Mr. Peter James Shafron, the appellant, attempted to presented his appeal as raising three questions. Mr. Shafron first questioned the definition of the term “officer”. He enquires about what aspects directly applied to himself. Once the court responded he question whether he adequately exercised the appropriate actions in both situation. In my opinion it is clear that Mr. Shafron clearly beached s.180 (1) of the Corporations Act 2001. As explained above the director as any other involved in the company is to seek and act to improve the company. Directors must actively practice diligence and care throughout their duties. At first he arguers of his obligations as an officer but it clearly states that in fact he was an officer and per the definition
