Case Analysis: ASIC v Vines - Directors' Duties and Breaches

This case study analyzes the landmark case of ASIC v Vines, focusing on the responsibilities and duties of company directors under Australian corporate law. The case involves allegations of a breach of duty by the CFO of GIO Australia during a hostile takeover bid by AMP. The analysis covers the facts of the case, including the financial forecasts and the actions of Mr. Vines. It examines the relevant sections of the Corporations Act, particularly Section 180(1) and Section 232(4), regarding the duty of care and diligence. The document also details the defenses presented by Mr. Vines and the court's approach to the evidence. The decision highlights the importance of providing accurate and complete information to shareholders and the degree of negligence required to establish a breach. Finally, the case provides important learnings regarding the standard of care required of directors and the importance of protecting shareholder interests.

Company Law

Case Introduction
ASIC v Vines is one of the most important cases for directors regarding their
responsibilities and duties. Concerning past issues there are lot of developments in
the law in comparison to the first judgments. The provided presentation evaluates the
case facts and laws applied to assess responsibilities and duties of directors.

Case facts
 As per the details it has been stated that AMP has declared a hostile takeover bid
in regards with GIO Australia
 The CFO of GIO was Mr. Vines was also member of the adequate diligence panel
which was originated to take actions regarding the AMP’s bid. Despite the facts,
proceeds were forecasted in the subject matter, however due to the reason of
catastrophe in America such margin was considerably abridged (1 p21).

Breach of duty
 Mr. Vines was well versed about the tights conditions in Australia; however he
takes a bid and he predict that the raise will not be more than $60-$65 million
even though, at the instance while he makes a bid, it was already $74 million.
Further the proposal was stopped with 57% of investor’s acceptance. On the other
hand the surpass amount by Mr. Vines although was not yet known to several
individuals in AMP (2, pp. 221-271). Further, ASIC needs an announcement that
Mr. Vines had contravened its legal responsibility of showing care and diligence
in the indulgence of its purpose, as a representative of the corporation

Applied laws
 In the section 232 (4) of the Corporations Act, the duty of the care and diligence
has been specified. Further, same is cited in section 180(1) of the present
Corporations Act 2001.
 In this case, it was found that the honesty defenses get incidentally under the
Section 1317JA and 1318 and be supposed to be dependent upon (3, p. 12).

• Defense by Mr. Vines and viewpoint of court
 It was cited by Mr. Vines that the degree of negligence which was desirable to set
up a breach of legal responsibility was higher than that which was necessary to be
proved in tort or common law. Further it was discarded by the Court of Appeal
collectively, and the choice since delivered by Austin J recognized the necessary
standard of care was necessary.

Approach of Court
 Without a doubt Mr. Vines does not have right to use any information on which it
might depend for gathering the knowledge from the shareholders. Furthermore the
revelations would have been material for the board at the time for taking the
managerial decisions. Without a doubt no unqualified statements were made by
Mr. Vines and even though he made convinced statements, he did not break his
responsibility of care as they were made beneath the confidence of management
in the GIO Re profit estimate.

Case decision
 Therefore, appropriate information is provided by the Mr. Vines and it was
beyond control that the market circumstances shift towards its worse side.
Consequently, liability on Mr. Vines was relieved
 In reality, Mr. Vines acted honestly upon the subject and also he does not have any
idea regarding the raised amounts. Mr. Vines, actually, took care and diligence
and the income forecast that was made by him was important results for a
complete well-informed commerce composition in surroundings that was
underneath an aggressive takeover (4 p. 33).

Learnings
 It was recognized that the degree of negligence which was required to be breached
was based on the situation of the decree which was contravened. This means that
in circumstances of the criminal case, a superior level of negligence should be
proved; conversely, in cases on civil law such as Corporations Law, a civil
punishment might have been compulsory.
 The shareholder requires being sheltered, and the targeted investors assured that
by endeavoring that the facts and knowledge that was presented to them is precise
and completes accordingly.

References
1. Barker S. Directors' personal liability for corporate inaction on climate change.
Governance Directions. 2015 Feb;67(1):21.
2. Barker S. An introduction to directors’ duties in relation to stranded asset risks.
InStranded Assets and the Environment 2018 May 11 (pp. 221-271). Routledge.
3. Peden E. Civil and criminal liability of directors and officers of sporting clubs.
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of
Australia. 2017 Mar;31(1):12.
4. Harris J. Putting the cart before the horse? The liability of company secretaries
and general counsel for defective disclosure. The Liability of Company
Secretaries and General Counsel for Defective Disclosure (April 2, 2018).
2018;33.

Thank you