Corporate Culpability, Stepping Stones and Mariner - Contention Surrounding Directors' Duties Where the Company Breaches the Law

R. Langford
{"title":"Corporate Culpability, Stepping Stones and Mariner - Contention Surrounding Directors' Duties Where the Company Breaches the Law","authors":"R. Langford","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2774212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Against a background examination of the policy considerations relevant to the imposition of liability on directors and officers in circumstances where a company breaches the law, this paper hones in on the so-called ‘stepping stones’ approach. This approach, highlighted by Herzberg and Anderson, involves the imposition of liability on directors for breach of the duty of care (and also in some cases for breach of the duty to act in good faith in the interests of the company and potentially the duty to avoid improper use of position) in exposing the company to the risk of prosecution or liability where action is taken against the company for breach of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or some other law. The paper draws attention to the restrained application of the stepping stones approach in the 2015 case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mariner (2015) 106 ACSR 343 and assesses this application in light of previous cases and commentary on the stepping stones approach. It provides comparative analysis of other jurisdictions, demonstrating the uniqueness of the stepping stones approach and of the absence of the illegality defence in Australia. In outlining the sources of liability imposed on directors and officers, the paper also comments on the proposed introduction by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission of liability based on corporate culture.","PeriodicalId":127611,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Boards & Directors (Topic)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Boards & Directors (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2774212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Against a background examination of the policy considerations relevant to the imposition of liability on directors and officers in circumstances where a company breaches the law, this paper hones in on the so-called ‘stepping stones’ approach. This approach, highlighted by Herzberg and Anderson, involves the imposition of liability on directors for breach of the duty of care (and also in some cases for breach of the duty to act in good faith in the interests of the company and potentially the duty to avoid improper use of position) in exposing the company to the risk of prosecution or liability where action is taken against the company for breach of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or some other law. The paper draws attention to the restrained application of the stepping stones approach in the 2015 case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mariner (2015) 106 ACSR 343 and assesses this application in light of previous cases and commentary on the stepping stones approach. It provides comparative analysis of other jurisdictions, demonstrating the uniqueness of the stepping stones approach and of the absence of the illegality defence in Australia. In outlining the sources of liability imposed on directors and officers, the paper also comments on the proposed introduction by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission of liability based on corporate culture.
公司罪责、垫脚石与水手——围绕公司违法情况下董事责任的争论
针对在公司违反法律的情况下对董事和高级职员施加责任的相关政策考虑的背景审查,本文着眼于所谓的“垫脚石”方法。这种方法,突出了赫兹伯格和安德森,包括实施对董事违反注意义务的责任(在某些情况下也违反诚信义务行为的公司的利益和潜在的责任,避免不当使用位置)在公开公司起诉的风险或责任采取行动反对该公司违反了公司2001年(车车)或其他法律行动。本文提请注意在2015年澳大利亚证券和投资委员会诉马里纳(2015)106 ACSR 343案中垫脚石方法的有限应用,并根据以前的案例和对垫脚石方法的评论来评估这种应用。它提供了对其他司法管辖区的比较分析,表明了垫脚石方法的独特性以及澳大利亚缺乏非法辩护。在概述董事和高级管理人员的责任来源时,本文还对澳大利亚证券和投资委员会提出的基于企业文化的责任的建议进行了评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信