Examinership, Receivership and Liquidation in Ireland

In the above case, Alexa Ltd is insolvent. According to section 95A, “A company is if that company could not payback its debts as and when the become due.” Section 588G can be applied if the person is a director at the time company incurs a debt, company becomes insolvent as a result of the debt and there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that company is or would become insolvent. A director is liable if at the time the debt occur, he was aware of the presence of reasonable ground to suspect insolvency or a person in a similar position in similar firm would have been so

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” .

Judge Tracey also found, that the methods of lodgement provided in item 1229(3) in Schedule 1 of the Regulations, should be treated as exhaustive and it was mandatory for the applicant to comply with the requirements. Failure to do so, resulted in an invalid visa application which the deciding Case Officer was not bound to consider. The application was lodged using facsimile instead of one of the methods prescribed in Schedule 1 Item 1229, being internet, post or courier.

Since the addendum did not necessitate a signature or formal acceptance in any manner, it cannot be construed as an offer or formal rejection of prior terms.

The decision of the tribunal was that the appellant was found guilty of having acted with dishonesty when he relied on the documents, but not when he created them, here he was charged with lack of integrity. The court had to therefore consider what the definition of the words ‘dishonesty’ and ‘integrity’ was.

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.

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

Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in

The appellant, New Hotel Monteleone, in presenting its case to the Court of Appeals made a tragic mistake. Ignoring the long held legal standard that the Court of Appeals is restricted to relying on the evidence submitted at trial, the appellant attempted to reargue the evidence that was already considered by the jury in the trial court. To the credit of the Court of Appeals, the Court limited its inquiry to whether or not the actions of the appellant hotel were in compliance with the legal standard of care established in the case of Nordmann v. National Hotel Company. The Court, in Margreiter, described, in detail, that the appellant was attempting to fashion an argument that was improper. The appellant should have been fashioning a legal argument and not one based on a factual determination.

The Appellant asks for the case to be reopened and reviewed in its decision that is made by order of the Magistrates Court, so for the verdict to be overturned in his favour to be declared as void making the decision an error in

The Court was hearing an appeal by the CCI against the order dated Feb. 15, 2010 of the Tribunal in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Jindal Steel had

A conference relating to this appeal from the findings of the examining agent is requested

Choosing a Corporation/Company Structure - the business structure of a company/ corporation is highly recommended, it has the flexibility to gain more capital, or credit capability and assets used as security. Based on the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) AC 22, a corporation is another legal entity with their own legal rights, duties and responsibilities separate to the individual or owner of the company (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, 2013, pp 229). The risk and consequences are one of the principal considerations of choosing a company structure (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, pp 50). Based on the “Corporate Veil” Liability is owned by a separate legal entity and not to the extent of the owner, for instance, the debt of the company is not a personal liability, but the company. This is further explained in the case below.

When a company is incorporated it is treated as a separate legal entity distinct from its promoters, directors, members, and employees, which confers the benefit of not being responsible for the companies debt on the members on the company. However even though a company is a separate legal entity and it attains the advantage of not laying the responsibility of company’s debt on the

There are various government structures in organizations although they are different from one branch of the government to the other. The structures help the government manage its economy efficiently. In the economy a too big to fail firm (TBTF) exists and it is defined as one that its complexity, size, critical functions, and interconnections are in the sense that in case the firm goes into liquidation unexpectedly, the rest of the economy and financial system will face severe consequences. The government provides support to TBTF companies not because they favor them but because they recognize implications for an advanced economy of allowing a disorderly failure outweighs the cost of avoiding the failure. Helping the TBTF firms enable the economy to realize high revenue. Various activities are to prevent their failure. They include providing credit, facilitating a merger, or injecting the capital of the government. The paper addresses the structures of the administration and the concept of too big to fail in financial and non-financial institutions plus the ethics involved with the theory.