logo

ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Violation of Director Duties

The purpose of the Group Assignment is to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in solving two case problems by citing the relevant legal rules and cases and applying these to the facts of the case.

12 Pages1112 Words491 Views
   

Added on  2022-11-17

About This Document

This presentation discusses the case of ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited where directors violated their duties under section 180 (1) and 674 (2A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The presentation provides background information about the case, discusses the violation of director duties, the judgement of the court, and the relevance of the case. The presentation concludes by highlighting the importance of maintaining a high standard while making announcements to avoid facing legal consequences.

ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Violation of Director Duties

The purpose of the Group Assignment is to provide students with an opportunity to work in a collaborative environment in solving two case problems by citing the relevant legal rules and cases and applying these to the facts of the case.

   Added on 2022-11-17

ShareRelated Documents
Corporations Law
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited [2016] FCA 990
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Violation of Director Duties_1
Directors duties are mandatory to be
followed to make sure that directors did not
face legal consequences in Australia.
These duties are given under the
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“CA”).
In the case of
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited,
the court found directors guilty for violating
their duties.
Introduction
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Violation of Director Duties_2
Padbury Mining Limited (“Padbury”) was listed
on the ASX and it made an announcement on
April 11, 2014.
It claimed that a funding to $6 billion to
develop a deep water port in Oakajee is
“successfully secured” by the organisation.
The share prices of the company hiked after
this news; they went from $0.02 to $0.045
per shares (Levy, 2016).
Background of the Case
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Violation of Director Duties_3
The news was announced on 9:40 am and at 2:15 pm, the
ASIC put the shares at trading halt by suspending its trade.
It was held that the company did not provided details
regarding the party that has issued the funding to the
enterprise.
Shares remained in the trading halt till April 29, 2014 when
the company announced that the news was false and it
has not secured any funding (O’Leary, 2016).
A lawsuit was filed against that Gary Stokes (Managing
Director) and Terence Quinn (Chairman) who were acting
as directors of the company.
Background of the Case
ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Violation of Director Duties_4

End of preview

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

Related Documents
Business and Corporations Law : Assignment
|10
|946
|140

ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: Breach of Directors' Duties
|12
|1068
|427

Business and Corporations Law - PDF
|10
|2529
|200

Business & Corporation Law Assignment
|11
|2540
|40

Breach of Directors’ Duties under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
|4
|787
|356

ASIC v Padbury Mining Limited: A Case of Director's Duties Breach
|12
|1029
|196