The Curious Murder of Rasputin

The mysterious  Grigory Efimovich Rasputin, a peasant who claimed powers of healing and prediction, had the ear of Russian Czarina Alexandra. The aristocracy held negative views about a peasant in such a high position, and peasants disliked the rumors that the czarina was sleeping with such a scoundrel. Rasputin was seen as the dark force who was ruining Mother Russia. To save the monarchy, several members of the aristocracy conspired to murder Rasputin. On the night of Dec. 16, 1916, they tried. The plan was simple. Yet on that fateful night, the conspirators found that killing Rasputin would be very difficult indeed. The Mad Monk Czar Nicholas II and Czarina Alexandra, the emperor and empress of Russia, had tried for years to give birth to a male heir. After four girls were born, the royal couple was desperate. They called in many mystics and holy men. Finally, in 1904, Alexandra gave birth to a baby boy, Aleksei Nikolayevich. Unfortunately, the boy who had been the answer to their prayers was afflicted with the royal disease, hemophilia. Every time Aleksei began to bleed, it would not stop. The royal couple became frantic to find a cure for their son. Again, mystics, holy men, and healers were consulted. Nothing helped until 1908, when Rasputin was called upon to aid the young czarevich during one of his bleeding episodes. Rasputin was a peasant born in the Siberian town of Pokrovskoye on Jan. 10, probably in the year 1869. Rasputin underwent a religious transformation around the age of 18 and spent three months in the Verkhoturye Monastery. When he returned to Pokrovskoye he was a changed man. Though he married Proskovia Fyodorovna and had three children with her (two girls and a boy), he began to wander as a strannik (pilgrim or wanderer). During his wanderings, Rasputin traveled to Greece and Jerusalem. Though he often traveled back to Pokrovskoye, he found himself in St. Petersburg in 1903. By then he was proclaiming himself a starets, or holy man who had healing powers and could predict the future. When Rasputin was summoned to the royal palace in 1908, he proved he had a healing power. Unlike his predecessors, Rasputin was able to help the boy. How he did it is still greatly disputed. Some people say that Rasputin used hypnotism; others say Rasputin didnt know how to hypnotize. Part of Rasputins continued mystique is the remaining question as to whether he really had the powers he claimed. Having proven his holy powers to Alexandra, however, Rasputin did not remain just the healer for Aleksei; Rasputin soon became Alexandras confidant and personal adviser. To the aristocrats, having a peasant advising the czarina, who in turn held a great deal of influence over the czar, was unacceptable. In addition, Rasputin loved alcohol and sex, both of which he consumed in excess. Though Rasputin appeared to be a pious and saintly holy man in front of the royal couple, others saw him as a sex-craved peasant who was ruining Russia and the monarchy. It didnt help that Rasputin was having sex with women in high society in exchange for granting political favors, nor that many in Russia believed Rasputin and the czarina were lovers and wanted to make a separate peace with the Germans; Russia and Germany were enemies during World War I. Many people wanted to get rid of Rasputin. Attempting to enlighten the royal couple about the danger they were in, influential people approached both Nicholas and Alexandra with the truth about Rasputin and the rumors that were circulating. To everyones great dismay, they both refused to listen. So who was going to kill Rasputin before the monarchy was completely destroyed? The Murderers Prince Felix Yusupov seemed an unlikely murderer. Not only was he the heir to a vast family fortune, but he also was married to the czars niece Irina, a beautiful young woman. Yusupov  was also considered very good looking, and with his looks and money, he was able to indulge in his fancies. His fancies usually were in the form of sex, much of which was considered perverse at the time, especially transvestism and homosexuality. Historians think that these attributes helped Yusupov  ensnare Rasputin. Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich was Czar Nicholas IIs cousin. Pavlovich was once engaged to the czars eldest daughter, Olga Nikolaevna, but his continued friendship with the homosexually inclined Yusupov made the royal couple break off the engagement. Vladimir Purishkevich was an outspoken member of the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament. On Nov. 19, 1916, Purishkevich made a rousing speech in the Duma, in which he said, The czars ministers who have been turned into marionettes, marionettes whose threads have been taken firmly in hand by Rasputin and the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna—the evil genius of Russia and the czar...who has remained a German on the Russian throne and alien to the country and its people. Yusupov  attended the speech and afterward  contacted Purishkevich, who quickly agreed to participate in the murder of Rasputin. Others involved were  Lt. Sergei Mikhailovich Sukhotin, a convalescing young officer