Dystopian Accessorial Liability’ or the End of ‘Stepping Stones’ As We Know It?

R. Langford
{"title":"Dystopian Accessorial Liability’ or the End of ‘Stepping Stones’ As We Know It?","authors":"R. Langford","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3583169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Australia a mode of liability that has been known as ‘stepping stones’ has attracted extensive debate and criticism, partly due to the corporate regulator’s propensity to employ it in actions against directors. Stepping stones liability has traditionally consisted of two elements – a breach of the law by the company and a breach of duty by the relevant director in allowing or not preventing the breach. However, the very recent judgment of the Full Federal Court in Cassimatis v Australian Securities and Investments Commission confirms that ‘stepping stones’ is really just a straightforward application of the statutory duty of care (or other duty) to the facts of each particular case.","PeriodicalId":309706,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Governance Law & Arrangements by Subject Matter (Topic)","volume":"148 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Governance Law & Arrangements by Subject Matter (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3583169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In Australia a mode of liability that has been known as ‘stepping stones’ has attracted extensive debate and criticism, partly due to the corporate regulator’s propensity to employ it in actions against directors. Stepping stones liability has traditionally consisted of two elements – a breach of the law by the company and a breach of duty by the relevant director in allowing or not preventing the breach. However, the very recent judgment of the Full Federal Court in Cassimatis v Australian Securities and Investments Commission confirms that ‘stepping stones’ is really just a straightforward application of the statutory duty of care (or other duty) to the facts of each particular case.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反乌托邦的附加责任还是我们所知的“垫脚石”的终结?
在澳大利亚,一种被称为“垫脚石”的责任模式引起了广泛的争论和批评,部分原因是公司监管机构倾向于在针对董事的诉讼中使用这种模式。垫脚石责任传统上由两个要素组成-公司违反法律以及相关董事在允许或不阻止违反行为方面违反职责。然而,最近联邦法院在Cassimatis诉澳大利亚证券和投资委员会一案中的判决证实,“垫脚石”实际上只是对每个特定案件的事实的法定注意义务(或其他义务)的直接应用。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Are M&A Lawyers Really Better? Hidden Agendas in Shareholder Voting A Right For Retirement: Unconscionable Contracts, The Right (Not) to Associate, and Citizens United Will Nasdaq's Diversity Rules Harm Investors? A Trans-Atlantic Doctrinal Orientation Made Concrete: Ohio’s First 'Modern' Business Corporation Act (1927)
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1