logo

Assignment on Corporations Law

7 Pages1602 Words70 Views
   

Added on  2020-04-29

Assignment on Corporations Law

   Added on 2020-04-29

ShareRelated Documents
Running head: CORPORATIONS LAW0Corporations Law
Assignment on Corporations Law_1
CORPORATIONS LAW1Answer 1.As per the constitution of FWPL, the directors take the decision of paying a dividend to A Class shareholders, which was sufficient for many years. Now, GML did not want to issue dividend instead they wish to retain their earning for organic vineyard’s development becauseJason was stirring the Galli’s grandchildren, many of which are lazy and undeserving. IssueThe primary issue is that whether the Galli’s children can take action against the directors’ decision of non-payment of the dividend. RuleThe shareholders invest in a corporation to earn dividend and increasing their value. As per the section 254W (2) of Corporations Act, 2001(Cth), the company has right to decide whether or not they distribute a dividend (Austlii 2017). In order to issue a dividend, the company is required to have profits, or they have fulfilled the obligations of their creditors. Section 232 protects the minority shareholder from company’s oppressive conduct. The courthas right to issue remedies against any operative misconduct by the company against its shareholders in section 233 (Cannavan, Finn and Gray 2004). The remedies include amending/modifying corporation’s constitution, winding up the order, buyback of shares, ceasing management from performing any specific action, and enforcing directors to performing specific actions. In the Thomas v H W Thomas Ltd (1984) 1 NZLR 686 case, the court provided three remedies for the oppressive conduct by a company (Gardyne 2007). The first condition was that the oppression was unfairly prejudiced discriminatory against the shareholders. The second term provides that the directors did not meet the reasonable expectation and the final condition was that providing the remedies is just and fair for the party. ApplicationAs per the section 245W (2) of the Corporations Act 2001, the directors have right to decide whether divided should be distributed or not. In this case, Galli has right to deny the distribution of dividend to the A Class shareholders. As per the decision provided in Thomas v H W Thomas Ltd (1984) 1 NZLR 686 case, the court provided three conditions which are necessary to be fulfilled to constitute a conduct as oppressive. Galli decided to use the profits
Assignment on Corporations Law_2
CORPORATIONS LAW2to develop the operations of the business also there is lack of any oppressive behavior by the company. It would be unfair and unjust if the court awards the remedies which are provided under section 233 of the act. ConclusionIn conclusion, the non-availability of any oppressive conduct by the company will dismiss theaction taken by the Galli’s grandchildren, and the court cannot force the company to distribute a dividend.
Assignment on Corporations Law_3

End of preview

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

Related Documents
Corporations Law ACC204 Assignment
|7
|1441
|100

Corporations Law Assignment
|8
|1895
|95

ACC204 Corporations Law - Assignment
|9
|2024
|120

Corporations Law Case Study based Assignment
|5
|1477
|48

Law Assignment - Corporations Act 2001
|7
|1452
|147

Business law | Galli Grandchildren
|7
|1276
|54