of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. Dr. Stanislaus de Lazovert was a friend and Purishkevichs physician. Lazovert was added as the fifth member because they needed someone to drive the car. The Plan The plan was relatively simple. Yusupov was to befriend Rasputin and then lure Rasputin to the Yusupov palace to be killed. Since Pavlovich was busy every night until December 16 and Purishkevich was leaving on a hospital train for the front on December 17, it was decided that the murder would be committed on the night of the 16th and in the early morning hours of the 17th. As for what time, the conspirators wanted the cover of night to hide the murder and the disposal of the body. Plus, Yusupov noticed that Rasputins apartment wasnt guarded after midnight. It was decided that Yusupov would pick up Rasputin at his apartment at half past midnight. Knowing  Rasputins  love of sex, the conspirators would use Yusupovs beautiful wife, Irina, as bait. Yusupov would tell Rasputin that he could meet her at the palace with the innuendo of a possible sexual liaison. Yusupov wrote his wife, who was staying at their home in the Crimea, to ask her to join him in this important event. After several letters, she wrote back in the beginning of December in hysteria saying that she couldnt follow through with it. The conspirators then had to find a way to lure Rasputin without actually having Irina there. They decided to keep Irina as a lure  but fake her presence. Yusupov and Rasputin would enter a side entrance of the palace with stairs leading down to the basement so that no one could see them enter or leave the palace. Yusupov was having the basement refurbished as a cozy dining room. Since the Yusupov palace was along the Moika Canal and across from a police station, using guns was not possible for fear of them being heard. Thus, they decided to use poison. The dining room in the basement would be set up as if several guests had just left it in a hurry. Noise would be coming from upstairs as if Yusupovs wife was entertaining unexpected company. Yusupov would tell Rasputin that his wife would come down once her guests had left. While waiting for Irina, Yusupov would offer Rasputin potassium cyanide-laced pastries and wine. They needed to make sure that no one knew that Rasputin was going with Yusupov to his palace. Besides urging Rasputin not to tell anyone of his rendezvous with Irina, the plan was for Yusupov to pick up Rasputin via the back stairs of his apartment. Finally, the conspirators decided that they would call the restaurant/inn Villa Rhode on the night of the murder to ask if Rasputin was there yet, hoping to make it seem that he was expected there but never showed up. After Rasputin was killed, the conspirators were going to wrap up the body in a rug, weigh it down, and throw it into a river. Since winter had already come, most of the rivers near St. Petersburg were frozen. The conspirators spent a morning looking for a suitable hole in the ice to dump the body. They found one on the Malaya Nevka River. The Setup In November, about a month before the murder, Yusupov contacted Maria Golovina, a longtime friend of his who also happened to be close to Rasputin. He complained that  he had been having chest pains that doctors had been unable to cure. She immediately suggested that he should see Rasputin for his healing powers, as Yusupov knew she would. Golovina arranged for them both to meet at her apartment. The contrived friendship began, and Rasputin began calling Yusupov by a nickname, Little One. Rasputin and Yusupov met a number of times during November and December. Since Yusupov had told Rasputin that he didnt want his family to know about their friendship, it was agreed that Yusupov would enter and leave Rasputins apartment via a staircase in the back. Many have speculated that more than just healing went on at these sessions and that the two were sexually involved. At some point, Yusupov mentioned that his wife would be arriving from the Crimea in the middle of December. Rasputin showed interest in meeting her, so they arranged for Rasputin to meet Irina just after midnight on December 17. It was also agreed that Yusupov would pick Rasputin up and drop him off. For several months, Rasputin had been living in fear. He had been drinking even more heavily than usual and constantly dancing to Gypsy music to try to forget his terror. Numerous times, Rasputin mentioned to people that he was going to be killed. Whether this was a true premonition or whether he heard the rumors circulating around St. Petersburg is uncertain. Even on  Rasputins last day  alive, several people visited him to warn him to stay home and not go out. Around midnight on December 16, Rasputin changed clothes into a light blue shirt, embroidered with cornflowers and blue velvet pants. Though he had agreed not to tell anyone where he was going that night, he had actually told several people, including his daughter Maria and Golovina, who had introduced him to Yusupov. The Murder Near midnight, the conspirators all met at the Yusupov palace in the newly created basement dining room. Pastries and wine adorned the table. Lazovert put on rubber gloves and then crushed the potassium cyanide crystals