Preview

Salomon Case

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
588 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Salomon Case
Salomon v A Salomon & Co LTD Mr.Salomon was a wealthy man and he was a boot and shoe manufacturer trading on his own sole account. In 1982, he decided to convert the business into a limited company. Fot this purpose, “Aron Salomon and Company Limited” was formed with liability limited by shares. The memorandum of the company was subscribed by Aron Salomon, his wife and five of his children. The intention of having his own family members in the memorandum is to retain the business in their own hands. The company purchased the business for £39,000 and the price was satisfied by a sum amounting to £20,000 was paid to Aron Salomon who then immediately returned it to the company in exchange for fully paid shares; a sum amounting to £10,000 was paid in debentures for the like amount and the balance sum with the exception of about £1,000 which Aron Salomon seemed have received and retained went in discharge of the debts and liabilities of the business at the time of purchase.Apart from the fully paid shares, Aron Salomon received for his business about £1,000 in cash and £10,000 in debentures. Both Salomon and his wife lent their money to the company to reissue the debentures to Broderip who had advanced the company some money when the business did not turn out well. Broderip’s interest was not paid when it become due. Therefore, Broderip filed a proceeding against the company which resulted in the appointment of a receiver which a year after its incorporation, the company went into liquidation. Because of the liquidation and debt that burden Salomon, they have to sell the company’s asset to pay all the debt. The amount realised from the selling of the asset was only enough to pay Broderip but unfortunately it is not enough to pay the debentures in full and the unsecured creditor of the company. Therefore, the liquidator brought an action against Salomon for the validity of the debentures issued to Salomon on the grounds of fraud. Furthermore, the liquidator also

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    Sal Ltd Case

    • 3725 Words
    • 15 Pages

    Amber Inn & Suites is a 250 property hotel chain located in 10 western and Rocky Mountain States (Kerin & Peterson, 2010). The company was founded in 1979 and they operate 200 Amber Inn properties and 50 Amber Inn & Suites properties (Kerin & Peterson, 2010). They have 30,000 total rooms with an average of 120 rooms per property (Kerin & Peterson, 2010). The company has had five consecutive unprofitable years and the company wants to be profitable within two years. This case will provide a summary an analysis of Amber Inn’s options and an examination of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.…

    • 3725 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to the fact of this case, Parent Co. (Parent) wholly owns Poor Son Co. (Poor Son) as a legal subsidiary, and both of them all nonpublic companies. However, in January 2007 Poor Son filed a voluntary bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code because of its inability of meet obligations as they became due. Then, Parent claimed the loss of control of Poor Son and deconsolidated Poor Son from its financial statement. Through the bidding process in May 2009, Poor Son and OtherCo, the winning sponsor, filed a joint plan of reorganization to the bankruptcy court, but the plan was rescinded by OtherCo later due to significant market value shrink of Poor Son. After that, the bankruptcy court reopened the bidding process and recommended Parent’s plan of reorganization in August 2010. Finally, Parent received final confirmation of Poor Son’s plan.…

    • 615 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ciro T, Symes C, Corporations Law in Principle LBC Thomson Reuters, Sydney, 8th edition 2009…

    • 1621 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    It depend upon the approach of the legal duties of the administrators which were framework in the Corporation Act. The court has noticed that the appellant provide the legal duties approaching the suer and the duties which were performed was not for the benefit of himself although it was not for the benefit of other partner too. It was only for the benefit of the company. It was noticed by the court that there has been contravention of legal duties performed by the offender discarding the prosecutor out of the building for profit and loss account and also regarding the goodwill of the company.The court held that the offender has to paid a premium for the losses which has been incurred. Although the court told them that in order for compensation they can buy shares from offender for their losses incurred.…

