Why Bob Can Be Removed As A Director

| It is impossible to add additional owners and to pass on business, business dies with owner. A single owner

But it seems not a systematized situation. Perhaps several things could be improved. One is that Bob should add an attorney to the board to deal with

As stated in the Partnership Act, “Each partner in a firm…is liable jointly with the other partners for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while the partner is a partner, and after the partner’s death (his or her) estate is also severally liable in a due course of administration for such debts and obligations so far as they remain unsatisfied..”. Thus being a partner of Busy Bee Florist Shop, Violet is liable jointly with the

Due to its nature, partnership is generally liable for the acts of the individual partners if committed in the course of the partnership business. However, liabilities of every partner may be regulated by the written agreement signed by partners. If no written agreement is signed by partners, liabilities of the partnership are regulated by the Partnership Act. If one of the partners retires, he or she may not be liable for the future debts of partnership if an official notice of the change is sent to creditors and the public. However, there were no official notice sent by the partners in the case; therefore, Toby may be liable for the debts of partnership. Due to the death of the third partner, partnership may be dissolved. In order to pay off the debts, assets should be sold and partners are free to continue the same kind of business after the dissolution of the

They are liable of facing the civil penalties as mentioned in part 9B of corporation act 2001. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) is the national body responsible for company registration and securities regulation in Australia. Under section 1317J(1) of the Corporations Act, ASIC can apply to the court for disqualifying the directors from managing corporations. Under section 206C of corporate act 2001, court possess a power to disqualify a person from managing affirm for a contravention of a civil penalty provision.

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” .

D) Can a shareholder bring a personal action, and against whom – the company or the director- based on the facts of the question? Do you think there are grounds for a shareholder to bring derivative action? What remedies can be obtained both for personal and derivative action? (6+6+3=15 marks)

Suppose that Katherine, Brianna, and Paige have formed a limited partnership to operate a video arcade. Katherine is the general partner. She has contributed $2,000 and her time to get the operation running. Brianna and Paige, the limited partners, have each contributed $3,000. After one year of operation, the arcade has debts of $10,000, and the three partners decide to discontinue their business and the limited partnership. Brianna and Paige want their investment returned to them. Who should Katherine, who is winding up the business, pay first, Brianna and Paige, or the creditors? How much will Brianna and Paige receive? How about Katherine?

Next are the Options proceedings. This proceeding relates more to the transactions made by the directors for their own benefits as well for the ones associated to them. The specific parties in this proceedings are; Environinvest Ltd, James Patrick Downey the liquidator of the company, and S.T.Y. (Afforestation) Pty Ltd as the plaintiffs. Roger Neil Pescott, Caroline Pescott, Euan Pescott, Blackburne Pty Ltd, Brabourne Pty Ltd, Mt Ross Pastoral Pty Ltd, Eurambeen Pty Ltd, Maridale (Victoria) Pty Ltd, Carnac Pty Ltd, Clive Randal Dossetor and Grant Anthony Robertson as the list of defendants.

1. [LO 1] Joey is a 25% owner of Loopy LLC. He no longer wants to be involved in the business. What options does Joey have to exit the business?

In the case Pastizzi Café Pty Ltd v. Hossain (No 4) NSWSC 808 (28 July 2011) there is a relatively straightforward conflict involving five principals (three individuals and two corporate entities) in which a number of legal issues come to the fore. Briefly, the events in question occur over the span of nearly five years and involve a partnership between Deborah Ross, Leonard Ross and Miraj Hossain to own and manage Pastizzi Café Pty Ltd. Though the case is straightforward, the events are somewhat convoluted--in sum, Ms Ross is guarantor of the start-up costs and in April 2007, Ms Ross and Mr. Hossain receive $1 share in the new company, Mr. Ross, for other legal reasons, does not receive a share (Pastizzi Café v Hossain, 3,4). Eventually, Mr. Hossain and his company, Talukder Enterprises Pty Ltd make the claim that Mr. and Ms Ross are making all management decisions, but that this is illegal since he argues that Mr. Ross is not a partner, shareholder or director. Mr. and Ms. Ross vehemently disagree. (Pastizzi Café v Hossain, 4, 5). Further, Mr. and Ms Ross argue that Mr. Hossain agreed in a meeting on 12 November 2010 to sell his third of the partnership, and there arose a question as to the value of the business. (Pastizzi Café v Hossain, 5). On February 7, 2011, Mr. Hossain locks both Mr. and Ms. Ross out of the restaurant and establishes his own business on the property. Both sides seek damages.

* The ownership of the partners is dissolved and they become mere employees who are responsible to the shareholders and Board of Directors

Provision B.1.1 states “The Board should state its reasons if it determines that a director is independent notwithstanding the existence of relationships or circumstances which may appear relevant to its determination, including if the director: has received or receives additional remuneration from the company apart from

Currently Mrs Needle is successfully operating as a sole trader, however now that she wishes to expand the business and incorporate four new members into the business Mrs Needle must consider operating as one of the following business structures, an ordinary partnership, limited liability partnership or a limited company. At the moment the dressmaking business is being run on a fairly small scale out of Mrs Needle’s home, therefore I would not recommend at this stage the business being run as a limited company. This is because as a limited company you are expected to pay corporation tax, in addition to this Mrs Needle and her partners will still be required to pay income tax from there directors salary. If the dress making business is

• Companies can gradually separate a business from the rest of the organisation, and eventually, sell it to the other parent company. Roughly 80% of all joint ventures end in a sale by one partner to the other.