Asic V. Palmer

Read the David Miller case from Chapter 5. After reading the case, describe a reason why someone who has been entrusted with the firm’s assets would commit a fraudulent act against the company. Based upon your understanding of the case and your professional and personal experience, recommend a series of actions that should have been taken in order to pre

The Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) brought a case against Andrew Lindberg who was accused of breaching duties as a director when he was in service. Andrew Lindberg was ex Managing Director of Australian Wheat Board (AWB) who was accused to have contravened with his duties as a director. Justice Robson from The Victorian Supreme Court handled this case and on the 9th of August, 2012, the defendant was penalized. The case was brought to The Victorian Supreme Court presided by Justice Robson who handed down the penalty judgment on 09 August 2012 against the defendant.

Section 180 says that a person must perform his duties with care and diligence that a director of a company in same position and situation would perform. In this case, the board member negligently made a financial report and was shown profit instead of loss. Harvey one of the directors could not show the errors in the board while James who is also a non-executive director did not ask any questions regarding the

Case Name: State of Texas VS. Douglas Nathan Palmer. NO- 6985-C. State’s motion for Judge to disqualify or recuse

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .

2 This is an OPEN book examination. You can only use your prescribed text book and the Corporations Act 2001. No other materials are allowed.

In June of 2014, the appellant disclosed to the firm what he had done and then the firm reported it to the SRA in October 2014. After this occurred the appellant proceeded to make a self-report to the SRA as well. The SRA argued lack of integrity according to the creation of the letter and form. They also alleged that by relining on them the appellant had acted dishonestly. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the appellant guilty of dishonesty but he had also been charged with acting without integrity, and was struck of the roll. The appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence.

Facts: D was arrested for fleeing from police. charged w/ obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. He pled guilty to lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine. He was forced to take a delousing agent. W/ O touching the detainees, officers looks at all parts of the detainees. D alleges that he was told to lift his genitals, and cough while squatting. D was then admitted into the jail facility , released the next day, and the charges were dismissed.

The thesis deals with the above concepts and discusses how the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) modified the law, particularly, by extending the legal capacity of a company and extinguishing or modifying the above rules which had previously restricted a company's ability

“We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.”

(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 [2005] 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)

Woodward, S., Bird, H. & Sievers, S. (2005). Corporations Law in Principle 7th ed. Pyrmont, NSW: Lawbook Co.

In many misfeasance cases against directors, those breaches maybe relatively uncontroversial. This draws into focus the question of whether the director has any common law or statutory defence, including the Duomatic principle and ratification by shareholders (CA 2006 S.239), available to a claim against him for restitution to the company. S.239(6)(a) preserves the Duomatic rule that if an informal unanimous consent is reached among voting shareholders, it is unnecessary to pass such ratification resolution through general meeting or written resolution. The first part will examine the scope and requirements of this rule to illustrate the validity of such assent. S.239(7) leaves the door open for rules of law, which refers to common law principles, to continue guiding ratification. It will be assessed how these rules impose limitations on the general ratification power conferred by s.239.

S.183 states, “a Director of a corporation must not improperly use the information to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else” (slides). In this case of Vidler, the courts found there was a breach of s.183 as Vidler had used company information gained as a director to invest in shares to make profit for himself. Similar but different to this case, Patricia has breached s.183 of the CA as she has improperly used company information to gain advantage for someone else through advising her sister to buy shares in order to make a profit.

There is no clear framework of the rules that would cover the contingencies of a ruling to pierce the corporate veil Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd. The corporate Veil usually protects owners and shareholders from being held liable for corporate duties. Yet again a decision made by the court to lift that veil and would place the liability on shareholders, owners, administrators, executives and officers of the company without ownership interest. The purpose of this essay is to conduct an analysis on the concept of lifting the corporate veil and to review the different views on its fairness and equitability to present a better understanding of the notion, the methods used was throughout researching the numerous scholars views on the subject, case law and statutes examples, and the evidence provided by the empirical study of Ramsay & Noakes. When we discuss the lifting the corporate veil the first case that pops out is the case of Salomon V A. Salomon & Co Ltd, since the decisions of applying the corporate veil were first formed as a consequence of this case. The idea covers all of company law and distinguishes that a company is a separate legal entity from its members and directors. Furthermore, spencer (2012); have indicated that one of the core principles that followed the decision in Salomon v Salomon was the wide acceptance one man company’s. However In order to form a