Now this is applicable to only Mr. Foster and Mr. Dawes who is Directors of the company and can be considered to have duties equal to an officer. However Mr. Huckenfusser cannot be considered as an officer of the company. He is an audio visual technician who in assisting with the board meetings was present in the meetings and hence had come across the information. So he does not satisfy this criterion.
The proper use of information according to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 180(1) is that they should act with due care and diligence. They have to act in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose and not to misuse their power or position within the company. Information obtained on account of their position as a director or officer of the company hence must be governed by these elements and when they have not done so, it could be said that they have made improper use of that information. This is the case with the Directors of the company, and they have made improper use of the information.
Mr. Foster has made improper use of information as he has passed on information as intelligence to his new company. Similarly, Mr. Dawes had made use of this information in an improper way, by calling up his wife and asking her to buy the shares and asking her to sell it when in a subsequent meeting. The move to purchase was called off. Mr. Huckenfusser has made use of the information as a way to get out of his debt. So he knows that the information is of advantage and although he did not profit directly, by his improper use of that information has profited.
In the case of Mr. Foster and Mr. Dawes, the profit was for them and in the case of Mr. Huckenfusser. The profit was for both him and Mrs Duck. Mr. Huckenfusser profited because his debt was getting cancelled and Mrs Duck make a profit by buying and selling the shares at the right time.