The Case of Nurture Nature Pty Ltd. Company

Limited company is an organisation in which allow you set up and run your business. Any profits which are made within a limited company stays within the company after it has paid corporation tax, which then allows the company to share its profits.

The main player in the business is Mr Rajesh as Director of the company, his brother, Mr Mehta as Financial manager, his brother-in-law, Mr Nankar as Head of management and his cousin, Mr Praveet as the local fund manager. All the top management personnel is formed by family members, and this would cause familiarity threat to the company. Familiarity threats occur when family members can exert significant influence over the decision-making in the company. When Mr Rajesh as director pose a trust to the family members in the daily operation of the company, and there is no periodic checking by independent BOD and non-executive directors, there would be a fraud red flag occurs. So, there are the opportunities occurs in the company for Mr Praveet as local fund managers to commit the

All the FASB, SEC and EITF provide related information to the case. Despite we must consider the main data. Two contracts, one for

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

In order to advise Billy in whether he is entitled to the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm, the key facts and relevant issues must be examined to determine if the elements of a legally binding contract exists. Whether there was an agreement and intention to create legal relations between the two will be used to determine whether Choy has breached a contract between the two. If a contract is found to

to FAC to cover 75% of operating costs and 90% of the capital costs for any projects

In the above case study the ethical dilemma is whether to give the contract to company A which is a fair option among the two or give the contract to company B because it is run by Nirmal’s friend Devraj.

“We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.”

Throughout the case, it can be analyzed and expected to say that Deloitte & Touche have committed a breach to its fiduciary duty to Vertical Pharmaceutical at the end. Vertical Pharmaceuticals Inc., realized a huge loss as a result by Deloitte & Touche. Therefore, this shows that Deloitte & Touche did indeed breach their fiduciary duties. All the falsified reports and malpractices that were said to be revealed by Deloitte & Touche would be said to not be real by the forensic audit that was conducted. At the end, the court can rule that Deloitte & Touche did indeed breach their fiduciary duty to Vertical Pharmaceuticals.

• Identify key stakeholders in this case. Identify and discuss main (ethical) issues of this case in

Issue 2: Has Patricia breached her duty to act in good faith in the best interests of the company when advising her sister Faye, that SEPL were buying a large amount of shares in FPPL?

Please prepare an analysis of this case. Your write-up should be 4 to 7 pages. Each of the following questions should be addressed individually:

A company can be formed as private, and it is known as ‘proprietary’. This type of companies is mostly family owned and does not listed on the Australian Stock exchange (ASX). A proprietary company has less than than 50 non-employee shareholders and. A proprietary company is not permitted to offer shares or securities to the public. It is required to have at least one director and shareholder, and at the director or the shareholder has to be ordinarily reside in Australia

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.

When Haili and John registered a proprietary company or form a partnerships, there are some legal rules and regulations attached to each of the type. To face those rules and regulations appropriately, a proper consideration is required by the each party.They have to know that a proprietary company is a smaller form of a public company when a partnerships is a form of organization when two or more people gather and do a business together (Pearce 2015). Consideration from the party comes from the management of the company and the willingness to use their personal debts. When Haili and John wants to be a director of Sparkle Pty Ltd, they can form a partnerships or a proprietary company. A proprietary company is a small company under the Corporations act 2001 (Cth), thus a partnership is only bind under The Partnership Act 1985. If Haili and John wants to manage the organization and be liable for the debt that arise from the organization, they can form a partnerships. Therefore, a proprietary company is separate legal entity and the amount of each party are liable for only the number of shares they own on the company (Pearce 2015). There is another form of partnership called limited partnerships that the members can have limited liability but cannot manage on the partnership (Pearce 2015). According to Seago and Horvitz (1980), a partnerships may have a characteristics of minimum 2 or more members and each party is a liable party if the partnerships goes