| Abstrakt: |
The no-conflict rule and no-profit rule, which prevents directors from usurping a corporate opportunity in the UK, has caused much academic and judicial debate. Some academics have argued that the law is outdated, and the UK should adopt a more contemporary approach, such as that seen in the US State of Delaware. However, other academics have rebutted this suggestion by saying it is impractical and not fit for purpose. The Judiciary is limited in their decision-making due to the doctrine of stare decisis. However, few, having realised the often outdated and inflexible law they are bound by, have attempted to implement the contentious legal issue more flexibly. The purpose of this article is to examine if the current law in the UK is fit for purpose and if not, seek to determine if the approach adopted by Delaware is a model that could assist the UK in legal reform. In achieving this aim, the article will not merely emulate previous academic arguments which, primarily, adopt a theoretical viewpoint. Instead, it will evaluate how the current law impacts directors in a practical setting by considering a director's entrepreneurial acumen; the impact the law has on commercial objectives; and, highlight the weaknesses in the recently reformed 'board authorisation mechanism'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
