Business & Corporation Law Assignment
11 Pages2540 Words40 Views
Added on 2020-05-28
Business & Corporation Law Assignment
Added on 2020-05-28
ShareRelated Documents
Running head: CORPORATION LAWCorporation LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1CORPORATION LAWTable of ContentsCase Introduction.............................................................................................................................2The duties or responsibilities breached............................................................................................3Analysis of the case.........................................................................................................................4Application......................................................................................................................................6The Order of the court.....................................................................................................................8Reference.........................................................................................................................................9
2CORPORATION LAWASIC v Padbury Mining Limited [2016] FCA 990Case IntroductionASIC v Padbury Mining Limited [2016] is most significant cases of Australia, which hascontravened the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth). The Australian Securities and InvestmentsCommission (ASIC) is the plaintiff in this case. The Padbury Mining Limited, Gary WayneStokes and Terence Martin Quinn are the defendants in this case. In this case, the First defendant has found to contravened the section 1041H(I) of the CAby publication of an announcement by the ASX where the representation has stated that the FirstDefendant has secured the funding in the amount of $6 billion to construct an associated railnetwork and deepwater port at Oakajee. However, ASIC has found that it has consisted ofmisleading or deceptive conducts. The first defendant also found to contravene the section1317E of CA by not notifying the Australian Stock Exchange Limited about the duration of therelease of the Oakajee Funding Announcement. Along with it, they also have contravened thesection 674(2) of CA. The second defendant has found contravened the sub-section 674(2A) of CA due to theirinvolvement with the first defendant while contravention of subsection 674(2A). The seconddefendant has also found to breach the section 180(1) of CA Act of the failure of the director’sduty. According to this section, the directors of any organization are bound towards their dutieswith the degree of care and diligence (Coffee, Sale and Henderson 2015). The third defendant was found to contravene the sub-section 674(2A) of CA Act for theinvolvement with the First defendant who has contravened the sections of sub-section 674(2A)and the penalty has been declared according to the section 1317E of CA Act. The third defendant
3CORPORATION LAWis the director of the corporation who has breached to exercise their duties with the degree ofcare and diligence according to the section 180(1) of CA Act. The duties or responsibilities breachedAccording to the fact of the case, ASIC has alleged that the company was misleading theirfacts regarding the funding agreement, which has failed to meet the actual criteria. As per theprecedent agreement, the company was supposed to procure the sum of $1.3 billion in demandguarantees in three tranches. The directors of the Padbury have been found to breach the section180(1) of CA, which is, defined the directors’ duty. However, the Federal Court of Australia hasfound several findings against the company where they have been included that:Padbury has made of misleading and deceptive representation while the announcementsof the title 'Oakajee Funding Secured' where they have secured $6 billion for theconstruct of a deepwater port, which was associated with the rail network at Oakajee.Therefore, they have breached the section 1041H of the CA. The directors of the company Stokes and Quinn have found acted such misleading anddeceptive conducts. The organization has found to breach their disclosure terms. According to the terms, thecompany was bound to receive the funding where the company was not in the position tosatisfy the period of the announcement. They have failed to act according to their promiseto provide the obligations of disclosure. However, while such approving of the announcement the directors of the company havefound to breach their duties of care towards the organization with the degree of care anddiligence according to the section 180(1) of the CA (161 ALR).
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Business and Corporations Law - PDFlg...
|10
|2529
|200
Breach of Directors’ Duties under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)lg...
|4
|787
|356
Business and Corporations Law : Assignmentlg...
|10
|946
|140
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Breach of Directors' Dutieslg...
|12
|1068
|427
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Violation of Director Dutieslg...
|12
|1112
|491
Australian Securities and Investments Commission - PDFlg...
|6
|2168
|87