Analysis of ASIC V. RICH [2003] Case on Corporations Act Section 180

This case study provides an analysis of the ASIC V. RICH [2003] case in relation to Section 180(1) of the Corporations Act, 2001, which outlines the statutory duty of care and diligence required of company directors. The analysis explains the concept of business judgment as defined in Section 180(3) and the business judgment defense as laid out in Section 180(2). It highlights that the judge found ASIC failed to establish their cause of action and that the directors' actions met the criteria for the business judgment defense. The study concludes that the directors did not breach their duties under common law or Section 180(1), and the business judgment defense was applicable. Desklib offers a wealth of similar solved assignments and study resources for students.

ASIC V. RICH [2003]
An Analysis

SECTION 180 (1)
CORPORATIONS ACT, 2001
 180 (1) of the Corporations Act, 2001 lays
down the statutory duty of care and
diligence.
 This provision states that when
discharging one’s duties as the director of
a corporate entity one must observe a
certain degree of care and diligence to
ensure that they are acting in the best
interests of the company.
 This is the “Duty of Care” that the
directors of a corporation must observe.

What is a business
Judgment?
 Section 180 (3) states that a
business judgment is a decision
to act or refrain from acting
taken by the administration of
the company.
 This applies only in business
decisions that a materially
relevant to the operations of the
corporation.

Business Judgment
Defence
 Section 180 (2) of the act lays down the business
judgment rule which states that the provisions of
Section 180 (1) would be deemed to have been met
when acting on behalf of the company if the act in
question has any or all of following elements:
 The judgment is made in good faith;
 If the business judgment is free from any personal
self interest;
 If the directors have understood and researched the
subject matter to the extent that is reasonably
possible;
 If the directors reasonably believe the act would be in
the best interests of the company.

APPLICATION
 The Judge when delivering the judgment
observed that ASIC had failed to establish
their cause of action, exaggerated their
claims and quoted pieces of evidence out
of context in order to establish their
claims.
 It also comprehensively laid down the
Business Judgment defense in such
cases.
 The acts of the directors contained all the
elements of Section 180 (2) and thus
they could avail the business judgment

CONCLUSION
 To conclude when the directors of a
corporation are in breach of their duties
under common law and the provisions of
Section 180 (1) of the Corporations Act,
2001 the business judgment defense can
be availed.
 Jodee Rich and the other executive
directors had not failed to observe their
statutory and common law duties as
prescribed for directors of a corporation.

THANK YOU