Tutorial: Tuesday 10am-11am
1. Is Patricia an Officer of Stadium Enterprises Pty Ltd (SEPL)?
2. Has Patricia breached her duty to act with due care and diligence?
3. Has Patricia breached her duty to act in good faith in the best interests of SEPL?
4. Did Patricia improperly use information to gain an advantage, causing detriment to SEPL?
5. Has Patricia acted recklessly, dishonestly, and failed to exercise and discharge her duties for a proper purpose and in the best interests of SEPL?
6. Did Patricia engage in insider trading?
7. Is Dan an Officer of Fancy Pants Pty Ltd (FPPL)?
8. Did Dan…show more content… (slides) Patricia caused SEPL to pay $1,000,000 more for its takeover bid than originally anticipated because the share price of FPPL doubled. Hence, it is probable Patricia has breached section 183. ASIC v Vizard  FCA 1037: The CEO of Telstra provided the Directors with confidential information about ASX listed companies, so the best investment decisions could be made for Telstra. Vizard, a Director of Telstra, used this information to buy shares in those companies before Telstra did and thus made money. Vizard was held to have breached section 183. (fact)
4. Section 184 requires that Officers will be liable to a criminal offence if they contravene a civil penalty provision, recklessly or dishonestly, and fail to discharge their duties in good faith in the best interest of the corporation, or for a proper purpose. As Patricia has contravened sections 180 and 183, then it is expected she has breached section 184. Adler v ASIC (2002) 42 ACSR 80: Santow J, ordered Adler be disqualified from managing a company for 20 years, imposed a pecuniary penalty on him of $450,000, and ordered him to pay compensation of $7,958,112 to HIH Insurance. On appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal, these orders were upheld. (fact)
5. Section 1043 prohibits insider trading by any person to deal with shares or to use, or engage with