The Business Judgment Rule: A Balance of Two Concepts

As evidence for the basis of judgments and decisions, evaluated in my own reports and records, I need to show that I accurately and clearly record the judgements and decisions and evidence on which the judgements have been based and where judgement is based on informed opinion. I do record other evidence and reports which support my judgements and decisions and conflict with my judgements and decisions. It is as well very important to clarify events and decisions.

The introduction chapter of this paper presents next the research questions, the methods of the research and then an overview of Deloitte. The second chapter is concentrated on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act evolution, composition and theoretical framework. The third chapter presents the empirical research process and finally, the fourth chapter contains the results of the research and provides the analysis of the selected data.

Pete’s injury is considered a non-criminal matter. I have recently been assigned his lawyer and we are trying to use the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method or civil litigation route to resolve the legal matters. After reviewing his case, he has sustained injuries from driving his four-wheeled all-terrain vehicle (ATV) when it rolled over on a trail behind his home. Due to his injuries, he has been out of work and has medical expenses. He is suing the manufacturer for the ATV being defective.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the legality and ethicality of the corporate governance activities that occurred in an ethics case presented in the text. The paper will provide relevant details regarding the legality of the activities, the criteria by which Sarbanes-Oxley would apply to this case, the ethicality of the activities, whether or not the activities were equitable to internal and external stakeholders, and the next steps representing best interest of all stakeholders.

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.

2. Accountability: The existence of legitimate systems of control-particularly to provide shareholders and creditors with an effective structure to enable them to express and enforce their interests and concerns over the actions of a

This was a very interesting article, in my opinion it brings to mind the derived phrase, which came first the chicken or the egg. Meaning, is corporate governance an attempt to control the results of unethical practices of corporations or is it meant to deter them. In reading this article, it is clear that certain corporations practiced unethical business behaviors for self-interest, but the questions this author have are: 1. Should corporate governance be regulated by the legislature as well as the organization and to what degree, 2. Is corporate governance, there to protect the shareholder or the stakeholder, 3. How effective is corporate governance on a global level. The need for a governance system is based on the assumption that the separation between the owners of a company and its management provides self-interest executives the opportunity to take actions that benefit themselves, with the cost of these actions borne by the owners (Larcker & Tayan, 2008).

The business judgment rule has served for decades as the most important protection against personal liability for directors and officers. And it also has been criticized frequently as providing too much protection for the directors and officers of corporations. It is the time for some changes to be made to business judgment rule.

o Weakness: there is a societal imbalance in the distribution of resources, and it is virtually impossible for courts/legislatures to make important decisions that do not make someone worse off

The executives are accountable to the board of directors. Instead of protecting the investors, the board enticed the culture of financial fraud in the company for selfish gains. It failed in its duties in keeping the executives in check.

This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is said to be promoted to produce change in the corporate environment, in general, by stressing issues of public accountability and disclosure in the financial operations of business. It explains how this is an Act that represents the government's and the Security and Exchange Commission's concern in promoting ethical standards in terms of financial disclosure in the corporate environment.

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

Foss v Harbottle case was a foundation of development of derivative action that enables a minority shareholder to bring a legal action in order to recover from a wrong done to the company. Two principles, so-called Foss v Harbottle rule, were made to corporate law in related to a minority shareholder’s right. The first principle was the internal management rule preventing floodgates open to multitude actions by individual shareholders dissatisfied with operation of a company. Under the internal management rule, complaining on internal management by minority shareholders was taken by a board of directors. A decision for the complaint was also decided by the majority rule. The second principle was the proper