Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Directors also owe strict duties not to permit any conflict of interest or conflict with their duty to act in the best interests of the company. This rule is so strictly enforced that, even where the conflict of interest or conflict of duty is purely hypothetical, the directors can be forced to disgorge all personal gains arising from it.
The basic formulation of the conflicts of interest rule is that a conflict exists "if there is a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer's own interests or by the lawyer's duties to another current client, a former client, or a third person."
Directors' duties, conflicts of interest Loft Inc , 5 A.2d 503, 23 Del. Ch. 255 (Del. 1939) is a Delaware corporation law case, important for United States corporate law , on corporate opportunities and the duty of loyalty .
Section 8.60 of the Model Business Corporation Act [9] states there is a conflict of interest when the director knows that at the time of a commitment that he or a related person is 1) a party to the transaction or 2) has a beneficial financial interest in the transaction that the interest and exercises his influence to the detriment of the ...
Conflict of interest, directors' duties, corporate opportunity Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 1 All ER 37 is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity in violation of their duty of loyalty to the company.
The duty to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest for fiduciaries has been engrained in law since the financial crisis following the South Sea Bubble of 1719. The central equitable principle applicable to directors is to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest, [12] without disclosure to the board or seeking approval from ...
Directors can have no conflict of interest. In trusts law, this core fiduciary duty was formulated after the collapse of the South Sea Company in 1719 in the United Kingdom. Keech v Sandford held that people in fiduciary positions had to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest, and this rule "should be strictly pursued". [140]
Therefore, there was a conflict of interest. This case preceded ss 40-1 of the Companies Act 2006, which give directors unlimited capacity to bind the company with those dealing in good faith; but if an action by a director is beyond their authority or in breach of some fiduciary obligation, then they can be made personally liable. Arguably ...