logo

Business and Corporations Law - PDF

10 Pages2529 Words200 Views
   

Added on  2021-05-31

Business and Corporations Law - PDF

   Added on 2021-05-31

ShareRelated Documents
0Business and Corporations LawASIC v Padbury Mining Limited [2016] FCA 990
Business and Corporations Law - PDF_1
1Table of ContentsIntroduction................................................................................................................................2Background of the Case.............................................................................................................3Infringement of Director’s Duties..............................................................................................3Analysis of the Court’s Decision...............................................................................................5Impact of the Decision...............................................................................................................5Conclusion..................................................................................................................................7References..................................................................................................................................8
Business and Corporations Law - PDF_2
2IntroductionThe aim of this report is to evaluate the ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited [2016] FCA 990case and analyse the duties breached by the directors. In this case, the Australian Securitiesand Investments Commission (ASIC) held two directors of the Padbury Mining Limitedliable for breaching duties provided by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) which includesection 180 (1) and section 674 (2A). The directors held liable by the Australian SecuritiesExchange (ASX) include Gary Stokes and Chairman Terence Quinn. The directors admittedto breaching their duties as given under section 180 (1) and section 674 (2A) by providingmisleading and deceptive announcement (Jade, 2016). The company announced in 2014 thatis had secured a deal for $6 billion which is provided to them for development of Oakajeeport and rail project. The news shocked the securities market, and it resulted in increasing theshares of Padbury Mining Limited up by 170 percent. After the news, over 200 million shareswere traded. After some time, it was found that the funding announced by the corporationwas contingent and the corporation is not in the position to satisfy the announcement. Theannouncement was considered as misleading and deceptive, and the Federal Court fined boththe directors $25,000 each and ordered them to contribute $200,000 as the court costs ofASIC and disqualifying them from acting as directors for three years. This report will focuson analysing the facts of the case and evaluate the duties of directors as per CA 2001 (Cth)and why they were breached. Furthermore, this report will critically evaluate the decision ofthe court and analyse the relevance of this case.
Business and Corporations Law - PDF_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Breach of Directors' Duties
|12
|1068
|427

Business and Corporations Law : Assignment
|10
|946
|140

Business & Corporation Law Assignment
|11
|2540
|40

ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Violation of Director Duties
|12
|1112
|491

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
|8
|2520
|171

Director Duties Breach in ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited Case
|10
|2613
|306