Introduction With a critique of high executive compensations, specifically evident in the time of recessions. It can be understood that part of these compensations are payments for the challenges and the opportunities such positions present. Operating with information, which is worth of millions of dollars, it is assumed that a high compensation packages justifies the risk of working with such information, as well as preventing the possibilities of misuse. Nevertheless, in the light of many published scandals in the mass media, it can be seen that, even high compensations and premiums is not a universal panacea for corporate misconduct by directors and executive officers. In that regard, this paper provides a case study of a corporate misconduct, based on the scandal involving Mitchel S. Guttenberg, the former executive director at UBS, a financial services firm. Fiduciary Duties It can be stated that the fiduciary duties of directors are the most demanding, where these duties are not specified to a single aspect of the position, but rather “an all encompassing duty” (“Directors’ Statutory and Fiduciary Duties”). In that regard, it can be added to the main condition of preferring company’s interests over his/her own interest, that the fiduciary duties implies not placing oneself in a condition, where own interests will be preferred, or conflicted with the interests of the company. Simply explained, the duty implies that the fiduciary is not entitled to make a profit out of his position, where under the common law he/she “has to act bona fide in the interests of the company and not for any collateral purpose” (“Directors’ Statutory and Fiduciary Duties”). Such position of avoiding placing oneself in situations of conflicting interests is driven by the fact that directors have the necessary power to do so. In that regard, such power can be expressed through the common characteristics of the situations in which the fiduciary duties are imposed, and through which it can be seen their applicability to directors’ positions. These characteristics are: the scope of the fiduciary to exercise power, the ability to exercise such power to affect “beneficiary’s legal or practical interests”, and the vulnerability of the beneficiary to the fiduciary holding such power (Carroll, Horswill and Ross). UBS Scandal The scandal revolved around the allegations of the prosecutions that Mitchel Guttenberg gained more than $1 million by selling confidential stock research. Although 12 others were arrested, the executive position of Guttenberg was assumingly the main factor in charging him with masterminding such trading scheme (“UBS: Notes on a Wall Street Scandal”). It can be seen that the breach of duty occurred on several levels included in the fiduciary duty of his position. On the one hand, Guttenberg preferred his own interest over the interests of the company, where the main activity of the UBS company includes offering “a range of tailored advice and investment services” to clients (“UBS: Notes on a Wall Street Scandal”). The interests of the company can be seen through the reservation of confidential information, as well as its usage to the benefit of the company. Accordingly, the reputation of the company, which was entrusted to Guttenberg, can be seen as one of its main interests. In that regard, the fact of revealing the upcomi