Abstract

Corporate governance is not a new concept. In fact the last 15 years has seen a surge in academic publications and case law in relation to the lack of corporate governance. Research Gap is that Company Directors are attending a “mad hatters’ tea party” when it comes to the implementation of governance codes, with the recent spate of court cases involving breaches of directors fiduciary duties. Methodology used was review of case law using archival data. This research looks at the type of case law issues of corporate governance in Australia and in particular accountability, and relates the case law to the Corporations Act (2001) to find where company directors are getting corporate governance wrong. The findings indicate that perhaps the “if not why not” prescription, should not be an option for corporate governance for some Boards. For some Boards the invitation from Alice to jump down the rabbit hole into creative accounting and bad board behaviour at the “mad hatters’ tea party” is just too great an incentive. Implications show that this review of important corporate governance case law will assist Boards to concentrate their efforts on improving the environment they operate in, as good governance equates to good business. “In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again.” Carroll, Lewis (1865) Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

Highlights

  • Corporate governance is not a new concept

  • Lewis(1865), “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”. This leads to the Research Problem of “How have the Corporations Act (2001) for company directors duties and the corporate governance regimes recommended by ASX (2019), been complied with by listed companies in Australia in the last 10 years”

  • Research Question 1: Can the directors duties outlined in the Corporations Act (2001) relate to the Corporate Governance recommendations by the ASX (2019)? Research Question 2: What directors’ duties have been breached and resulted in court activity in the last 15 years? To address the research problem, an organised, systematic and logical process of research method, using secondary data will be used

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Corporate governance is not a new concept. the last 15 years has seen a surge in academic publications and case law in relation to the lack of corporate governance. Research Gap is that Company Directors are attending a “mad hatters’ tea party” when it comes to the implementation of governance codes, with the recent spate of court cases involving breaches of directors fiduciary duties. This research looks at the type of case law issues of corporate governance in Australia and in particular accountability, and relates the case law to the Corporations Act (2001) to find where company directors are getting corporate governance wrong. For some Boards the invitation from Alice to jump down the rabbit hole into creative accounting and bad board behaviour at the “mad hatters’ tea party” is just too great an incentive. Implications show that this review of important corporate governance case law will assist Boards to concentrate their efforts on improving the environment they operate in, as good governance equates to good business. Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002 (US) Combined Code Corporate Governance (UK) ASX Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice AS 8000 - 2003 Standards (Australia) CLERP 9 Act 2004 (Australia)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.