Business Law Assignment: Breach of Duties

11 Pages2533 Words48 Views

Added on 2020-05-28

Business Law Assignment: Breach of Duties

Added on 2020-05-28

BookmarkRelated Documents

Running head: BUSINESS LAW Business LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note

Business Law Assignment: Breach of Duties_1

1BUSINESS LAWTable of ContentsIntroduction......................................................................................................................................2The duties or responsibilities breached............................................................................................3Analysis of the case.........................................................................................................................5The relevance of the decision to the development of Australian Corporation Law........................7Reference.........................................................................................................................................9

Business Law Assignment: Breach of Duties_2

2BUSINESS LAWASIC v Australian Property Custodian Holdings Limited (NO 3)[2013]FCA 1342IntroductionASIC v Australian Property Custodian Holdings Limited (NO 3)[2013] is one of the mostfamous case of Australian Federal Court where the organization has been found to breach theCorporation Act 2001(Cth). In this case, the plaintiff is Australian Securities and InvestmentsCommission (ASIC) and defendants are Australian Property Custodian Holdings Limited (ACN095 474 436), Mr. Mark Frederick Butler, Mr. William Lionel Lewski, Mr. Kim Jaques, Mr.Peter Clarke and Dr. Michael Richard Lewis WooldridgeASIC has alleged against the six defendants that they have contravened the CA. ASIChas been stated that the defendant has own responsibility entity towards the managed investmentscheme under Part 5C of the act according to the section 601FC. The directors of the companyalso own the duty of the offices of the responsible entity according to the section 601FB of thisact. The rule has prohibited the related party transaction for the responsible entity withoutapproval of the members which is against of section 208 of this act. The prohibition upon thedirector’s of responsible entity being has been involved has created the contravention accordingto the section 209 of the CA. Therefore ASIC has been alleged the contraventions of the sectionsand claimed for penalties as the punishment and orders prohibiting five former directors ofManaging corporations of APCHL.

Business Law Assignment: Breach of Duties_3

3BUSINESS LAWThe duties or responsibilities breachedAccording to the fact of the case the first defendant is Australian property custodianHoldings Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed in Liquidation ControllersAppointed APCHAL) has been found with the responsible entity under the managed investmentscheme of the Aged Care Property Trust and Prime Retirement or Prime Trust or the Trust. Fromthe second to sixth defendants are the directors of this company who have been alleged for thecontraventions due to the relation with the company which inclusive in its capacity ofresponsible entity of the prime trust. However in this case APCHAL has not actively join in the preceding and effectivelysubmitted to the judgment. However the court has been seeking damages against the organizationand other five defendants who have been found to be related in the conduct of the breach of theduties. ASIC has been pleaded three groups of contravention in this case. The first group ofcontravention has been alleged about the meeting which has been held on 22nd August 2006where the board has been resolved to lodge with ASIC which include:A consolidate constitution which is incorporating with the amendments so that it will beeffective according to the section 601GC (2) The lodgment resolution it has been mentioned that while passing the lodgmentresolution the company has been prevented the section 601FC (5) which breached theirdiligence and duty of care under section 601FC (I) (b).The company has failed to act with the best interest of the members of the trustaccording to the section 601FC (I) (c). They have also mentioned that according to the section of 601FC (I)(m) it is the duty ofthe organization that they must comply with the duty which has been imposed on it by

Business Law Assignment: Breach of Duties_4

End of preview

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

Business and Corporate Law: Assignment

|10

|2310

|208

Corporate Law Assignment Sample

|2304

|111

Lewski v ASIC (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 171 - Analysis of Breach of Duties by Directors under Corporation Act 2001

|13

|861

|210

Lewski v ASIC (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 171 - Analysis and Impact on Australian Corporations Law

|2488

|181

Breach of Duties | Business Law Assignment

|2025

|262

Business Law - Mariner Corporation

|10

|2292

|284

Business Law Assignment: Breach of Duties