into powder and placed some in the pastries and a small amount in two wine glasses. They left some pastries unpoisoned so that Yusupov could partake. After everything was ready, Yusupov and Lazovert went to pick up the victim. Around 12:30 a.m. a visitor arrived at Rasputins apartment via the back stairs. Rasputin greeted the man at the door. The maid was still awake and was looking through the kitchen curtains; she later said she saw that it was the Little One (Yusupov). The two men left in a car driven by a chauffeur, who was actually Lazovert. When they arrived at the palace, Yusupov took Rasputin to the side entrance and down the stairs to the basement dining room. As Rasputin entered the room he could hear noise and music upstairs, and Yusupov explained that Irina had been detained by unexpected guests but would be down shortly. The other conspirators waited until after Yusupov and Rasputin entered the dining room, then they stood by the stairs leading down to it, waiting for something to happen. Everything up to this point had been going to plan, but that didnt last much longer. While supposedly waiting for Irina, Yusupov offered Rasputin one of the poisoned pastries. Rasputin refused, saying they were too sweet. Rasputin wouldnt eat or drink anything. Yusupov started to panic and went upstairs to talk to the other conspirators. When Yusupov went back downstairs, Rasputin for some reason had changed his mind and agreed to eat the pastries. Then they started drinking the wine. Though potassium cyanide was supposed to have an immediate effect, nothing happened. Yusupov continued to chat with Rasputin, waiting for something to happen. Noticing a guitar in the corner, Rasputin asked Yusupov to play for him. The time wore on, and Rasputin wasnt showing any effects from the poison. It was now about 2:30 a.m. and Yusupov was worried. Again he made an excuse and went upstairs to talk with the other conspirators. The poison obviously wasnt working. Yusupov took a gun from Pavlovich and went back downstairs. Rasputin didnt notice that Yusupov had returned with a gun behind his back. While Rasputin was looking at a beautiful ebony cabinet, Yusupov said, Grigory Efimovich, you would do better to look at the crucifix and pray to It. Then Yusupov raised the pistol and fired. The other conspirators rushed down the stairs to see Rasputin lying on the ground and Yusupov standing over him with the gun. After a few minutes, Rasputin jerked convulsively and then fell still. Since Rasputin was dead, the conspirators went upstairs to celebrate and to wait for later in the night so that they could dump the body with no witnesses. Still Alive About an hour later, Yusupov felt an inexplicable need to go look at the body. He went back downstairs and felt the body. It still seemed warm. He shook the body. There was no reaction. When Yusupov started turning away, he noticed Rasputins left eye start to flutter open. He was still alive. Rasputin sprang to his feet and rushed at Yusupov, grabbing his shoulders and neck. Yusupov struggled to get free and finally did so. He rushed upstairs shouting, Hes still alive! Purishkevich was upstairs and had just put his Sauvage revolver in his pocket when he saw Yusupov come back up shouting. Yusupov was crazed with fear, [his]  face was literally gone, his handsome...eyes had come out of their sockets...[and] in a semi-conscious state...almost without seeing me, he rushed past with a crazed look. Purishkevich rushed down the stairs, only to find that Rasputin was running across the courtyard. As Rasputin was running, Purishkevich  yelled, Felix, Felix, Ill tell everything to the czarina. Purishkevich was chasing after him. While running, he fired his gun but missed. He fired again and missed again. And then he bit his hand to regain control of himself. Again he fired. This time the bullet found its mark, hitting Rasputin in the back. Rasputin stopped, and Purishkevich fired again. This time the bullet hit Rasputin in the head. Rasputin fell. His head was jerking, but he tried to crawl. Purishkevich had caught up now and kicked Rasputin in the head. Enter the Police Police officer  Vlassiyev  was standing on duty on Moika Street and heard what sounded like three or four shots in quick succession. He headed over to investigate. Standing outside the Yusupov palace he saw two men crossing the courtyard, recognizing them as Yusupov and his servant Buzhinsky. He asked them if they had heard any gunshots, and Buzhinsky answered that he had not. Thinking it had probably just been a car backfiring, Vlassiyev went back to his post. Rasputins body was brought in and placed by the stairs that led to the basement dining room. Yusupov grabbed a 2-pound dumbbell and began indiscriminately hitting Rasputin with it. When others finally pulled Yusupov off Rasputin, the would-be assassin was splattered with blood. Yusupovs servant Buzhinsky then told Purishkevich about the conversation with the policeman. They were worried that the officer might tell his superiors what he had seen and heard. They sent for the policeman to come back to the house. Vlassiyev recalled that when he entered the palace, a man asked him, Have you ever heard of Purishkevich? To