지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Directors govern companies on behalf of the shareholder who elect them. All directors must comply with basic legal requirements under the Corporations Act 2001 which specifies four main duties for directors with a number of other areas of key responsibility.
The Corporations Act 2001 requires that a company director or other officer exercise their powers and discharge their duties with care and diligence. This duty is subject to a business judgment rule that requires a director making a business judgment to:
- make the judgment in good faith and for a proper purpose;
- not to have a material personal interest in the subject matter of the judgment;
- inform themselves about the subject matter of the judgment to the extent they reasonably believe to be appropriate;
- rationally believe that the judgment is in the best interests of the corporation.
In addition, directors and other officers of companies must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the corporation and for a proper purpose. They are prohibited from improperly using their position to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else or to cause detriment to the corporation and are prohibited from using information obtained as a consequence of their role with the company to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else or to cause detriment to the corporation. These last two provisions also apply to employees of the company. All of the provisions give rise to civil obligations. They are also civil penalty provisions. In a case where a court determines that a civil penalty provision has been contravened, it must make a declaration to that effect and may order the person pay the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty of up to $200,000 and may order the person compensate the company for any loss as a result of the contravention. The court may also disqualify the person from managing corporations for a period the court considers appropriate.
The Corporations Act 2001 also sets out criminal offences where a director or other officer acts recklessly or is intentionally dishonestly in their failure to exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith and in the best interests of the company or for a proper person. Similarly, criminal offences are created where a person recklessly or intentionally dishonestly misuses their position or information they have gained through their position with the company.
Directors have a duty to make full and frank disclosure of information within their knowledge to enable shareholders to make properly informed judgments on any matter.
The Corporations Act 2001 requires that a company director or other officer exercise their powers and discharge their duties with care and diligence. This duty is subject to a business judgment rule that requires a director making a business judgment to:
- make the judgment in good faith and for a proper purpose;
- not to have a material personal interest in the subject matter of the judgment;
- inform themselves about the subject matter of the judgment to the extent they reasonably believe to be appropriate;
- rationally believe that the judgment is in the best interests of the corporation.
In addition, directors and other officers of companies must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the corporation and for a proper purpose. They are prohibited from improperly using their position to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else or to cause detriment to the corporation and are prohibited from using information obtained as a consequence of their role with the company to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else or to cause detriment to the corporation. These last two provisions also apply to employees of the company. All of the provisions give rise to civil obligations. They are also civil penalty provisions. In a case where a court determines that a civil penalty provision has been contravened, it must make a declaration to that effect and may order the person pay the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty of up to $200,000 and may order the person compensate the company for any loss as a result of the contravention. The court may also disqualify the person from managing corporations for a period the court considers appropriate.
The Corporations Act 2001 also sets out criminal offences where a director or other officer acts recklessly or is intentionally dishonestly in their failure to exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith and in the best interests of the company or for a proper person. Similarly, criminal offences are created where a person recklessly or intentionally dishonestly misuses their position or information they have gained through their position with the company.
Directors have a duty to make full and frank disclosure of information within their knowledge to enable shareholders to make properly informed judgments on any matter.
목차
Ⅰ. 서언
Ⅱ. 호주법상 이사의 일반적 의무
Ⅲ. 회사의 지급불능시 거래회피의무
Ⅳ. 결어
【참고문헌】
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (12)
참고문헌 신청
浪川正己, オーストラリア會社法の硏究, 成文堂, 1991.
植田淳, “イギリス法における信認義務の諸相”, 信託, 弟202号, 信託協會, 2006.
酒卷俊雄, “オーストラリア會社法Ⅲ”, 海外商事法務, 弟110号, 国際商事法研究所, 1971.
Andrew Keay, “The Director’s Duty to Take Into Account the Interests of Company Creditors: When is It Triggered?”, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 25, 2001.
Andrew Keay/Hao Zhang, “Incomplete Contracts, Contingent Fiduciaries and a Director’s Duty to Creditors”, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2008.
植田淳, “イギリス法における信認義務の諸相”, 信託, 弟202号, 信託協會, 2006.
酒卷俊雄, “オーストラリア會社法Ⅲ”, 海外商事法務, 弟110号, 国際商事法研究所, 1971.
Andrew Keay, “The Director’s Duty to Take Into Account the Interests of Company Creditors: When is It Triggered?”, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 25, 2001.
Andrew Keay/Hao Zhang, “Incomplete Contracts, Contingent Fiduciaries and a Director’s Duty to Creditors”, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2008.
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
상법상 이사의 충실의무와 회사기회유용금지에 관한 재고(再考)
상사판례연구
2024 .09
-
회사법에서 선관주의의무규정에 관한 고찰
경영법률
2015 .01
-
비상근이사의 감시의무
기업법연구
2017 .06
-
경영판단에 따른 이사의 법적 책임 여부에 대한 판단기준
경영법률
2015 .01
-
영국법상 이사의 주의의무와 경영판단 - 19세기 판례로부터 현재까지 -
법학연구
2023 .06
-
이사의 선관주의의무와 충실의무의 관계 -대법원 2023. 3. 30. 선고 2019다280481 판결을 소재로 하여-
법학연구
2024 .06
-
이사의 감시의무와 그 적용범위 — 대법원 2017다222368 판결을 중심으로 —
법학논총
2022 .03
-
이사의 회사정보수집권
한양법학
2021 .08
-
영국의 2006년 회사법상 이사의 회사성공촉진의무 및 그에 관한 평가
기업법연구
2019 .03
-
이사의 의무와 성실성
한양법학
2015 .02
-
상법상 이사의 충실의무에 관한 검토 － 자기거래 금지 위반에 관한 대법원 2016.8.24. 선고 2016다222453 판결의 평석을 겸하여 －
경영법률
2020 .01
-
금융회사 이사의 내부통제관리의무에 관한 연구 - 금융사지배구조법 2024년 1월 개정 내용을 중심으로 -
기업법연구
2024 .06
-
주식회사 이사의 책임제한제도에 대한 연구
법학연구
2017 .09
-
준법경영을 위한 지배구조상의 일반적 관리체계와 그 문제점
한양법학
2015 .05
-
이사의 감시의무와 회사에 대한 배상책임 - 서울고법판결 2020나2034989 -
법학논총
2022 .03
-
공기업의 근로자이사 관련 법제에 대한 검토
경제법연구
2022 .08
-
경영악화상태의 회사 채권자에 대한 이사의 신인의무 : 미국 델라웨어 주 판례법에 대한 비판적 검토를 중심으로
법학연구
2015 .06
-
주식회사 이사의 책임과 제한에 관한 연구
법학연구
2019 .09
-
사외이사의 감시의무와 내부통제시스템 구축의무 — 대법원 2022. 5. 12. 선고 2021다279347 판결을 중심으로 —
경영법률
2022 .10
-
우리는 이사회에게 무엇을 기대할 것인가 - 이사회 실패 현상을 극복하기 위한 대안으로서 법인이사론을 중심으로 -
경영법률
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-360-002571440