Dr. Dawes 's Duties, Obligations, And Responsibilities

The agreement reached in the process of settlement of the proceedings awarded the penalty setting precedence by the name of ASIC

This is a 2000 word RBI on Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 86 (Absence without leave)

took place will be determined and explained as well as the penalties associated with this case will

Issue: Have the directors of the company breached their duties mainly related to the company’s insolvent trading.

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

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

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.

This research report documents the findings of an empirical study of judicial findings (of superior courts) relating to the duty to prevent insolvent trading. The duty to prevent insolvent trading is the most controversial of the duties imposed upon company directors.

          Title III of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is Corporate Responsibility. It creates many new obligations for CEOs, CFOs, and other senior executives. Title III requires that CEOs and CFOs must certify that they have reviewed annual as well as quarterly reports and that they contain no untrue information, material omissions, or misleading information. CEOs and CFOs are now responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls, plus reviewing their effectiveness within 90 days prior to financial reports. They must disclose any deficiencies or possible fraud. The CEO and CFO are required to give back any bonuses or sale of company securities, if the company must restate financial statements due to material noncompliance or misconduct. High-ranking executives are also now banned from trading company securities during pension fund blackout periods. Lawyers are now required to report any evidence of violations of securities law or obligations to either the CEO of the company or chief legal counsel. If a person violates the law and their conduct demonstrates an unfitness to serve, he or she can be banned from being an executive of a company (Sarbanes-Oxley).

Drake desecrated a Civil Law, the Security Law; and became an inside trader by making

In large corporations the success or failure of the company is the responsibility of the board of directors. According to Richard DeGeorge, “The members of the board are responsible to the shareholders for the selection of honest, effective managers, and especially for the selection for the CEO and of the president of the corporation.” (p. 202). The board members have a moral responsibility to ensure the corporation is run honestly, in respect to its major policies, and to ensure the interests of the shareholders are satisfied. The next responsibility within a corporation is the responsibility management has to its board of directors. DeGeorge writes, “It must inform the board of its actions, the decisions it makes or the decisions to be made, the financial condition of the firm, its successes and failures, and the like.” (p. 202). The management of the corporation is morally obligated to

When XYZ prepared to enter into the contract with Go-Foods, Eddie did not tell other directors that Eddie’s family owned 35% shares of Go-Foods. This act may be treated as dishonesty (not in good faith). It is unknown if he knew the price is too high and made his personal interest during this contract.

Issue 5: Has Patricia breached the prohibition of insider trading through the use of price-sensitive information when engaging her sister to buy shares in FPPL?

| * David should not disclose confidential information outside the firm. * If he seeks advice from his friend Peter, he will breach S140.1 & S140.5. * Peter can trade this information to benefit him – affecting MAL.

In accordance with the focus on ethical and legal behaviours, this policy outlines procedures for dealing in the securities of Kerry Group plc (Kerry) in addition to those imposed by law. Kerry’s respected position as an ethical global company is reflected, in part, as confidence from stakeholders that the securities of the public company are traded fairly using information that is transparent and equally available to all investors. This policy also defines and prohibits use of “inside information.”