“The question is not whether, viewed objectively by the court, the particular act or omission which is challenged was in fact in the interests of the company; still less is the question whether the court, had it been in the position of the director at the relevant time, might have acted differently. Rather, the question is whether the director honestly believed that his act or omission was in the interests of the company”.
(Parker, J in Regentcrest plc v Cohen  2 BCLC 319)
Critically analyse this statement with reference to s.172 of the Companies Act 2006 and to relevant case law focusing in particular on the concept of “enlightened shareholder value”.
Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!