本篇论文代写-彼得是否违反了董事的职责?讲了法律:2001年公司法(Cth)第292条要求董事和有限公司定期准备财务报告(Tomasic, Bottomley， & McQueen, 2002)。第181-183条是关于民事责任和董事的责任，以诚信行事，使其不以任何方式损害公司的价值。本篇论文代写文章由新西兰第一论文 Assignment First辅导网整理，供大家参考阅读。
Law: Section 292 of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) requires the directors and the limited company to prepare financial reports periodically (Tomasic, Bottomley, & McQueen, 2002). Section 181-183 is about civil obligations and the director’s duty of acting in good faith such that it does not harm the value of the corporation in any manner.
Application: Peter is a director of Better Lifestyle Pools Ltd (BLPL) and owes fiduciary duties toward the corporation who must not engage into detrimental acts that brings disadvantages for the corporation. Peter has gone ahead to the office of YG Investment Corporation (YG) to have BLPL shares be invested in two suggested investments. He owes a duty toward the company for only acting for its benefit and progress and avoids indulging into acts that are detrimental for the corporation, as stated in section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth). Peter went ahead to YG and requested the investment of BLPL shares into two investments, even when the three directors – Alan, Freda, and Peter – must together pass a resolution for the investment proposed. If Peter alone has gone to YG without talking to Alan and Freda, he has violated section 181 – 183 of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth), whereby he is liable for the loss created by his acts. However, the case also mentions that the proposed investments into two entities were called off. If this investment was taken together in a board meeting, then it is assumed that Peter had the consent of Alan and Freda when he consulted YG for the investments.
The report must have the YG suggested investments and the subsequent decision of the proposal. This clears the doubt whether Peter has breached his duty as a director, when he has gone ahead without consulting Alan and Freda or passing a resolution, or when he has gone ahead after consulting the two, and whether he is not liable because he has consulted. Jubilee Mines NL v Riley  (“Allens: Publication: Focus: Damages for material non-disclosure”, 2016) speaks about the possible necessity of reporting any information or company decision that will affect the stock price or its valuation, which applies to Peter.