Company Law Case

It is necessary to determine when L was removed as director of SPG and SET to ascertain the validity of the plaintiffs’ appointment as administrators. To establish L’s time of removal, one must first conclude whether the decision at the meeting took effect immediately, or if the subsequent messages exchanged between M and L, and belated lodging with ASIC, suggest a later removal date.

BIS did not breach duty of care because according to "N.Y. GOB. LAW 18-105: NY Code -Section 18-105: Duties of skiers"  10-11, each skier shall have the duty not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles and to yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill. Craig neglected his duty to both.

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

A taxpayer can deduct interest as “principal residence interest” on a residence that is occupied by family members, if the taxpayer use more than one property as a residence, and the property which he is asking for deduction is his family members’ abode, then he is qualified for deduction. Other residence can have a deduction too. If he uses the property for personal purpose for more than 14 days or 10% of the number of days that the property is rented, he will be allowed for a deduction.

A C corporation has to report ordinary income or loss in the C corporation’s tax return.

Having in regard all the information that is given in the Case Study, what is, in your opinion, the best Investor/Partner choice for NatuRi Corporation? Is it the Angel Investor, the Strategic

In this assignment, it will through some rules of Common Law and Corporation Act to discuss whether Yolande, Shani and Wei breach their duty (part A) and whether the contract was bound by Nurture Nature Pty Ltd Company (part B).

In recent times, there has been an increased incidence among large scale business organizations to structure their operations through the form of corporate groups, with many domestic and international subsidiaries, wholly owned or otherwise, with the corporate veil ensuring that each of these enjoy separate corporate legal personality and limited liability. The existence of these ‘corporate groups’, with subsidiary companies being heavily controlled by their parent companies, have necessitated interpretations and applications of existing corporate legal principles to this novel context, even in case of the basic tenets of corporate law. The circumstances associated with corporate veil piercing, through detailed consideration of conditions to treating holding and subsidiary companies as one legal unit, with associated civil liabilities, is also an issue of heated debate.

Acknowledgement: These Tutorial Questions were originally devised by Martin Markovic, Senior Lecturer, Business School, University of Adelaide.

Sharon and Don decided to do business together via a verbal agreement. Don is already a small business owner of a local health food business. Sharon found out that Don was an owner of a business in the area after meeting him. Don became interested in Sharon’s family’s products once she showed him their products. Don and Sharon agree to sell samples of her family’s products in his store. When the products started selling well in Don’s store, he contacted Sharon to order more of the family’s products. For some time Don placed orders with Sharon’s family, and received awesome customer service. Sharon’s company would deliver the products that Don requested at the same rate and in a timely fashion. Upon receiving the order or orders, Don

The lease and marketing plan failed to expand office space and attract new clients, Butterfly had cash flow problems and sold to Xco Ltd, Consequently, Butterfly can sue promoters for the recession of the contracts or damages. In this case, there is five person involved—John, Paula, George, Robyn and Brian. Generally, Emma Silver Mining ‘s case defines a person who is involved in the creation of a new company is a promoter. John, Paula, George and Robyn undertook mining project, shared the rental cost and sometimes referred clients, i.e.: they are promoters as they took active parts in the formation of a company and generated the necessary share capital to carry on business. For Brian, an accountant providing tax service, does not act purely in his professional captivity and he agreed to purchase some non-voting shares of Butterfly. This makes him take an inactive position in Butterfly but can receive dividends. The similar facts in Mandalay’s case, RSC leaves the project to Mandalay and also gets profit from the operation, therefore Brian is a promoter, too. In summary, John, Paula, George, Robyn and Brian, as Butterfly’s promoters, automatically establish a fiduciary relationship with Butterfly.

As a result of this ruling, it is lucid that the primacy of Salomon v Salomon has been affirmed. Nonetheless, the case itself is significant as it also recognized for the first time that piercing the corporate veil is possible; albeit in limited circumstances. As such, rather then being referred to as an archetype of the courts reluctance towards corporate disregard, the case suggests the antitheses. Evidence of this can be found in Lord Sumption’s declaration that “ a recognition of a limited power to pierce the corporate veil, in carefully defined circumstances, is necessary if the law is not to be disarmed in the face of abuse”. In addition, Lord Sumption’s attempt in Prest to formulate a principled method to veil piercing, which in itself will be discussed in greater detail later in this essay, has provided a renewed beginning to an already complex area of company law (tan chang article). In essence, while it is true that the threshold in which the corporate veil may be pierced has been raised, a detailed analysis of the case illustrates that the abuse of corporate personality will not go unpunished (tera firm/mcardle).

The case number is 3/4-1299/06. This is a case between Hari Bala R Parasuraman and his employer Johnson Controls (M) SDN BHD. The date of reference fall on 30 December 2005 and its venue is on the Industrial Court Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. The case is related to Section 20(3) of Industrial Relation Act 1967.

The ‘Salomon V Salomon& Co Ltd’ was a very important case in company law because it established that every company has a separate legal personality which can also be referred to as the ‘veil of incorporation.

Law firms operating in tough economic environment, usually institute a raft of measures to survive; these range from making budget cuts to reexamining their relationship with partners and clients. Since some of these measures can jeopardize business, the firms must always strive to maintain good relationship with clients. The key strategies to grow business during hard economic times include investing in intelligent marketing strategies and making cuts only where it is necessary. This can be achieved by eliminating companies that do not provide good service and pursuing aggressive business development strategies, reducing service cost and upping the quality of service provided by the law