Ciro T, Symes C, Corporations Law in Principle LBC Thomson Reuters, Sydney, 8th edition 2009…
The House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon1 affirmed the legal principle that, upon incorporation, a company is generally considered to be a new legal entity separate from its shareholders. The court did this in relation to what was essentially a one person company. Windeyer J, in the High Court in Peate v Federal Commissioner of Taxation,2 stated that a company represents:…
1. The Salomon case establishes that an incorporated company is a separate legal entity from its participants, namely founders, shareholders, directors, employees and agents. Consequently, a company could enter into contracts in its own rights and possess assets and liabilities distinct from its members. In legal terminology, this rule is referred to as the ‘corporate veil’.…
Issue: the issue about company’s constitution and whether the loan contract between ABC bank and Sambal Pty Ltd is invalid.…
1. Assignment- When the tenant transfers their entire interest in the leased property to a third person is known as an assignment…
References: Tony, C. & Christopher, S. 2009, Corporations Law in Principle, 8th edn, Thompson Reuters, Australia…
1. One rule that emerges from the social contract is that people should never make unsupported judgments about one another but should instead always investigate the facts in an effort to uncover the truth about the character of a person or the nature of a situation.…
Under RR249X(1) if a shareholder is entitled to vote, they are entitled to appoint a proxy. This RR is mandatory for public companies. Note that a company must receive proxy forms 48 hrs before a meeting. If meetings procedure such as this is not followed, the proxy’s vote may be disallowed under s250B(1).…
"The 16th edition incorporates a number of significant recent amendments to legislation and case law. These include: Personal Property Securities (Corporations and Other Amendments) Act 2011 [...], Corporations Amendment (Financial Market Supervision) Act 2010 [...], Corporations Amendment (Corporate Reporting Reform) Act 2011 [...], Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Act 2011 [...], Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Act 2011 [...]. This edition also includes a number of important cases, the most significant of which are Morley v ASIC and ASIC v Healey, dealing with directors' duty of care." -- Back cover.…
Facts: Mick, Keith, Charlie, Bill and Brian were directors and equal shareholder of Big Lips Music Pty Ltd. Brian resigned his directorship as a result of differences with Mick, Keith, Bill and Charlie. The others wanted to get rid of Brian as a shareholder. However, Brian told them that he would never sell his shares in Big Lips Music. A general meeting of Big Lips Music’s shareholders is called at which there is a motion to insert a new clause in the company’s constitution that gives Mick, Keith, Bill and Charlie the right to compulsorily acquire Brian’s shares for their issue price. What is the process for inserting a new clause in the company’s constitution? Can Brian prevent the new clause being inserted even thought the others shareholders passed a special resolution that that effect? Required: Student 1 ‐ Advise the other shareholders of Big Lips Music (the Plaintiffs) what is the process for inserting this new clause in the company’s constitution. If they insert this new clause can they acquire Brian’s shares for the issue price? Student 2 ‐ Advise Brian (the Defendant) whether he can prevent the new clause being inserted by the other shareholders and if so how? If he can not prevent it will he have to sell his shares for their issue price? Parties The Majority Mick – Director and shareholder Keith – Director and shareholder Charlie – Director and shareholder Bill – Director and shareholder The Minority Brian – Shareholder Issues…
The United States and France may be located in different global hemispheres, but they are linked through the common virtues of a strong sense of patriotism, similar government structure, and most relevant to this discussion: Freedom of the press. For example, the United States prides itself in astute variety professional journalism through newspapers such as The New York Times. France similarly promotes famous objective reporting through its own newspaper, Le Monde. Both public journals are held in high international regard but respected for their different styles.…
The information revolution and the advances in technology during the past decades has brought to fore many challenges and issues to both governments and businesses, the age-old crime of espionage or the practice of spying to gather secret information is one the most potential issues facing information-based societies. Although, much has been documented as fact and fiction concerning the traditional foreign agents and spies, in today 's world of multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporations, and industrial espionage is a growing danger. Furthermore, this is aggravated by the fact that many large businesses are physically disseminated which has distributed management and administration, and more job specialization.…
A very direct consequence which arises with the concept of separate legal identity of a corporation is the misuse of it by people. In reality a company is nothing but an association of persons, who are its beneficiaries, governed by the directors and shareholders of the company. It is nothing but a sum of its members. Thus a lot of times situations arise, when these beneficiaries try to misuse this veil and in such situations the corporate veil of separate legal entity of the company has to be removed and the members of the company are made liable directly. Lifting of corporate veil is one of the most highly debated topics in the business world. The concept of incorporation was introduced only to promote high risk involving but at the same time more profitable businesses among common people as company means limited liability(in its most common form), thus people can limit the risk by forming companies. So if we look at the main purpose behind formation of companies we can easily understand why lifting of corporate veil is such a debatable issue. If the conditions for lifting of corporate veil are made too lenient then the whole purpose behind the concept is defeated and also if the conditions are kept very rigid and narrow then there is a very high risk of misuse of the corporate veil, which would be against the public interest at large. Which is why time and again the issue keeps coming up to the judiciary. The researcher has dealt with the judicial trend on the issue…
The most important decision ever made by the English courts in Relation to company law is Salomon v A Salomon & Co. Ltd (1897). The vital perception to become familiar with when starting a business is the idea that the business has a legal personality in its own right, mostly when it assumes the form of a Limited Liability Company. This basically means that if someone starts a business as a Limited Liability Company, then the Company is a legal entity with separate legal personality, would be separate to that of the owners, members, or shareholders. As a separate entity, the company is different from the directors, employees and shareholders. The House of Lords in the Salomon case confirmed the legal principle that, upon incorporation, a company is generally considered to be a new legal entity separate from its shareholders. The court did this in relation to what was essentially a one person Company, which is Mr Salomon. At a specific level, however, it was a bad decision. By extending the benefits of incorporation to small private enterprises, Salomon 's case has upheld fraud and the evasion of legal obligations, (this will be looked at into depth later). The main areas this essay will be focus on are; the discussion on the Salomon’s case which will include the corporate veil {whether or not it is a legal fiction}; if the corporate veil is consistently acknowledged, look behind the veil or piecing the corporate veil and the situations of which the government expressed itself on its intention in piecing the veil, including a reasonable conclusion.…
Based on common law, Section 131(2) Corporations Act 2001 testify that ‘inflict a liability for damages only on the person who entered into a contract or acted on behalf of the company’. For example Bay v Illawarra Stationary Supplies Pty. Ltd (1986) case had four advocates one of them had entered into a contract on behalf of the company, the company was not formed at that time so the company had failed to ratify the contract, and then the Illawarra suppliers try to sue all four advocates. The court found only one of the account was liable to pay the damages because he was the only who had sign the contract.…