Talk:Due diligence/Archives/2013

2005: Merge? See Talk:Duty of care.

 * The 02:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC) revision of this talk page has missing signatures provided, multi-edit contributions noted, & apparently broken attempts at formatting fixed, but retains the previous order of contributions and the interleaving of the two topics, to support inspection of those original positionings to check the appropriateness of the reordering.

Merge? See Talk:Duty of care. ike9898 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC) ''The first contrib of the section now below at was originally placed at this point without a section heading (and, like the two previous contribs, without indentation). A number of subsequent contributors added to this section that eventually became titled "2005: Merge? See Talk:Duty of care", in a perhaps confused, and no doubt increasingly confusing fashion. The apparently mutually related contributions thru 29 October 2006 have been reorganized to reflect the probable intent of the contributors, whose determination involves both judgment and guesswork.''
 * Duty of Care is a US-centric term; certainly in the UK, Australia and NZ Due Diligence is the term used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.89.129 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2005
 * No, I don't think it is US-centric. "Due diligence" is the more well known term in the US as well.  My understanding is that the term used depends on the area of law.  I believe the term 'due care' is more common in tort law.  I think we need someone with legal training to sort this all out. ike9898 02:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Due Diligence is a term of art that has many meanings, no matter what the context - it has at least three commonly understood ones and I have just added the third --69.158.164.227 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think so either. To real estate investors/developers, due diligence means to do your home-work or research to determine if the property will be good or bad.  Duty of care is a term i'm not really familiar with but sounds like procedures to avoid liability at a property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.233.25 (talk)  18:43, 9 January 2006
 * Due diligence is used with a special and peculiar meaning in the U.S., relating strictly to the thorough review of obligations in business dealings. It's often disconcertingly used as a verb ("hey, we have to due diligence these contracts!"). -- BD2412 T 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the two should be kept separate, particulary with respect to environmental issues. In the context of UK environmental management, 'due diligence' is indeed something that is associated with the development of land environmental liabilities which need to be identified during corporate transactions. However, 'Duty of Care' is associated with legal obligations (Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991) all waste producers have when disposing of their waste. (T Bates, 18th Feb 2006) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19912839_en_1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.101.75 (talk) 23:43-48(4edits) & :52, 18 February 2006
 * As someone with "legal training", albeit UK legal training, a duty of care seems different to the idea of due diligence as a civil defence. A duty of care is a legal obligation that you may have to another person in certain circumstances to act with a particular degree of care - if you don't you have to pay them damages in negligence. "Due diligence" appears to be a "defence" to this in US law, though we don't use the phrase in that sense in the UK - if someone has acted with "due diligence" then we simply say they have met the standard of care required, so no tort is committed prima facie. The concept is the same, just the terms are different. But while the two terms in that usage are clearly closely linked even if not the same, the meaning of due diligence in the UK, and also often in the US, it would seem, is a process of investigation that a buyer, investor or lender will conduct on a business before it buys it, invests in it or lends to it. No legal obligation to anyone else comes into the picture at all. It is just something that you do for your own sake to assess the value of a company and the problems within it. If you fail to do it, you just fail to get a proper picture of the company. We need to make sure that these meanings of DD are kept separate, as they have become somewhat conflated. I'm going to try and restructure the article. I'm not very familiar with US concepts of the term, so forgive me if I slightly mishandle that, but the article is currently confusing so I hope that whatever I do will be an improvement. --Arthur Markham 11:52 & 12:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Typos
Article says "ordinarily prudent of resonable party "... is this a series of typos or is it jargon? It seems like it should read "ordinarily prudent member of a reasonable party" --209.232.147.200 21:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me the way it is. ike9898 02:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It had been fixed on the 9th, not as suggested, but to
 * ordinarily prudent or reasonable party
 * by addtion of "a" in reasonable and conversion of of to or. --Jerzy•t 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed source

 * * Michael Silvio Kusche: "Die aktienrechtliche Zulässigkeit der Durchführung einer Due Diligence anlässlich eines Unternehmenskaufes. Mit Due Diligence-Checkliste für die Zielgesellschaft". Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2005. ISBN 3-631-53939-8

I removed the above as a source since it was added by an anonymous user with no other edits. It is listed as a source on the corresponding German Wikipedia article, but there is no indication here of what, if any, information from the English article is attributable to that source. That kind of defeats the purpose of referencing sources. — GT 07:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted
There seems to be a huge block of french text near the top of the article. I'm too new to the wiki to know if this is actually OK, but it seems odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.138.23 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2007
 * I removed the text which basically reverts the page back to before it's last edit (when the french text was inserted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.138.23 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2007

Link suggestion from anonymous user
I've removed that link from the article, but I'm putting it here in case you decide it should be in the article. --SueHay 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Due Diligence Defense Under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933

Copyvio?
In the "For supplier quality engineering" section:

Due diligence is a term used for a number of concepts involving either the performance of source inspection or source surveillance, or the performance of quality duties such as PVA (what is PVA?) or System Audits with a certain standard of care.

That "what is PVA?" absolutely screams "copy and paste job". Unless the source is a free one (eg a US Federal govt source) then it's surely a copyvio from somewhere. 86.136.252.49 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Check Links to quasi spam "External Sources"
Could someone who knows more about WP than I do please check the appropriateness of the external sources linked toward the end of the article? What appear to be links to useful documents turn out to be links to businesses offering services.

I do some risk assessment & management work and know there are sites out there that give real (though general) info. The links provided are not useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.7.199 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Review Wp:external_links. I didn't find any meaningful or relevant content in the links posted, and I don't think any of the sites qualify as a reliable source. I'm going to delete the entire section (the burden of proof is on the person placing external links). PeetMoss 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the burden of proof is on the person adding the external link. Removal was a good idea. If a certain link is worthy of being here, the person adding it will need to explain its value in the edit summary. — ¾-10 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Capstone link
The link to "capstone" seems incorrect (pointing to an architecture page). I'm not sure what the text intended to link to, since I'm not familiar with the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.227.219 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * CAPSTONE is a design class for many engineering students at universities around the country intended to be the final stepping stone into the professional world. 72.208.169.2 (talk) 06:12 & :13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Due diligence or Due Diligence?
As a reader of this article I'm confused, could one of the authors clarify whether it should be capped or not? 86.134.238.143 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "due diligence" has a specific interpretation in law that is more restrictive than what is implied by juxtaposing the two words, which is probably the source of your confusion. But IMO capitalizing implies a single thing like the Long March or the Wilderness Road or the Battle of the Dunes (1600), that qualifies for a proper name. IMO the fact that it usually refers to the diligence that is due in a specific situation is sufficient to mandate down-casing; in contrast, i'm not sure how to draw the line between human rights or general relativity on one hand and Original Sin (different from "the original sin", "an original sin") or the Virgin Birth (different from "the virgin birth of Aphrodite") on the other; perhaps i should take to heart the fact that here at WP those are both redirects to down-cased titles, but on the other hand, in both articles the terms' uses in the respective lead sentences are capitalized! It's not too surprising if the boundary is unclear, but i don't think this is close to the boundary: i find it hard to imagine Due Diligence, except as treatises on the subject ("Due Diligence" or Due Diligence, depending on size) or a jocular headline on a flier about remembering to get your library books back on time. --Jerzy•t 21:58  & 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Boatanchors
I've reverted ' rewrite again. There are several problems with it, the main being the fact that a large part of the new text has been copied from elsewhere. --Daggerstab (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)