The Legal Powers Of The Company

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” .

Corporate capacity and authority were essential legal concepts which contained rules for when and how a company ought to be legally recognised as having validly acted and entered into a binding contract with third parties. Broadly speaking, the rules which applied to corporate capacity were the ultra vires doctrine and the doctrine of constructive notice. In regard to the concept of corporate authority, both the ultra vires doctrine and the doctrine of constructive notice also applied however their application was curtailed by the Turquand rule. The Turquand rule therefore only applied when the authority of directors was in question. A definitional overview of the concepts of corporate capacity and authority will be provided below, along with brief description of the doctrine of constructive notice and the Turquand rule.

Although the RFRA specifically uses the word "person," its effects may be extended to corporations like Hobby Lobby. The main purpose of the RFRA is to maintain religious neutrality throughout the United States government as was intended by the writers of the Constitution (Smolin). The United States Supreme Court has long held that corporations do indeed hold many constitutional rights which are possessed by legal persons (Hall and Means). For example, the court has ruled in the past that corporations obtain the rights which prevent illogical governmental searches and/or seizures. The government must also refrain from collecting the property of any corporation without compensation (Morgan). Since

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.

According to UK Law, the directors should act in good faith in the interest of the company, and exercise care and skill in carrying out their duties. The Company Law Reform Bill (2005) defines, in section 154-161, the directors’ duties as follows:

▪ Discuss the facts of the case study. What facts are in dispute? What facts are agreed?

Based on the case scenario, Doris, Betty, and Charlie formed a company called Bechdo Pty Ltd. The three members are the directors and Betty who is major shareholder holds 40% followed by Charlie and Doris who hold 20% each while the 20% is held by the rest. Based on the company constitution, a managing director has capacity to enter into a contract o behalf of the company up to a maximum of $100,000. Moreover, he/she can enter into contracts to the value of $900,000 upon getting consent for the board of directors. In this case, Bechdo Pty Ltd operates without a managing director since none was elected. The major issue is that Betty being the majority shareholder went ahead and entered into contract with BB Ltd, Jillo Pty Ltd, and

Equitable principles for directors were developed from fiduciary duties applied to trustees through common law. A director has a fiduciary duty to ensure that no conflict of interest exists between him and the company. This common law principle “the no conflict rule” was established in Keech v Sandford.7 Upholding this, Lord Cranworth LC held in Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Bros,8 “And it is a rule….no one....shall be allowed to enter into engagements in which he has, or can have, a personal interest conflicting, or which possibly may conflict, with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect.” This principle was encompassed in the Companies Act 2006:

The removal of a director by the board in the FDC case creates legal and ethical issues, which ultimately led to the onset of commercial issues. Despite the legal, ethical and commercial issues, this case is strongly indicated that there are some problems in the mechanism of removal directors stipulated in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Corporations Act”) S 203D and S 203E. This indication is underpinned by some cases in the Australian court in which directors are removed also by the board. Therefore, this paper will analyse the legal, ethical and commercial issues regarding with the removal of FDC’s director, discuss the problem in the procedure of removal directors stipulated in the legislation, and compare other regulations in the common law and civil law countries. Finally, drafts of new mechanism of dismissal directors will be provided in this research to reform Section 203D

S180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 Commonwealth (hereinafter referred to as The Act) states that a “director or officer of a corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties with the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise if they:

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.

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

Corporation origin from the Latin word Corpus which means body. It is formed by a group of people and has separate rights and liability from those individual. In any means, corporation exists independently from its owner and this principle is called the doctrine of separate personality. Doctrine of separate personality is the basic and fundamental principle in a Company Law. This principle outline the legal relationship between company and its members. Company’s assets belong to the company not the shareholders as assets are the equity for creditors. Company must use up all its assets to pay off the creditors if it became insolvent. The same applies to the corporation’s debts. For limited liabilities company, the shareholder liability is limited which means that the shareholder is restricted to the number of shares they paid and not personally liable for the corporation’s debts. If the company does not have enough equity to pay off debts, the creditors cannot come after the shareholders. However, limited liability company can be very powerful when in hands who do fraud and on defeating creditors’ claims. Courts then can ignore the doctrine for exception cases and lifting the corporate veil. Lifting the corporate veil is a situation where courts put aside limited liability and hold a corporation’s shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation’s debts.