AWA ruling was heralded as the end of the sleeping director, but that court ultimately employed a subjective test not much different that the traditional standard. The Anderson decision appears to impose a heightened standard of inquiry and active use of discretion on directors, but dissenting opinions suggest that the standard is still in transition.

Author: Cassidy, Julie
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1997
Board of Directors-Functions, Boards of directors, New South Wales, Australia

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Life insurance company directors: beyond the call of duty?

Article Abstract:

Australia's Life Insurance Act 1995 states that directors of life insurance companies are subject to the additional duty to give priority to the interests of life insurance policy holders. In other industries, fiduciary duties are owed only to the shareholders and the corporation. The duty of priority is applicable to decisions made in the investment and administration of statutory fund assets. Additional provisions have been proposed that would impose criminal and civil penalties for breaches of these duties.

Author: Morgan, Amanda
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1997
Life Insurance, Direct Life Insurance Carriers, Management, Insurance industry, Life insurance industry

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Australia, Laws, regulations and rules, Corporate directors, Fiduciary duties
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Registration of deferred compensation obligations under the Securities Act of 1933. DOL withdraws top-hat regulations project
  • Abstracts: American corporations and the economic future of South Africa. New challenges for corporate responsibility
  • Abstracts: The exploitation of Mexican workers. Layoff lingo: corporations sugarcoat mass firings. Competitiveness, wages, and corporate responsibility
  • Abstracts: Cases refine definition of federal powers: three significant decisions this term examined the appropriate role of a central government
  • Abstracts: Beating the burnout clock: put clients and fees aside for a while to find time for your own life. Golden rule of parting ways; make sure any staff discharges are well-documented for just cause
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.