Director Duties and Breaches
Does the duty have been breached by Mr Gonzo as the director of UR Saved? Whether he should be penalized for this breach?
This problem had the basic rules that are under section 181 of the Corporation Act that the director or the officer should work in the best interest of the company or in good faith. In WHITLAM v ASIC [2002] NSWSC 591 case, the Court had found Mr Whitlam in the contravention of the section 181 as he is the Chairman of the company and he has not done his duties in good faith. Section 182 states that the director should not use his position improperly for their personal benefit or the benefit of someone else determinant to the company. Section 183 states that the person cannot take an advantage of the information they gain in the course of their director duties to gain any advantage for himself or for somebody else. . In ASIC v Adler (2002) 41 ACSR 72; [2002] NSWC 171 case, the court had found the Adler in the breach of the section 180, 181,182 & 183 as he had misuse the information he has gained in the course of his director duties for the person gain. Section 184 states that if any of the duties breached as not worked in good faith or improper use of information and the use of position for the personal gain or for the gain of the others then the criminal liability will arise. In case, R v Rivkin [2002] NSWSC 1182: 198 ALR 200; 45 ACSR 366, Mr Rivkin had misuse the information, his position, not acted in good faith and the court found to be in the guilty under section 184 of the Corporations Act
The rules that are breached in this case, as firstly Mr gonzo did not worked in good faith under section 181 of the Corporation Act. He has the information that Travel Services R Us Pty Ltd is searching for the investors and if UR Saved will invest then will earn good profits. He mislead his company by saying that the venture is very risky and speculative venture and not suitable for U R Saved but he only invested his own money. He invested $100,000 in the Travel Services R Us Pty Ltd and earned the profit of $ 1.5 million within the six months of the investment similarly, it was happened in the case of (ASIC v Adler). It had been proved that he had breached the section 183 by the use of information he had gained due to his position as a director for the personal benefit. He also breached the section 182 by improper use of his position for the personal benefit. Thus, it can be said that Mr gonzo had done the criminal offence under section 184 of the Corporations Act, as he had not worked in good faith, use the information and the improper use of his position as similar in the case (R v Rivkin). These breaches of the duties had mentioned in the other three cases where these duties had been breached. Thus, the duties had been breached by Mr Gonzo and he is liable for the penalties. Therefore, it is advisable for Mr Gonzo that he should understand his director duties that if the breach of his duties that can effect to the legal implications.
Conclusion
It can be analysed from the case that the director duties of the Corporations Act had been breached by the Mr Gonzo and he is liable for being penalized. Mr Gonzo is liable for the criminal penalties for the breach of the sections 181,182,183 & 184 of the Corporations Act. In the Conclusion Mr Gonzo has been advised to follow his director duties that are given under the Corporations Act, 2001.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
