In this case, the concept of duty fundamental good faith fiduciary duty owed to the company is clear and we got 100 of years demonstrating that if u breach that duty u have to account for the profit. Look down to tick all boxes , they claim substantial, chance of recovery good, both in christchurch, easy enough to track down. It is good to deter directors and therefore thorington can sue on behalf of the company and therefore irish hospitality had to essentially would be found to be holding those profits and trusts for irish optimism and simply hung it over? That way thorington gets to indirectly benefits. But it is not about himself it is about the harm done to the company. If there was a upskill point of law, then prudent business person might not be going there. If the chances of recovery are small, will mcans push of to the states. Changes of recovery is small, any of those tweeking factors and we can get diff outcomes. But overall go to the exercise,ticking the boxes and make overall decision but the strong one is the prudent business person likely to pursue this