The Modern Company Law: The Case Of Salomon Case

In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881 (30 June 2017) (‘SPG and SET’) concerns the events involving plaintiffs Michael Hogan (H) and Christian Sprowles (S). Salim Mehajer (M) is the sole shareholder of both Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (SPG) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (SET). M appointed Kenneth Lee (L)

It seems understandable that a business should exist as a separate legal personality as it would be impossible for an individual’s motives and goals to be perfectly in line with that of the company as is demonstrated above in Salomon. Following this theory the idea that the rights and duties of a company are not that of its members and shareholders as demonstrated in the case of Lee v Lee Air Farming .

Although courts are reluctant to hold an active shareholder liable for actions that are legally the responsibility of the corporation, even if the corporation has a single shareholder, they will often do so if the corporation was markedly noncompliant, or if holding only the corporation liable would be singularly unfair to the plaintiff. The ruling is based on common law precedents. In the US, different theories, most important "alter ego" or "instrumentality rule", attempted to create a piercing standard. Generally, the plaintiff has to prove that the incorporation was merely a formality and that the corporation neglected corporate formalities and protocols, such as voting to approve major corporate actions in the context of a duly authorized corporate meeting. This is quite often the case when a corporation facing legal liability transfers its assets and business to another corporation with the same management and shareholders. It also happens with single person corporations that are managed in a haphazard manner. As such, the veil can be pierced in both civil cases and where regulatory proceedings are taken against a shell corporation.

There are 1900 shares at this time (I did the math for you) and that will become

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

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

The definition of company is 'A legal entity, by legislation, which permits groups of people, as shareholders, to apply to government for an independent organization to be created, which can then pursue set objectives ' (Duhaime, 2014).

Salomon v Salomon and Co. Ltd (1897) AC 22 - when Aron Salomon sold his business to Salomon and Co. Ltd. Company, where he was still the major shareholder and some of his family was also a member. He also received a debenture as part of the payment for a secured term. But when the company has gone into liquidation during the 1890’s some argued that his

Salamon v. Salamon & Co. Ltd has a significance principle that has been recognised universally. Refer to s16(5) in The Act, once company is registered, the new company is a juristic person that separate from its members. Likewise, company has the full responsible on its own debts and contractual

The above formula isolates free cash flows to the firm from earnings before interest and tax (EBIT). It can be noted that FCFF are after tax (1-T) but prior to interest expense. This initial overstatement of due tax is by design; the tax deductibility of interest payments will be accounted for when incorporating the after-tax cost of debt in the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) to determine the present value of free cash flows.

Unlike partnership, a company is distinct from the members and is capable of enjoying rights and duties in its own capacity, which is not the same as those of its members. As Lord Macnaughten in Solomon v Solomon & Co Ltd case quotes “the company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers and the company in law is not the agent of the subscriber or trustee for them. Nor are the subscribers as members liable, in any shape or form, except to the extent and in manner provided by the

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

6/2/16 – a meeting was held with Shane, in the presence of his Union Representative, Tom Brice, to discuss the allegation that he violated DOT&PF’s Unauthorized Expenditures/Purchases P&P #10.01.022, when he purchased meals while traveling for work on May 16 - 17, 2016.

This doctrine has been seen as a “two- edged sword,” reason being that at a general level while it was seen as a good decision in that by establishing that corporations are separate legal entities, Salomon 's case endowed the company with the entire requisite attributes with which to become the powerhouse of capitalism. At a particular level, however, it was a bad decision. By extending the benefits of incorporation to small private enterprises, Salomon 's case has promoted fraud and the evasion of legal obligations.

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.