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Asic

    • 752 Words
    • 4 Pages

    4 HIHC made an undocumented $10 million payment to a company controlled by Adler, PEE. Around the time of the payment, PEE became a trustee of a unit trust controlled by the Adler Corporation and two others. Units in the Trust were issued to HIHC at a price of $10 million. Adler Corporation had an existing entitlement to 10% of the Trust’s distributable income, while HIHC acquired a 90% entitlement. The $10 million payment was made in a way to ensure it would not come to the attention of the directors of HIH, apart from Adler, Williams and to a lesser degree Fodera. Using the $10 million payment shares in HIH were then purchased over two weeks. The stock market was given the impression that the purchase of shares were made by Adler or family interests associated with Adler. A further part of the $10 million payment was used to purchase various venture capital unlisted investments from Adler Corporation at cost. It was contended that Mr Adler breached his duties as a director or officer of HIH or HIHC under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act). ASIC sought declarations that various alleged contraventions of the Act had been committed by the three personal defendants. Mr Adler was a non-executive director of HIH. Mr Adler was sued as a non-executive director of HIH and as an alleged officer (non-executive) of its wholly owned subsidiary HIHC. Mr Adler denied he was a director or officer of HIHC. ASIC relied on evidence that as a director of HIH, HIHC’s holding company, Mr Adler was a person who ‘participated in the making of decisions that affected the whole or a substantial party of the business of HIHC’. ASIC also stated that Mr Adler’s participation in investment decisions fell within the category of decisions…

    • 752 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    On winding up, the unsecured creditors contended that the company was not having independent existence as Salomon was the Managing Director of the company and the entire company was merely a sham. Their contention was that the limited firm was only a guise to conceal the real identity of the persons who own. However, it was held that Salomon and Co. Ltd. fulfilled all the requirements of the legislature. Further, it was held that the company cannot be equated with the members comprising it. The company was not the agent of Salomon. It was therefore, treated as a company, distinct and independent corporation. The trial judge made the declaration in favor of the company. Salomon then filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judges and dismissed the appeal. Salomon appealed to the house of lord and then the order was ultimately reserved in order of Salomon.…

    • 2654 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Question 1 (25 marks) On the 1 July 20X6 Howard Ltd gained control of Carter Ltd by buying 70% of its shares for $70,000. At this date, Carter had share capital $50,000 and retained profits $30,000. Additional information:  Goodwill impairment is $500 in year ended 20X8 and $850 in 20X9.   Dividends are paid out of current period profit. The dividends were paid before year-end. Inventory purchases by Howard from Carter during the current year amounted to $30,000. Their cost to Carter was $20,000. Howard still holds $18,000 of this inventory at year-end. Loan from Carter attracts 12% interest per annum. The interest was paid before year-end. Included in other assets of Howard is equipment purchased from Carter on the 1 July 20X7 for $41,000. The equipment was four years old when sold, had cost Carter $50,000 to buy, with expected residual value $5,000, and had been depreciated 10% p.a. straight-line. Howard depreciates the equipment (after deducting the same residual) straight-line over the remaining six-year life.…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Sub Issue 1.2: Does Douglas Pty Ltd have a duty of care to Frank and Belinda?…

    • 1340 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    | The facts of this case were that the owner of a business sold it to a company he had formed, in return for fully paid-up shares to himself and members of his family, and secured debentures. When the company went into liquidation, the owner, because of the ownership of the debentures, won his claim to be paid off in priority to other creditors, as the secured debt ranked at a higher priority to those debts and successfully proved that he did not have to indemnify the company in respect of its debts, as it had a separate legal personality.…

    • 2676 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Company Law Assignment

    • 2862 Words
    • 12 Pages

    At the beginning, in this case, we may identify two issues needed to be discussed. The first one is whether Kwan or Lau&Kwan Co. would be liable for the debt incurred by Lau. The second issue is whether Lau&Kwan Co. has established a place of business in Hong Kong.…

    • 2862 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    tayag vs benguet

    • 304 Words
    • 1 Page

    Benguet Consolidated is a corporation who owes its existence to Philippine laws. It has been given rights and privileges under the law. Corollary, it also has obligations under the law and one of those is to follow valid legal court orders. It is not immune from judicial control because it is domiciled here in the Philippines. BCI is a Philippine corporation owing full allegiance and subject to the unrestricted jurisdiction of local courts. Its shares of stock cannot therefore be considered in any wise as immune from lawful court orders. Further, to allow BCI’s opposition is to render the court order against CTC-NY a mere scrap of paper. It will leave Tayag without any remedy simply because CTC-NY, a foreign entity refuses to comply with a valid court order. The final recourse then is for our local courts to create a legal fiction such that the stock certificates in issue be declared lost even though in reality they exist in the hands of CTC-NY. This is valid. As held time and again, fictions which the law may rely upon in the pursuit of legitimate ends have played an important part in its development.…

