What is the difference between 'self-dealing' and 'conflicts of interest' in fiduciary duties?

• A. Self-dealing is direct personal gain from a transaction; conflicts of interest involve competing interests that could influence judgment; both require remedies or recusal.
• B. Self-dealing and conflicts of interest are identical.
• C. Self-dealing is allowed if disclosed; conflicts of interest require recusal only in government.
• D. Conflicts of interest always require resignation of director; self-dealing has no remedies.

Answer: (A)

The difference lies in where the personal stakes lie. Self-dealing happens when a fiduciary stands to gain personally from a transaction they oversee,breaching loyalty to the beneficiaries because their own interest is placed ahead of the trust. A conflict of interest occurs when the fiduciary has another interest—financial, familial, or related duties—that could influence or appear to influence their judgment, even if they don’t personally profit from a specific deal.

Both situations trigger remedies aimed at preserving fiduciary duties. Self-dealing typically requires remedies that unwind or correct the deal, deter the fiduciary from profiting, or impose disgorgement or other penalties, and often involves recusal or removal from participation. Conflicts of interest are usually managed through disclosure and abstention (and, if needed, recusal or disqualification) to maintain objective decision-making.

So, the key distinction is that self-dealing is about direct personal gain from a transaction, while conflicts of interest are about competing interests that could affect judgment. The other choices are not accurate because they either treat the concepts as identical, permit self-dealing with disclosure, or insist on outcomes like resignation or lack of remedies that do not align with fiduciary practice.