The actions of Tim in coercing the financial controller are unethical and he has also seriously breached his duties as director. Tim was given major responsibility to handle finance and operations of the company. Therefore, Tim was responsible for any issue or mistake in the finance and operations of the company as per company’s agreement during the appointment. This happened because Tim being line manager of the company did not have this information or in spite of having the information he ignored the debt threat that existed. Here it can be said that Tim did not meet his director duties. In the case of Daniels v Anderson an objective standard that has to be met by the person who is in the position of director has been given. The CLERP amendments however added the provisions under section 180(1) stating that a director must ensure that their duties and responsibilities are discharged in a way that would be similar to any other reasonable person (presumably with the same qualifications) would do if they were to be the director of the stated corporation and had held the same responsibilities (Allens, 2003). In this case it can be said that any other person in Tim’s position would have adhered to the responsibilities laid out when he took up his job which is that the credit policy has to be strictly enforced. Second the case study indicates that Tim was the line manager for the company’s Financial Controller who in turn is directly responsible for the financial activities, cash flow, the credit policy and others. The Financial controller hence is a person who knows the seriousness of the debt issues that might rise when the credit policy is not enforced, despite this Tim is seen to have threatened the Financial controller to have the credit policy changed (not enforce it as such, but change it so as to make the company pile up on its debts). This is not an action that someone in Tim’s designation and standing would choose to do. Even if the person did not understand the debt situation, they would have adhered to the advice of the financial controller given that the person (Tim in this case) was a new recruit. However Tim as alleged by his previous employer is seen to be overstating competence. The negligence of director duties makes Tim directly liable for the choice of increasing credit cap and the number of days for the dues to be paid.