← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case duty of care skill diligence s174

ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8)

(2016) 336 ALR 209
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtFederal Court of Australia
Year2016
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Directors breached their duty of care under s.180 Corporations Act by failing to prevent the company from providing inappropriate financial advice to retail clients.

Key Principle

The FCA held that directors of a financial services company breached their duty of care under s.180 of the Corporations Act by failing to prevent the company from providing inappropriate financial advice to retail clients.

Area of Law

corporate

Related Cases

Tornetta v Musk C.A. No. 2018-0408-KSJM (Del. Ch. 2024)

Board compensation decisions favouring a controlling stockholder require entire fairness review; subsequent stockholder ratification does not restore business judgment deference.

Slack Technologies LLC v Pirani 598 U.S. 759 (2023)

Section 11 of the Securities Act requires plaintiffs to trace their shares to the allegedly misleading registration statement; claims fail where shares cannot be so traced in a direct listing.

In re Tesla Motors Inc Stockholder Litigation CA No. 12711-VCS (Del. Ch. 2023)

Delaware Court of Chancery rescinded Elon Musk's $55.8bn compensation package as an unfair self-dealing transaction where the board lacked independence and failed the entire fairness standard.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) and how it applies to your situation.

Explain ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8)