logo

BLO5540 - Business & Company Law - Case Study

6 Pages819 Words53 Views
   

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

   

BLO5540 Business And Company Law (BLO5540)

   

Added on  2020-03-04

About This Document

In this assignment, we will get discuss legal issues and relevant facts of the case The fact of the case is Mr. Schwartzis the plaintiff who has sought leave to manage a  proprietary company named Isabelle Pty Ltd. He also wants to appoint a director for the company.

BLO5540 - Business & Company Law - Case Study

   

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

   

BLO5540 Business And Company Law (BLO5540)

   Added on 2020-03-04

ShareRelated Documents
Running head: BUSINESS LAW Business LawName of the StudentName of the University
BLO5540 - Business & Company Law - Case Study_1
1BUSINESS LAWTable of Contentsa.The relevant facts of the case...................................................................................................1b.The major legal issues..............................................................................................................1c.The relevant law relied on by the judge(s) in making their decision.......................................2d.The actual decision of the case.................................................................................................3Reference.........................................................................................................................................4
BLO5540 - Business & Company Law - Case Study_2
2BUSINESS LAWSchwartz: In the matter of Babybelle Pty Ltd (ACN 116 052 683) [2007] FCA 1469(September 2007)a.The relevant facts of the case: The fact of the case is Mr Schwartz is the plaintiff whohas sought leave for manage a proprietary company which name is Babybelle Pty Ltd. Healso wants to appoint a director for the company. The Australian Securities andInvestments Commission (“ASIC”) make a notice against him for disqualified to managea corporation properly1. b.The major legal issues: the major legal issues are that Babybelle was found incorporatedby Mr. Schwartz with several dishonesty offences. This company has only oneshareholder and one director, Mr Goodman who also holds a personal share in thecompany. It was also found that Until 1 March 2007 the office registered address was 22O’Loughlin Street, Ormond then on that day it was transferred to Mr Schwartz’ homeaddress. As a shareholder he has the duty of administration of the company and providecontract services relating to the importation and sale of goods including spa pools, heatedtowel rails and other sports equipment. Now the issue arises about the contravened of thesec- 206A of Corporation Act2. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission(“ASIC”) found that he is disqualifying conduct through hypothesis for dishonestyoffences. It was then stated that he commit the offence under the sec- 206G of theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth). 31 du Plessis, Jean Jacques, and Jeanne Nel De Koker, eds. Disqualification of Company Directors: A ComparativeAnalysis of the Law in the UK, Australia, South Africa, the Us and Germany. Taylor & Francis, 2017.2 Hiller, Janine S. "The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility." Journal of Business Ethics 118.2(2013): 287-301.3 Coffee Jr, John C., Hillary Sale, and M. Todd Henderson. "Securities regulation: Cases and materials." (2015).
BLO5540 - Business & Company Law - Case Study_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
In the Matter of Babybelle Pty Ltd (ACN 116 052 683) [2007] FCA 1 Business and Company Law Name of the Student Name of the University Author
|6
|1012
|116

BLO5540 - Business and Company Law Report
|5
|800
|48

Law - Corporation Act 2001
|4
|604
|219

Business and Corporate Law (doc)
|9
|2449
|78

ASIC v Whitlam: Breach of Director Duties in Australia
|10
|2561
|447

Business and Corporation Law Assignment (Sample)
|8
|589
|15