Fiduciary Duties of Officers case study ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS Analyze Business Case 40-3, “Fiduciary Duties of Officers,” located below. Prepare a profe

Fiduciary Duties of Officers case study ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Analyze Business Case 40-3, “Fiduciary Duties of Officers,” located below. Prepare a professional-caliber brief on the case.

Based on the case information provided:

State the facts of the case and the key issues.
Cite the code or statute provisions applicable to the case.
Determine whether the duties owed by officers and directors to a corporation and its shareholders have been breached in this instance, and explain your reasoning.
Express your main points, arguments, concepts, and information coherently and logically.

To support your brief:

Identify the duties that corporate directors and officers owe to a corporation and its shareholders. Cite relevant law.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Cover page: Include your name, the assignment number, and the assignment or case title.
Length: 1–2 double-spaced pages, not including the cover page.
Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12-point.
APA formatting: Format resources and citations according to current APA guidelines.

Cases:

40–3. Fiduciary Duty of Officers. Designer Surfaces, Inc., supplied countertops to homeowners who shopped at stores such as Lowe’s and Costco. The homeowners paid the store, which then contracted with Designer to fabricate and install the countertops. Designer bought materials from Ari- zona Tile, LLC, on an open account. Designer’s only known corporate officers were Howard Berger and John McCarthy. Designer became insolvent and could not pay Arizona Tile for all the materials it had purchased, including materials for which Designer had already received payment from the retail stores. Arizona Tile sued Designer and won a default judg- ment, but the company had no funds. Arizona Tile then sued Berger and McCarthy personally for diverting company funds that Designer had received in trust for payment to Arizona Tile. Arizona Tile argued that the use of the funds for other purposes was a breach of fiduciary duty. Berger and McCarthy argued that corporate law imposed neither a fiduciary duty on corporate officers nor personal liability for breach of a duty to suppliers of materials. Which argument is more credible, and why? [Arizona Tile, LLC v. Berger, 223 Ariz. 491, 224 P.3d 988 (Ariz.App. 2010)]