Business Law Assignment Help -

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 1
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 2
HYPOTHETICAL ILAC QUESTION:
It is clear from the case that the main issue is molarity. Brad is a very irresponsible
partner of the business. He made misleading information when he told Elena and Jack regarding
the illiquidity of IDesign. As a result , he made the company Digital10 to make the acquisition
of IDesign regardless of the fact that it was not a profitable business. In addition , instead of
working on improving the company , Brad went further to waste more money on drugs and
gambling . This led to the ultimate liquidation of Digital 10. According to the Corporations Act
2001, directors and officers in an organization ought to discharge their duties in a way that is
considered as beneficial to the organization to the company .
In this case , Brad was not able to discharge his obligations for the benefit of the
company and as a result he gave way to various self-dealings thus leading to the downfall of the
company . In addition , Elena had suspicions regarding Brad’s activities but chose not to disclose
anything to Jack which demonstrate neglect on her side. Therefore, we can conclude that Brad
was liable for the liquidations of the company . Elena was also liable for turning a blind eye on
her suspicions.
ASIC was encouraged to take a number of administrative , civil and criminal actions
in relations to director misconducts . A cooperative framework to deal with ASIC might
benefit a person in multiple ways .For instance; early notification or a cooperative approach
during such an investigation will usually be relevant to the consideration of what kind of
actions would be necessary to pursue and what kind of remedies would be better to seek. In
any case involved by ASIC , the court always offers due credit for any cooperation received
from the person or entity against who such proceedings are brought .
Question 1

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 3
(a)“Digital 10” is not registered but “IDesign” is already registered.
(b) Name: VOCATION LIMITED
ACN: 166 631 330
Locality of registered office: NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060.
Question 2
(a) The court determined that Vocational Limited breached its obligation under section
180 (1) of the Corporations Act by failing to work out a degree of care and diligence
that they could have exercised reasonably during an appropriate period to withhold
and suspend evidence and further determine whether the company was essential to
disclose such evidence in compliance with Listing rule 3.1. However , the court didn’t
find the company as a liable accessory for the contravention of section 674(2)
(Finney, 2017). The court further turned down the contention by ASIC that
understanding of the fundamental facts , rather than knowledge that withholding or
suspending information was substantial on the grounds that it was not adequate to
establish liability under section 674(2A) of the Corporations Act .
(b)Lodgment of a defective Cleansing Notice -In relation to share placement ,
Vocation wen ahead and lodged a “Cleansing notice” in compliance with Section
708A(5), which contained misleading information concerning the company’s
compliance with disclosure obligations. Nevertheless , the court declined to
consider Vocation as liable for this , as there was no sufficient evidence that the
defendant had prior knowledge of the matter , as required by the law. Generally, is
was found that the diretors failed to properly inform themselves of the key