Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The corporate opportunity doctrine does not apply to all fiduciaries of a corporation; rather, it is limited to directors, officers, and controlling shareholders. [3] The doctrine applies regardless of whether the corporation is harmed by the transaction; indeed, it applies even if the corporation benefits from the transaction. [4]
(7) A provision eliminating or limiting the personal liability of a director to the corporation or its stockholders for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director, provided that such provision shall not eliminate or limit the liability of a director: (i) For any breach of the director's duty of loyalty to the corporation or its ...
Sub-bailment, duty of care, theft Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd [1966] 1 QB 716 is an English tort law case, establishing that sub-bailees are liable for the theft or negligence of their staff. Both Lord Denning and Diplock LJ rejected the idea that a contract need exist for a relationship of bailor and bailee to be found.
In English law, a corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the frauds of its directors or senior officers. If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be ...
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.
Main Menu. News. News
A 2016 mapping of 41 countries’ corporate liability systems shows wide variations in approaches to liability, and that corporate liability is a dynamic area of legal innovation and evolution. [ 1 ] The term legal person refers to a business entity (often a corporation, but possibly other legal entities, as specified by law) that has both ...
The Court of Appeal held that ignorance of the law was not a defence. A contravention existed so long as one ought to have known of the facts that show a dividend would contravene the law. Directors can similarly be liable for breach of duty, and so to restore the money wrongfully paid away, if they failed to take reasonable care. [78]