which the policeman replied, I have. I am Purishkevich. Have you ever heard of Rasputin? Well, Rasputin is dead. And if you love our Mother Russia, youll keep quiet about it. Yes, sir. And then they let the policeman go. Vlassiyev waited about 20 minutes and then told his superiors everything he had heard and seen. It was amazing and shocking, but after being poisoned, shot three times, and beaten with a dumbbell, Rasputin was still alive. They bound his arms and legs with rope and wrapped his body in a heavy cloth. Since it was almost dawn, the conspirators were now hurrying to dispose of the body. Yusupov stayed at home to clean himself up. The rest of them placed the body in the car, sped off to their chosen location, and heaved Rasputin over the side of the bridge, but they forgot to weigh him down with weights. The conspirators split up and went their separate ways, hoping that they had gotten away with murder. The Next Morning In the morning of Dec. 17, Rasputins daughters woke to find that their father had not returned from his late-night rendezvous with the Little One. Rasputins niece, who had also been living him, called Golovina to say that her uncle had not yet returned. Golovina called Yusupov  but was told he was still sleeping. Yusupov later returned the phone call to say that he hadnt seen Rasputin at all the previous night. Everyone in the Rasputin household knew this was a lie. The police officer who had talked to Yusupov and Purishkevich had told his superior, who in turn told his superior, about the events seen and heard at the palace. Yusupov realized that there was a lot of blood outside, so he shot one of his dogs and placed its corpse on top of the blood. He claimed that a member of his party had thought it was a funny joke to shoot the dog. That didnt fool the policemen. There was too much blood for a dog, and more than one shot was heard. Plus, Purishkevich had told Vlassiyev that they had killed Rasputin. The Czarina was informed, and an investigation was opened immediately. It was obvious to the police early on who the murderers were. There just wasnt a body yet. Finding theBody On Dec. 19, police began looking for a body near the Great Petrovsky Bridge on the Malaya Nevka River, near where a bloody boot had been found the day before. There was a hole in the ice, but they couldnt find the body. Looking a little farther downstream, they came upon the corpse floating in another hole in the ice. When they pulled him out, they found Rasputins hands were frozen in a raised position, leading to the belief that he had still been alive under the water and had tried to untie the rope around his hands. Rasputins body was taken by car to the Academy of Military Medicine, where an autopsy was conducted. The autopsy results showed: Alcohol, but no poison was found.Three bullet wounds. (The  first bullet entered the chest on the left, hitting Rasputins stomach and liver; the second bullet entered the back on the right, hitting the kidneys; the third bullet entered the head, hitting the brain.)A small amount of water was found in the lungs. The body was buried at the Feodorov Cathedral in Tsarskoe Selo on Dec. 22, and a small funeral was held. What Happened Next? While the accused murderers were under house arrest, many people visited and wrote them letters congratulating them. The accused murderers were hoping for a trial because that would ensure that they would become heroes. Trying to prevent just that, the czar stopped the inquiry and ordered that there be no trial. Though their good friend and confidant had been murdered, their family members were among the accused.   Yusupov was exiled. Pavlovich was sent to Persia to fight in the war. Both survived the Russian Revolution of 1917 and World War I.   Though Rasputins relationship with the czar and czarina had weakened the monarchy, Rasputins death came too late to reverse the damage. If anything, the murder of a peasant by aristocrats sealed the fate of the Russian monarchy. Within three months, Czar Nicholas abdicated, and about a year later the entire Romanov family was also murdered. Sources Rasputin: The Saint Who Sinned, by Brian Moynahan; 1998  The Rasputin File, translated by Judson Rosengrant; 2000

Analysis Of The Article Of Margery Kempe - 1216 Words

The Woman in White: Reduction to Appearance Body in; The Book of Margery Kempe by Margery Kempe For all of time society has been incredibly judgmental of women’s clothing, among every other aspect of their lives. The Medieval time period was restrictive towards women’s clothing and bodies due to widespread beliefs that women must be held to a higher standard. Women were taught to be bashful when it came to their bodies during the Medieval time period, as explained in Representation of Women’s Emotions in Medieval and Early Modern Culture by Lisa Renee Perfetti. Angelic or in mourning, Margery Kemp’s change in attire between white and black impacts her relations with those around her. The Book of Margery Kempe by Margery Kempe portrays the reduction to appearance and body based on Margery’s attire. Reduction to Body, â€Å"the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts† (feminist perspectives on objectification), can be seen throughout Medieval England and Margery Kempe’s autobiography. The female body especially, has undergone immense scrutiny for simply existing, genitelia often referred to as â€Å"shamefuls†(Allen 191). Margery’s disinterest in being sexual is based on the idea that God will love her more if she were to refrain from sex, just as a virgin might. But this may not be her only encouragement because â€Å"there are certain occasions when the women’s shame is strictly social† (Allen 193). Margery may be choosing to live chastely with John for the

