1BUSINESS LAW Issue The issue is to determine the legal consequences for Andrew, Brian and Colin. Rule Section 588Gof theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth)list down a duty for the directors to prevent trading while the company is insolvent.This section is applicable to a person who was in a position of a director when the company was in debt. Such director shall be held liable if the company was insolvent or was in the verge of becoming insolvent by incurring such debt. The director shall be held liable if there were reasonable grounds for him to suspect that the company is insolvent or may become insolvent in your future (Anderson 2009). Section 1317E (1)of the Act lays down the civil penalty for the directors who breach their duty pertaining to insolvent trading (Anderson 2009). Application In the given case and you decided that their company need expansion and for that they required to take a loan for $2 million, $1 million would have been used for buying stock while the other $1 million would have been used for buying a new warehouse. All of these decisions were taken by Andrew while Brian was absent in the meeting. Colin informed Andrew about the poor financial capacity of the company, to which Andrew counter colon and said that the loan would be a good idea for the company. Sure and you and Colin would be held for preaching director duty for insolvent trading while Brian could defend himself for being unaware of the situation. Conclusion
2BUSINESS LAW And you and Colin would be held liable for insolvent trading. While Brian could escape the legal consequence by establishing that he was not aware of the situation. References Anderson, H., 2009. Piercing the veil on corporate groups in Australia: the case for reform.Melb. UL Rev.,33, p.333. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)