IV. The reasons of non-compliance
Due to the fact, the board dismissed Steven Sewell from CEO because his characteristics are not suitable with the characteristics of new board. This reason is very subjective and unreasonable. This paper would not examine the unreasonable reason from the board of FDC as above, but will observe the fact that the removal of a director by the board is not the first time happened. There are some previous cases which are similar to the FDC case in which directors were dismissed by the board, such as in the case of Allied Mining & Processing Ltd v Boldbow Pty Ltd (“Allied v Boldbow”), Central Exchange Ltd v Rivkin Financial Services Ltd (“Central v Rivkin”), and Scottish & Colonial Ltd v Australian Power & Gas Co & Ltd (“Scottish v Australian Power”). In those three cases, the decision by the judges is considerably different. In Allied v Boldbow and Central v Rivkin, the judges state that Section 203D does not replace any other power of removal possessed by the company. Therefore, a company could regulate in their constitution to dismiss a director without the need for a vote of shareholders (in defined circumstances). Conversely, in Scottish v Australian Power, the judges emphasise that Section 203D is mandatory, and therefore, the process of removal a director must follow Section 203D. Due to those cases, it is clear that there are pro and contra about the dismissal of a director as stipulated in the Section 203D. One side argues that
This essay will discuss obligatory elements in implementing the breach of Section 184 of the Corporations Act 2001 by Mr Clive Palmer. Corporation law is a wide concept of law which comprise of all the legal issues related to Business organisations. With the help of reference to relevant case law this essay will argue that Mr Palmer breached section 184 of the Corporation Act 2001 by not acting in good faith, improper use of position and information and intentional bad business judgements. This essay will provide sufficient evidence that Mr Palmer should be examined by ASIC, hence agreeing with the voluntary administrator.
There first noncompliance act was between the coder and the physician, the physician was admitting fraud when he ask the coder to code things that is not true, so he can get more money from the insurance company, at the same time the coder should not listen to the physician, and should send a report to a compliance officer and committee.
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 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
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.
This assignment will concentrate on medical billing, and compliance strategies, and the evaluation of these strategies. Many mistakes are made during the billing process, and some of the mistakes that are made could be caused by the strategies, and the processes themselves. In this essay I will offer a quick overview of the strategies, and an evaluation of these strategies. I will also offer my suggestions on how to fix the problems that were found in the evaluation. In this essay I will also attempt to answer these questions: What is the importance of correctly linking procedures and diagnoses? What are the implications of incorrect
To the extent of prevention of corporate failure, I argue that three ASX principles and recommendations could halt the demise of Dick Smith. Firstly, the 2nd principle which is “Structure the board to add value” by structuring the board with a majority of independent directors would prevent CEO dominance because some suggest that independent outside directors can reduce the influence of dominant individuals (ASX, 2014, p. 17). In accordance with Gallagher and Bennie (2015, p. 20), the independent directors are likely to focus on the company’s objectives and not to make decision relying on others. Furthermore, an addressing of independent directors would reduce the reliance on management, and create the effectiveness on monitoring (Dechow et al. 1996 cited in Christensen, Kent, and Stewart (2010)), as well as capability to lessen the conflict of interest between managers and shareholders (Hardjo & Alireza, 2012, p. 4). Thus, DSE’s board would be more active to monitor the CEO’s performances because independent directors pay attentions to the interest of company (Gallagher & Bennie, 2015, p. 20) and shareholders (Hardjo & Alireza, 2012, p. 4)
The goal of adopting the lean system by our health care organization was driven by obtaining the GCI accreditation and becoming one of the lead healthcare organizations in the middle east. At the beginning It was difficult to fully implement that system by a highly hierarchical organization. Until now we have consistent modifications in order to transit from a partial lean approach to a larger scale ( Graban, 2011). One of the most challenging issues in PICU sitting was regarding chronic patients who required long term ventilation. The hospital administration received numerous complaints from the admission office, ER manger, PICU manger and nursing staffs. The bed occupancy of the PICU reduced, which in turn lead to increase the waiting time
Smith should have disclosed his share information with the board of directors and voted in favor of Johnsons Skyhooks Limited. Being a board of director of a competing company, he failed to execute his duty in good faith with best interest of the corporation. According to the act, he should be fined up to 5000$ and can go to jail for at least six months.
The compliance process is set up to ensure the maximum appropriate reimbursement for health care claims. Correct billing and coding are directly linked to correct documentation by a physician. Also, to complete documentation, linking the correct code to the correct diagnoses is a must. This step is vitally important in reducing compliance errors. Second, the implications of incorrect coding can have a domino effect and will ultimately cause many people in the chain of events to go back, review, correct the errors, and resubmit the claim. This could also cause the patient and payer more money or cause a claim to be denied.
Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619 (N.Y. 1979) states, “the responsibility for business judgments must rest with the corporate directors; their individual capabilities and experience peculiarly qualify them for the discharge of that responsibility.” In other words, the court will allow some leeway in their corporate decisions due to their background and experience so the business judgment rule will apply. This case presents a three-person select committee that serves on behalf of the entire board of directors to handle special litigation for this corporation. A shareholder’s derivative action was brought against four of the board of directors in which this special litigation committee decided to terminate it. The shareholder’s felt this was unfair since the three-person committee is not a full representation of the board and the shareholders therefore, they should not be able to make those decisions. The three-person committee is unaffiliated with the 15 member board to keep decisions of the corporation fair. The court of appeals found no evidence proving the three-person committee was not unable to represent the full board and is protected by their decisions under the business judgment
At the least the board will have operated outside the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (ASX 2010, p13-49). These principles form the basis of good corporate governance ideas in Australia and are designed to optimise corporate performance and accountability (ASX 2010, p5) and draw from the ‘if not why not’ philosophy.
In relation to James Hardie case, directors breached their statutory obligations, referred in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s180, in terms of acting with care and diligence, good faith and the proper use of information and position.
Combat compliance is framed as an analytic puzzle related to the variability of behavior, or responses of combatants, both individuals and as a collective, to the realities and risks of warfare. The underlying assumption here is that there is an intrinsic risk of death in any scenario of combat (Magagna, 2016). The enemy is always rationally assumed to have an interest in your death. What follows is that obeying of commands presents itself as an implicit acceptance of such risks. The puzzle here is figuring out how and why vastly differing reactions occur. At some points soldiers show limited levels of compliance, sometimes even ending up in mutiny, while in other cases units show extremely high levels of compliance, exhibiting tenacity under conditions of overwhelming odds (Magagna, 2016). This essay attempts to explain the factors that give rise to the variability of combat compliance. What is important, as alluded to earlier, is to be able to provide a generalizable argument that is applicable across time and space. The essay will first lay out of varying levels of combat compliance to discuss the characteristics and consequences of variability. Secondly, it will explore and contrast the factors of automaticity as a function of training and institutional design and the factor of the combat contract as a rational cost benefit analysis of material and moral incentives, in an attempt to critically analyze their merits in accounting for the variability of combat compliance.
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