In the coming months I will have a publication released on the director's duty to avoid a conflict of interest. It is titled 'The absolute limit of directors' fiduciary liability for conflicts of interest: The director's perspective'. I shall provide the citation when I have one.
The abstract is below and the analysis incorporates new authorities on the issue from the last 6 years including: FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45; Halcyon House v Baines [2014] EWHC 2216; The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Cowling [2014] EWHC 30 (QB); Ross River Ltd v Waveley Commercial Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 910; Ranson v Customer Systems [2012] EWCA Civ 841; Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1021; Cambridge v Makin [2011] EWHC 12 (QB); JD Wetherspoons plc v Van de Berg & Co Ltd [2009] EWHC 639; and Re Allied Business [2009] EWCA 751.
Abstract
The abstract is below and the analysis incorporates new authorities on the issue from the last 6 years including: FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45; Halcyon House v Baines [2014] EWHC 2216; The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Cowling [2014] EWHC 30 (QB); Ross River Ltd v Waveley Commercial Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 910; Ranson v Customer Systems [2012] EWCA Civ 841; Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1021; Cambridge v Makin [2011] EWHC 12 (QB); JD Wetherspoons plc v Van de Berg & Co Ltd [2009] EWHC 639; and Re Allied Business [2009] EWCA 751.
Abstract
The absolute limits of fiduciary loyalty are
misunderstood in the context of directors as analyses focus on the interests of
the principal alone. This article will demonstrate that such an approach is
inconsistent with traditional fiduciary analysis and that it is the specific
undertaking to the principal’s interests that determine the limits of loyalty
in a fiduciary relationship.
