Case Analysis : V. Gulliver & Others

Plaintiff’s investment in defendant’s training is used to the benefit of a competitor. Hapney v. Central Garage, Inc., So.2d 127, 132 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991). In Milner, the defendant went to multiple trainings and used these specialized skills to perform installations, cabling, repair and service work on telephone system, which is the same type of work he did for the plaintiff. Milner Voice & Data, Inc. v. Tassy, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1216 (S.D. Fla. 2005). Defendant sent letters and emails relating to subcontracting for installation and service connected to the same phone service as plaintiff. Id. at 1217. Defendant helped install telephone system sold to direct customer of plaintiff, which was the same job he proposed when he was working for the plaintiff. Id. at 1218. Defendant had also performed service and repair for several of plaintiff’s clients because plaintiff’s substantial investment in training, the defendant used his training to benefit plaintiff’s competitor. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff had a substantial investment in need of protection. Id.

In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881 (30 June 2017) (‘SPG and SET’) concerns the events involving plaintiffs Michael Hogan (H) and Christian Sprowles (S). Salim Mehajer (M) is the sole shareholder of both Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (SPG) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (SET). M appointed Kenneth Lee (L)

From the legal perspective and the plaintiff's claim based on Title VII of the Civil Right Act, however, the company has a legal support to establish such policy since its primary business

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Next are the Options proceedings. This proceeding relates more to the transactions made by the directors for their own benefits as well for the ones associated to them. The specific parties in this proceedings are; Environinvest Ltd, James Patrick Downey the liquidator of the company, and S.T.Y. (Afforestation) Pty Ltd as the plaintiffs. Roger Neil Pescott, Caroline Pescott, Euan Pescott, Blackburne Pty Ltd, Brabourne Pty Ltd, Mt Ross Pastoral Pty Ltd, Eurambeen Pty Ltd, Maridale (Victoria) Pty Ltd, Carnac Pty Ltd, Clive Randal Dossetor and Grant Anthony Robertson as the list of defendants.

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

In Week one of Contemporary Business Law, Team A learned about substantive, procedural, criminal, civil, common, and statutory law. In the reading assignments for week one, we discerned the differences that separate the laws and how the courts enforce the laws. Corporations and businesses are awarded protections under the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States that protect them from fraudulence. The following essay covers Team A interpretation of the different laws and how the laws pertain to corporations, businesses, and our current places of employment.

According to the pro and contra Section 203D and 203E of the Corporations Act as above, most judges and scholars agree that the procedure of removal directors as stipulated in the Corporations Act provides fairness treatment for the directors who may be removed. However, they still strongly argue whether the Section 203D is mandatory or not. Moreover, they questioned the existence of Section 203E since it eliminates flexibility for companies to make decision particularly in the emergency situation as explained above. Therefore, in order to provide broader perspectives about the relevancy of Section 203D and Section 203E, it is necessary to compare the procedure of removal directors in the Australian legislation with the

With Bill’s special disadvantage established the majority judges then examined Neil’s knowledge and exploitation of the disadvantage. Through cross examination listed in paragraph it was acknowledged that Neil was aware of Bill’s affection for him. It was also established that Neil was aware that the properties acquired in 1988 and those available under the option in the will were being received at good value for him.

From the standpoint of the criminal, the ideal white- collar crime is one that will never be recognized or detected as a criminal act. (Radzinowicz 325-335) Corporate Crime Corporate crime is the type of crime that is engaged in by individuals and groups of individuals who become involved in criminal conspiracies designed to improve the market share or profitability of their corporations. ( Siegel 338) Corporations are legal entities, which can be and are subjected to criminal processes. There is today little restriction on the range of crimes for which corporations may be held responsible, though a corporation cannot be imprisoned. The most controversial issue in regard to the study of corporate crime revolves around the question of whether corporate crime is "really crime." Corporate officials, politicians, and many criminologists object to the criminological study of corporate criminality on the strictest sense of the word. The conventional and strictly legal definition of crime is that it is an act, which violates the criminal law and is thereby punishable by a criminal court. From this perspective a criminal is one who has been convicted in a criminal court. Given these widely accepted notions of crime and criminals, it is argued that what is called corporate crime is not really

Prior to the changes of the law regarding the asbestos case it originally was that people seeking compensation who were affected by the asbestos related-disease did not have the adequate amount of compensation , therefore their rights were infringed as the company neglected and breached their duty of care to their former workers.

As the WMI accounting fraud case shows, change exposes organizations to considerable financial fraud risks. The top officials used acquisitions and merger as means to perpetuate this fraud. This financial fraud took place due to the organizational breakdown of internal and external audit controls. As a result, the top management was able to commit this massive fraud without facing any resistance. It never occurred to them that they were violating the law because what mattered to them was pocketing as much as they could.

The purpose of this work is to establish the links between the business world and transitional justice mechanisms. My purpose is more specifically to link the potential crimes perpetrated by corporations and the transitional justice mechanisms. This work does not link the transitional justice field to a defined field of research. Corporate responsibility or accountability is a concept coming from law and business literature.

of minority shareholder claims (personal and derivative) for oppression under Section 216 of the Companies Act.

Lee’s Air Farm’s Limited, Lee formed a company with a share capital of three thousand pounds, of which 2999 pounds were held by Lee. He was also the sole governing director. In his capacity as the controlling shareholder, Lee exercised full and unrestricted control over the affairs of the company. Lee was qualified pilot also and was appointed as the chief pilot of the company under the articles and drew a salary for the same. While piloting the company’s plane he was killed in an accident. As the workers of the company were insured, workers were entitled for compensation on death or injury. The question was while holding the position of a sole governing director could Lee also be an employee of the company. It was held that the mere fact, someone was the director of the company was no obstruction to his entering into a contract to serve the company. If the company was a legal entity, there was no reason to change the validity of any contractual obligations which were created between the company and the deceased. The contract could not be avoided merely because Lee was the agent of the company in its negotiations. Accordingly, Lee was an employee of the company, and, therefore, entitled to compensation