Essay About Racism In America Example For Students

Essay About Racism In America If someone asked you what it would be like to live in a perfect world,how would you reply? Many people might say something like, A place withoutand arguments or fighting. Others might say A place where there is notpollution. But, has anyone one ever thought to say, A place withoutracism.? For some Americans, racism has never even crossed their minds. Forothers, it is something they have to live with everyday. In some societies inAmerica, racism isnt even a factor, all citizens of the community get along. But, in other societies, racism is a case that could be life threatening. Racism, in definition, is the belief that humanity is divided into stratifiedgenetically different socks called races; according to its adherentsracial differences make one group superior to another. (Ethics; Walker,Randolph Meade, 722) If you are a racist, you believe in racism. Racists willoften claim that members of their own race or minority are mentally,physically, morally and/or culturally superior to those of other races. (TheWorld Book Encyclopedia; Pettigrew, Thomas F., 62) For these reasons, manyracists think they deserve special rights or privileges. The Bill of Rights waswritten a little under 200 years ago, yet controlling racism in America is stilla task no one can seem to over take. In South Carolina, a Confederate flag stillwaves high over the capitol for everyone to see. Is the kind of example we wantto set for the youth of America? To people in Europe, Asia, and on othercontinents, America is a wonderful place to live. It has been said to be oneof the greatest natio ns on earth. (Nova; Marshall, Christopher) Yet, ourstruggle to regulate all of our citizens is a revolutionary war that has yet toand probably will never be won. Slavery is said to be one of the greatest racialtragedies to ever happen in America. Upon the entrance of this new millenium,slavery and racism is still practiced in America. White Americans have theirforefathers to blame for the hatred and anger they have in their heartsconcerning races different from theirs. What is said to be the God-givenright to equality and ultimate freedom (Nova; Marshall, Christopher) has beencrushed for many, by the uncited ignorance of my ?finely educated people. Racists often need someone to blame for the wrong-doings, hatred and stupidityin America. Who better to blame than someone with skin of a different color?Racism is just another form of prejudice. If a person or group of people acts ordresses differently, these people may get distrusted or disowned. Many people donot recognize the good qualities that another group possess. White Americans arethe main directors of racism against ethnic minority groups. Most whiteAmericans are unaware of how self destructive racism can be. (Nova; Marshall,Christopher) Does America need an AWAKENING? Would it do any good? If you wereto put yourself in the shoes of an African American, an American Indian, aPuerto Ricanyou might say that American is in definite a major make-overconcerning all races. Two white students were suspended for assaulting AfricanAmerican students at Millard High School in Omaha, Neb. And a third whitestudent was threatened by other whites for associating with the schools 25blacks. (CQ Researcher; Phillips, Susan, 3) Are you ready for that make-over?Many white students, for example, believe that blacks now have equal access to acollege education (CQ Researcher; Phillips, Susan, 4) Or do you thinkeveryone is over reacting on this whole issue? A real issue some people have,concerns the police and reporters. Reporters often use the terms allegedkilling and alleged racism in their columns. Since when has abeheading been known as anything else other than murderyou dontaccidentally behead someone (Media Watch; Boyce, Kesha) With the policeinvestigating whether this is a hate crime or not has made manynon-racists and African Americans quite angry. Since when has two white mendousing a black man with gasoline and setting him on fire not been a hatecrime (Media Watch; Boyce, Kesha) I just want you to know, as you arefinishing reading this report-I did not write it to change your mind or make youbiased in one way or another toward racism. I just wanted open your eyes t o someof the disturbing things going on in your great nation, and possibly right inyour own back yard, at your childs school, even in your workplace. Shootingshappen everyday, but beheadings dont. If this is supposed to be the year whenAmerica and everybody is supposed to re-evaluate the issues of racethenwhat the heck is going on (Media Watch; Boyce, Kesha) Are your eyes openwide?

Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance. Answer: Introduction The case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler (2002) 168 FLR 253, 364; 41 ACSR 72, acts as a reminded to all the directors and the companies, that they have the responsibility of making certain that there is a need for an effective corporate governance framework (Hooper, 2011). This framework is needed to protect the companies from any improper actions, which can be taken by the director of such a company. There is a need to have ample amount of checks and balances to guarantee that the system is not breached or bypassed with ease (Paolini, 2014). This was a very complicated, yet unique case, involving the breach of a number of duties covered in the governing act of Corporations Act, 2001 (CA). Some of the duties breached in this case were related to the duty of care and diligence, duty to not use the information in an improper manner, and the duties of the director (Baxt, 2005). In the following parts, this case has been discussed using the IRAC format. Though, before that is carried on, a discussion has been made on the background of this case. In this particular case, an undocumented and unsecured payment to the amount of $10 million loan was made by HIHC (HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd) to PEE (Pacific Eagle Equity Pty Ltd). Adler controlled this company PEE ad this in turn, was the trustee of AEUT (Australian Equities Unit Trust). Alder was both the substantial shareholder of HIH and the non-executive director through the Adler Corporation Limited. PEE became AEUTs trustee after the loan was received by it. Afterwards, the $10 million loan to PEE by HIHC was applied for the subscription of HIHC, for $10 million worth of AEUT units (Justis, 2017). A purchase was made by PEE for the shares of HIH, which were listed on the stock market, to the value of $4 million. And these shares of HIH were then sold by PEE at a loss of $2 million. The shares of HIH were purchased by PEE to give an untrue impression to the entire stock market that the investors of HIH were gaining due to the good work being varied on in the company. A purchase was also made by PEE from Adler Corporation towards their unlisted shares worth $ 4 million, of the technology and communication companies. This entire purchase was a complete loss based investment (Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2017). Under the trust, a value of $ 2 million was given by AEUT to Adler. However, the board had no knowledge about these transactions and an approval of the shareholders was also not done. This was in addition to an absence of disclosure to the board, along with the same to the investment committee of HIH. There was also a lack of the proper documentation and security for the loan given. The rationale for the absence of these was to avoid an attention being drawn by the other directors of HIH (Cassidy, 2006). Whether there has been a breach of directors duties on part of Adler, and other directors and officers, or not? Section 9 of the Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth) defines who can be deemed as a director of the company. As per this definition, an individual who is appointed to work as a director or an alternative director, irrespective of the name given to their position, is a director of the company. Even though an individual may not be appointed as a director, they can still act as the director of the company. This is the case of de factor director, where the individual acts in the directors position; or the shadow director, on whose instructions, the board is accustomed to act. There has to be an existence of the duties of directors to hold the individual responsible and to safeguard the shareholders. The officers of the company are also defined through this section, and involve such executives, who hold the senior position in the company, at the board level. They have the power of affecting the business of the company, either wholly or partly. And hence, have the same duties as the directors of the company (Federal Register of Legislation, 2017). Section 180(1) of CA puts forward the duty on the directors, along with the other officers of the company to use their authority and discharge their obligations in a manner which shows diligence and care, which any prudent individual would undertake in similar situation and with similar position. The executive directors of the company are involved in the daily management of the company. Hence, they have special responsibilities in their position; along with that they have a knowledge pertaining to the companys operations. Alternatively, the non-executive directors indulge in part time work for the company and have regular, but not daily based involvement with the company (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017a). Section 180(2) of this act provides that the directors, along with the other officers of the company, when make a business judgment rule, cannot be held accountable for the judgment undertaken by them as per the equitable, statutory or common law duty of care and diligence, where the elements can be easily established. These elements relate to taking the decision for a proper purpose and in good faith, where there is an absence of material personal interest in the issue of judgment. Moreover, there is a need to be informed about the matter on which the decision is being taken and undertaking the reasonable steps to ensure that the decision is reasonable and that the decision is in the best interest of the company (WIPO, 2015). Through these provisions, the directors are given a protection from the personal liability in the matter where they have taken a business judgment in best interest of the company and in good faith. The rationale behind the same is that certain decisions may turn out to be loss making and other as profit making, even when both are made in a rational and honest manner (Gonski, 2015). Section 181 of this act puts a statutory obligation on the directors, along with the other officers of the company, to act in the best interest, good faith and for proper purpose, while using their authority and discharging their obligations (Armstrong Lawyers, 2007). For establishing what can be deemed as interest, good faith or the proper purpose, the approach of a reasonable individual in same situation is undertaken. For instance, when a conflict of interest occurs and the directors deals with the matter on behalf of the company also, and fails to disclose the material interest, a breach of this section would take place (ICNL, 2017). As per section 182 of CA, the employees and the officers are prohibited from using the position in the company, which is detrimental for the company or which results in an advantage being gained for them or for someone else. Section 183 contains the provisions regarding the proper use of information. as per this section, the officers and directors of the company are forbidden from making a misuse of the information of the company which is detrimental for the company or which results in an advantage being gained for them or for someone else (Plessis, Hargovan and Bagaric, 2010). Section 208 of CA provides that an approval of shareholders is needed when a financial benefit is discharged towards a related party. The only exception is when the same is done at arms length (IMF, 2012). In this particular case, Adler is the director of the company as per the definition given in section 9 of the act, even though he had not been appointed as being an officer or director of the company. The decision making on part of Adler can be seen from his role in the subsidiary, the holding as being the director and as being the investment committees member and his decisions impact the business of the company. He was constantly informed about the fundamental of the business, which made him the director of the company (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017b). William was the HIH and HIHCs managing director and there was a contravention of provisions of 180(1) on his part. This is because he failed to protect HIHC while the loan was being given to PEE. HIHs finance director Fodera breached this section as he did not discuss the proposal for giving the loan to the amount to $ 10 million to PEE, or to the investment committee and board of HIH. So, being the executive directors of the company, there was a breach on part of William and Fodera, as they both fell short in carrying their role in a proper manner (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017b). Regarding section 180(1), there had been a breach on part of Williams, Fodera and Adler as they failed to take the requisite care. Moreover, reliance could not be made by the three of them as per section 180(2) of this act. This is because for Adler, this rule could not be applied on him. The reasons for this being his conflict of interest position, due to the decision for investing $10 million in PEE from HIHC. For Williams, this rule could not defend him as there was a failure on his part, to make certain that the proper safeguards had been applied and there was no business judgment undertaken by him for satisfying section 180(3). Even if the same is considered as a business judgment, the presence of material personal interest renders it useless. He failed to act for a proper purpose or in good faith to satisfy the obligation of section 180(2) (a) (Armstrong Lawyers, 2007). Fodera also cannot use this defense as he failed to refer transaction undertaken between PEE and HIH to the b oard or investment committee of HIH (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017b). In this case, there was also a contravention section 181(1) as Adler did not discharge his obligations or use his authority in good faith of the company, or in the best interest of the same. This is evident from the transactions which took place in PEE, HIH and HIHC, where there was an improper use, for his personal interest (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017b). There was also a contravention of section 182 here on part of Adler. This stemmed from the arrangement made to HIHC to PEE regarding the $10 million loan, which was later on used for making an acquisition of the shares of HIH from the stock market. The sole purpose of undertaking this transaction was to support the increase of price in the shares of HIH and to later sell the same owned by Adler Corporation, before these could be sold off by PEE. This resulted in a total loss of investment on part of PEE regarding the share of HIH (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017b). Adler has made an improper use of his position by being HIHs and PEEs director, and the officer of HIHC for putting Adler Corporation in an advantageous position. There was also a breach on part of Williams for being director in HIHC and HIH as per section 182 for helping Adler in putting Adler Corporation in an advantageous position. The reason was that the loan payment was made in absence of the approval of investment committee of HIH, which was required on his part as per the investment guidelines of HIH (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017b). Adler wrongly used his position as being PEEs director for the acquisition of unlisted capital from Adler Corporation at a cost price where an independent valuation was not taken for these ventures. Due to the success of these transactions, both Adler Corporation and Adler were able to exclude themselves from the business operations which could be deemed as commercially unviable. Adler was aware about the cash flow problems which were being faced by these businesses and that each one of these had a major risk of collapsing ultimately. There was also a failure on part of Adler to disclose his personal interest to the board of Williams and Fodera. There was also a misuse of the information of the company, so section 183 was also breached (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017b). The transaction undertaken by Adler did not attain a shareholder approval as per section 208 of this act. Also, the same could not fulfill the exception of being at arms length. Hence, all three, i.e., Fodera, Adler and Williams breached this section of the act too (Segalla, 2017). Conclusion To summarize, the directors and other offices, in this case, failed to fulfill the provisions of the CA. And hence, deserve appropriate penalties, as levied by the court of law. References Armstrong Lawyers. (2007) Directors Duties. [Online] Armstrong Lawyers. Available from: https://www.vcta.asn.au/documents/item/400 [Accessed on: 30/04/17] Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2017a) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] Australasian Legal Information Institute. Available from: https://www.companydirectors.com.au/director-resource-centre/organisation-type/organisation-definitions [Accessed on: 30/04/17] Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2017b) ASIC v Adler and 4 Ors [2002] NSWSC 483 (30 May 2002). [Online] Australasian Legal Information Institute. Available from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2002/483.html?stem=0synonyms=0query=asic%20v%20adler [Accessed on: 30/04/17] Australian Institute of Company Directors. (2017) The AdlerWilliams cases on appeal Law Reporter. [Online] Australian Institute of Company Directors. Available from: https://www.companydirectors.com.au/director-resource-centre/publications/company-director-magazine/2000-to-2009-back-editions/2004/february/the-adlerwilliams-cases-on-appeal-law-reporter [Accessed on: 30/04/17] Baxt, R. (2007) Duties and Responsibilities of Directors and Officers. 19th ed. Sydney, NSW: The Australian Institute of Company Directors. Cassidy, J. (2006) Concise Corporations Law. 5th ed. NSW: The Federation Press. Federal Register of Legislation. (2017) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] Federal Register of Legislation. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00605 [Accessed on: 30/04/17] Gonski, D. (2015) I Gave a Gonski: Selected Speeches. London: Penguin UK. Hooper, M. (2011) The Business Judgment Rule: ASIC v Rich and the reasonable-rational divide. [Online] Bond University. Available from: https://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021context=cgej [Accessed on: 30/04/17] ICNL. (2017) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] ICNL. Available from: https://www.icnl.org/research/library/files/Australia/Corps2001Vol4WD02.pdf [Accessed on: 30/04/17] IMF. (2012) Australia: Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking SupervisionDetailed Assessment of Observance. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund. Justis. (2017) ASIC v Adler 4 Ors 2002. [Online] Justis. Available from: https://app.justis.com/case/asic-v-adler-4-ors/overview/c5CJn0CdnXWca [Accessed on: 30/04/17] Paolini, A. (2014) Research Handbook on Directors Duties. Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. Plessis, J.J.D., Hargovan, A., and Bagaric, M. (2010) Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Segalla, S. (2011) Checklist for directors' duties. [Online] Find Law. Available from: https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/1303/checklist-for-directors-duties.aspx [Accessed on: 30/04/17] WIPO. (2015) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] WIPO. Available from: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=370817 [Accessed on: 30/04/17]