logo

Business Law Case Analysis

   

Added on  2020-05-28

10 Pages2079 Words81 Views
Running head: BUSINESS LAWBusiness LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
Business Law Case Analysis_1
1BUSINESS LAWTable of ContentsQuestion 1........................................................................................................................................2(1)Issues indentified in relation to crown..............................................................................2(2)Role played by ASIC in relation to the issue....................................................................3(3)Remedies available in relation to the Issue.......................................................................4Question 2........................................................................................................................................5Bibliography....................................................................................................................................8
Business Law Case Analysis_2
2BUSINESS LAWQuestion 1 (1)Issues indentified in relation to crown It is the duty of all directors and officers of a company to direct their operations towards thebenefits of the organization and towards its best interest. The Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) (TheAct) governs the operations of directors in relation to an organization along with a few othercommon law provisions. There are several provisions which have been laid down the legislationtowards governing the activities of the directors. Section 180-184 of the Act entails the statutoryduties of directors set out by the CA. According to the provisions laid down by section 180(1) ofthe Act the directors have to discharge their responsibilities towards the organization with dueskill and diligence. The actions of the directors in relation to the provisions of section 180 (1) ofthe Act are analyzed on an objective basis rather than subjective. Thus an imaginary person withan aptitude of a director is placed in situation of the director is question. Further the actions ofthe director are evaluated based in the actions which the imaginary director would have taken insame position1. It had been ruled by the court in the case of ASIC v Cassimatis2 that a legalprovision would not be violated by any reasonable director in any situation and further such anact cannot be ratified even by the shareholders of the company. It has been provided through the article that Crown Resorts Ltd have sent agents to china inorder to recruit gamblers. Gambling is prohibited in china and is treated as a penal offence.These agents used to go mainland china and recruit gamblers to come and play in the resorts inAustralia. Employees of Crown resort have been arrested by Chinese officials and in addition the1 The Corporation Act 2001 at section 180(1)2 (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023
Business Law Case Analysis_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
Corporate Legal Issues (doc)
|11
|2365
|591

Assignment on Corporate Legal Issues- Company Law
|12
|2258
|456

BX2112 Business Law - case of Asic vs Cassimatis
|9
|1874
|45

BX2112 Issues in Business Law Assignment
|8
|1791
|33

The Provisions of the Corporation Act
|14
|3338
|106

A BUSINESS LAW Issue. The present case of Bill and Sam
|7
|1259
|11