Please review 2 articles and provide an explanation as per requested

ROLE OF DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY IN AUSTRALIA
Table of Contents
Introduction    3
Duties of Director    3
Defence of the Director    5
The Legal Framework    7
Conclusion    9
References    10
Introduction
Every organization follows a hierarchy system, which monitors the organizational operations and function. The organizations need to follow legal obligations and government norms for the operation. Hence, all the major decisions regarding the company operation and the legal procedures need to be framed and directed by the director of the company, within the organization. There are many roles and duties that need to be followed by the directors which protects the company from facing financial losses, avoiding company from legalities and criminal prosecutions and making sure the company operates in a proper manner. In this article the detailed discussion was made with respect to the director duties, with respect to the Australian trading and securities. The discussions will be made with respect to the defence options available to the director in any kind of legal disputes, with respect to the operation. Lastly the discussion will be made with respect to the present Australian legal framework that governs the illegal phoenix activities.
Duties of Director
In every organization there is a presence of director, or more than one director. The responsibility of the director as discussed by Langford (2019) is very much strict in Australia, with respect to the rest of countries in the world. The liabilities of the director are greater, as they must deal with any kind of unwanted situation, which may occur at any moment. The crisis does affect the future earnings and operations of the company; however, the Australian regulators have indicated that the directors of the company are responsible for continuing with the trade. The absence of the government fiscal support does create problem for the directors. Haluttunen et al. (2019) have discussed that the directors of Australian companies are entitled to several core duties, which are imposed at general law and under the Corporations Act. The duties followed by the directors are as follows:
· The directors need to handle their job responsibilities with reasonable care, diligence and skill
· The directors are required to act in a good faith, for the best interest of the company
· The directors must act without any kind of conflict in duties, or any interest, that will result in any kind of personal advantage, or any kind of loss to the company
· The director owes a fiduciary duty to the company, which states that he/ she must act in their duty honestly, in a good faith and to the best of his/ her ability for the interest of the company. Section 181(1) states the director must work in good faith and in best interest
There are certain actions against the directors, if they breach the statutory and the general laws during their duties. The actions are:
· The directors will be asked to pay a compensation to the company, because of the uncapped and demands on the loss involving the shareholders or the creditors.
· The orders will also require the directors to pay the penalty during the loss.
· The directors may be removed from managing the company activities for a certain period.
· The directors may also have to face a fine or they may be imprisoned for being reckless in their activities or they are being intentionally dishonest in breaching the activities.
In a recent incident of Cassimatis vs Australian Securities and Investment Commission (2020), where the directors have breached the law of the company and they have also breached their own duties, causing the company a huge loss (Langford, 2020). The decision taken by the directors had led the company to suffer a huge loss, which can be considered as negligence or breach of the rules and laws of the company, resulting into a huge loss. The executive directors have breached the 180(1) act of the Corporations Act, by advising vulnerable investors, causing loss to the company. In the second instance the decisions taken by the directors were not aligned with the best interest of the company. Therefore, in this scenario it can be concluded that, to avoid such incidents, the directors would have followed the guidelines proposed by the Corporations Act, which would have not allowed bad investment to the company and that would have also not breached the company’s rules and regulations. Following the company guidelines will protect the interest and integrity of the company. Gelter and Helleringer (2018) have discussed that the directors of the company need to have a positive duty under s588G of the Corporation Act, in order to prevent any kind of trading in the company, while the company is in insolvency. However, if the duty is breached and the directors of the company are unable to take advantage of a defence, such as by appointing a voluntary administrator, as to prevent the company from incurring any kind of debt, or else the director could use the safe harbour, which is available under the s588GA, as to pursue a viable restructuring attempt under the guidance of an expert capable of restructuring. Failing to adhere to the above-mentioned directives, the criminal liability will arise, if any kind of debts are incurred because of the dishonest activity by the directors.
Defence of the Director
In any situation of conflict between the director of the company and the management, there are several grounds available to the directors to defend themselves. Williams and Blum (2018) have discussed that the director can make an appeal based on the legal grounds and the directives issued by Australian Securities and...