logo

ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) - Case Summary and Analysis

Research and report on an Australian case involving breach of company director's/officer's duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

10 Pages706 Words473 Views
   

Added on  2023-06-11

About This Document

This presentation provides a summary and analysis of the case of ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) which highlights the importance of complying with legal provisions of Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth) and the roles and responsibilities of directors and officers of corporations in Australia. The case involved a breach of Section 674(2) of Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth) by Southcorp Limited and its Executive General Manager of Corporate Affairs, Mr. Glen Cunningham. The court held Mr. Cunningham liable to pay a penalty of $100,000. The presentation also includes references to relevant legal provisions and sources.

ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) - Case Summary and Analysis

Research and report on an Australian case involving breach of company director's/officer's duties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

   Added on 2023-06-11

ShareRelated Documents
ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2)
[2003] FCA 1369 (27 November
2003); 203 ALR 627; 22 ACLC 1
(Student’s Name)
ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) - Case Summary and Analysis_1
Section 674 (2) of Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth)
required a listed disclosing entity to disclose the
information which is
1. Not Generally Available
2.have a material impact on price of enhanced
disclosure securities in the view of a reasonable
person. (Section
674 (2) only applies to that listed disclosing
entity, on which provisions of Rule 3.1 of listed
rules applies.
Section 674 (2) has Civil Provisions and if a
corporation or it is directors or officers does not
comply the same then court can levy penalties
under Section 1317G of Corporations Act, 2001
(Addison and Chew, 2011).
ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) - Case Summary and Analysis_2
Section 181 of Corporations Act, 2001
States that every director and officer of
the company must work
1. In good faith of the company and
2. For a reasonable purpose. (Legal
Services Commission of South Australia,
2018).
Further, In general course; Intention of a
defaulter is not relevant for the application
of this section. Even if a director or officer
work without any wrongful intention but
breached their duty under this section,
they same will be held liable.
ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) - Case Summary and Analysis_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
(Solution) Assignment on Commercial Law
|7
|2391
|107

ASIC v Southcorp Limited (No 2) [2003] FCA 1369 (27 November 2003)
|11
|2806
|237

Business Law and Corporate Law (pdf)
|11
|2659
|79

BREACH OF DUTIES and BUSINESS INFORMATION INTRODUCTION
|9
|605
|245

Liability of Non-English Speaking Director: ASIC v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited
|11
|945
|139

Corporations Law - Assignment Sample
|6
|1175
|57