MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Company Directors’ Duties and Conflicts of Interest

2019· book· en· W3046664697 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rosemary Teele Langford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiduciaryStatutory lawCorporate governanceCorporate lawBusinessLawCommon lawPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)AccountingDutyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This book contains the most detailed multi-jurisdictional analysis of directors’ conflicts available drawing together relevant case law, codes and statutory regulation from the law applying to directors of companies incorporated under the UK Companies Acts, with extensive reference to the law in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand. The book provides comprehensive analysis of the conflicts faced by directors and includes the important areas of conflicts of interest, conflicts of duties, unauthorised profits, corporate opportunities, multiple directorships, nominee directorships, and conflicts involving stakeholders’ interests. Difficult aspects of these topics are analysed with reference to the laws of a range of common law jurisdictions. The extensive multi-jurisdictional analysis allows solutions to be presented in relation to difficult legal issues and enables clarification of the legal approach. In addition to detailed coverage and analysis of general law duties, the specific statutory duties are outlined and analysed including those concerning related party transactions. The UK Corporate Governance Code, and Guidance on Board Effectiveness, issued by the FRC in July 2018 are covered extensively. The book provides detail on fiduciary theory, the reach of the term ‘director’, consequences of a breach, remedies, authorisation and the role of disclosure. It also contains a detailed table of key cases concerning corporate opportunities which includes the pertinent facts, whether there was a breach of directors’ duties, and a summary of the important factors in the decision made. The cases are featured in order from instances representing clear breach to those in which no breach was found. The book is significant in its thorough coverage of general law and statutory duties relating to conflicts, and its clarification of the scope and application of currently complex and uncertain duties. It provides clear guidance to academics, practitioners, directors and regulators in each of the jurisdictions on the regulation of conflicts of interest and the implementation of good regulatory practice. This is a key reference work on this important and dynamic area of company law which provides careful analysis of the law set in a practical context.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207