The Prohibition On Financial Assistance

The highly controversial case of Gambotto v WCP Ltd not only reduced the ability of companies to acquire shares compulsorily through an amendment to their constitutions, but also stimulated debate around the topic of share acquisition itself . The High Court decision in Gambotto was recognized immediately to be extremely important in the corporate world, with one headline stating it had “radically altered the balance of power within corporate Australia” . Despite the significance of the ruling, responses to Gambotto have generally been negative. Courts have almost uniformly chosen not to extend the principles in Gambotto to situations in other cases, with the result that the principles have stayed narrowly confined to the

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

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.

This midterm has four pages and there is one long case question. You will have one

Provided Case 09-3, we, Group 7 have dutifully researched the topic, using resources at our disposal to formulate a consistent, clear and legal response. The following submission outlines the case, our conclusions with supporting evidence and the accounting issues present in the subject.

If you have a job and pay taxes, do you ever wonder where your hard earned money ends up? You probably would think that it goes to someone on welfare, who is trying to succeed in their life, trying to make ends meet and might need a little financial help. In other words, someone who really needs it, but unfortunately it usually ends up in the hands of people who take advantage of the welfare system, and takes the opportunity to purchase drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. To avoid situations like this, welfare recipients should be tested monthly for drugs to make sure they are not cheating the welfare system for government aid.

Issue: Should the Court rule as time-barred the Plaintiff’s claims which he makes under the Massachusetts ‘Blue Sky’ securities fraud statute and as lacking as a matter of law the Plaintiff’s claim on the Defendants’ unfair trade practices?

There has been many issues as to what the government should do about regulating federal assistance. Most of the people that get federal assistance have a family to maintain. One of the programs within the federal assistance would be food stamps. Food stamps is federal money given to families that need assistance for groceries. Many question what kind of regulation should be implemented to obtain food stamps? Reason being is that there is a lot of fraud being committed by those that do obtain the assistance. One of the regulations many believe that should be implemented would be drug testing applicants.

The reasons for judgment was then appealed to the District Court according to s. 149 of the Weapons Act, which permits an appeal on a question of the law. The District Court judge allowed the appeal on the bases that the magistrate has wrongly applied, as “the primary test”, the test that was set out in s 138(3) of the Weapons Act for possession of modern handguns and failed to give proper consideration to the evidence as to the pistols being a collectable

(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1) [1990] AC 85 and (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603

X is the promoter of X Pty Ltd, a company to which X proposes to sell some land for

Facts of the case (Summary of facts of case and its journey to Supreme Court)

The matter was presented to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and AAT has different views on this matter and AAT considered the historical Cases and

The Lanham Act provides two avenues for a dissatisfied party, e.g., a dissatisfied trademark applicant, to appeal a final Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision. Although some similarities may exist between the two available avenues, this article examines the advantages and disadvantages facing litigants in their venue determination for appeals involving ex parte proceedings, while briefly outlining significant distinctions for appeals involving inter partes proceedings.

To critically evaluate the impact of the cases R v Bugmy and R v Munda on the existing case law.