    • 304 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Litonjua obtained loans from L&R Corporation secured by a mortgage. Without knowledge of L&R, Litonjua sold to PWHAS the parcels of land they had previously mortgaged to L & R Corporation. When Litonjua defaulted in the payment of their loans, L & R Corporation initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and L & R Corporation was the only bidder. When L & R Corporation presented its corresponding Certificate of Sale for registration, it learned of the prior sale of the properties made by the Litonjua to PWHAS upon seeing the inscription at the back of the certificates of title. 7 months after the foreclosure sale, PWHAS, for the account of Litonjua tendered payment of the full redemption price to L & R. The latter, however, refused to accept the payment, hence, PWHAS was compelled to redeem the mortgaged properties through the Sheriff. A Certificate of Redemption was issued in favor of Litonjua. L & R Corporation challenges the decision of the court.…

    • 778 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Living by Numbers

    • 407 Words
    • 2 Pages

    This case basically explains about MarineCorp Sdn Bhd leads by Hafiz Hashim who has position as a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in MarineCorp. It is also a subsidiary of SURIA. MarineCorp is a maritime solution provider for its SURIA and have two subsidiaries which are Green Port Sdn Bhd and Sungai Emas Sdn Bhd. MarineCorp has their responsibility in manage and conducting both subsidiaries. The financial statements of the three companies will end by twelve months on 31st December 2009.…

    • 407 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Trial Memo

    • 1558 Words
    • 7 Pages

    On March 2003, a KASUNDUAN was made between BAYAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and SCCPPTODA 2 (SAMAHAN). Pursuant to the Kasunduan, a loan to be paid in regular installments amounting to P80,000.00 was extended to Ma. Teresa Lacsamana on May 2003 and such must be used to buy a tricyle which the former did and was actually granted the Certificate of Registration of a tricycle in her name. Lacsamana defaulted and her last payment as testified by Zenny Aguirre, the account officer of the BDC, was on July 2003. As stipulated and agreed upon by the parties in the Kasunduan, BDC pulled out the tricycle on October 2, 2003 due to default in payment by Lacsamana and was then given under the custody of the treasurer of the SAMAHAN, Ricardo Marasigan for management. Lacsamana,…

    • 1558 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Ca Cpt 2012

    • 4827 Words
    • 20 Pages

    1. When delcredere commission is allowed by consignor to consignee, then amount of abnormal loss will be borne by: a) Consignor b) consignee c) Both consignor and consignee in equal proportion d) Either consignor or consignee 2. The Rule “Debit all expenses and losses, credit all Incomes and gains” is relates to : a) Personal a/c b) real a/c c) Nominal a/c d) all the above 3. A and B are partners sharing profits and losses in the ratio of 5:3 , C was admitted as new partner and being capital Rs.70,000 and goodwill Rs.48,000. The new profit ratio between A:B:C is 7:5:4. The sacrificing ratio of A and B is : b) 3:1 c) 5:4 d) 3:5 a) 1:3 4. Estimated useful life of a machine is 5 years. Depreciation is written off in 2nd year under sum of the years digits method : c) 2/15 d) 1/15 a) 4/15 b) 3/15 5. How many no.of grace days allowed, when bill at sight is: a) 3 days b) 2 days c) 1 day d) no days 6. Which statement is sent by consignee to consignor : a) proforma invoice b) account sales c) Inward invoice d) outward invoice 7. Returns inward is deducted form a) Sales b) Purchases c) Returns outwards d) Closing stock 8. Krishna Ltd. Issued 1,50,000 shares of Rs.100 each, at discount of 10% Mr.Ram to whom 300 shares were allotted, failed to pay the final call of Rs.30 per share and hence all his shares were forfeited. At the time of forfeiture, what amount will be transferred to share forfeiture account. a) Rs.9,000 b) Rs.18,000 c) Rs.21,000 d) Rs.27,000 9. A company forfeited 1000 shares of Rs.10 each, on which Rs.6,000 have been received. The forfeited shares were reissued for Rs.7,000 as full consideration. How much amount is transferred to capital reserve account. a) Rs.1000 b) Rs.3,000 c) Rs.4,000 d) Rs.6,000 10. A and B sharing…

    • 4827 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays

Related Topics