header-logo header-logo

01 November 2013
Issue: 7582 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Company law

Madoff Securities International Ltd (in liquidation) v Raven and others [2013] EWHC 3147 (Comm), [2013] All ER (D) 216 (Oct)

It was settled law that a director owed a fiduciary duty to a company to act in what he considered to be the interests of the company. The test was a subjective one. The directors of a company were in a similar position in respect of the company’s property as trustees. The predominant interests to which the directors of a solvent company had to have regard were the interests of the shareholders as a whole, present and future. A trustee who knowingly permitted a co-trustee to commit a breach of trust was also in breach of trust. Where a director failed to address his mind to the question of whether a transaction was in the interests of a company, he was not thereby, and without more, liable for the consequences of the transaction. The court would ask whether an honest and intelligent man in the position of a director of the company concerned could, in the whole

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll