KansasDragon
 |
You're using the wrong word. You should be asking if they are "responsible".
They may not be the blame for an issue, if they did not cause the issue, but they are the responsible parties, due to their control of the company.
Their responsibility is to oversee the company, and to address issues, as they are made aware of them.
Example: If your 5 year old child steals candy from a store, you are not necessarily to blame as the parent, but you are 100% responsible.
As far as legal issues, if the board acts swiftly and decisively to correct issues as soon as they are aware of the issues, they can most commonly remove "blame" from themselves, since they acted "responsibly".
So, to answer your question, NO, they should not shoulder the blame, but yes, they should shoulder 100% responsibility. |
David K
 |
The problem with directors they have never really got there hands dirty, they just sit and smoke fat cigars all day and let the average men and women do all the hard work associated with most busineses, so when there's a financial f**k up i believe it is there responsibility because they should be paying more attention to whats going on...
e.g bank clerk - £15,000pa banks accountant £60,000pa - director £400,000pa theres a big difference in salary's but the man who's on 60 grand can make or break a business over night so answer me this...what does a director REALLY do for his cambridge education and his 400 grand? |
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Corporations 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
