LAWS19032 Company & Association Law

Running head: COMPANY AND ASSOCIATION LAW
Company cases
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1COMPANY AND ASSOCIATION LAW
Part A
1. Issue:
In the present case, there are certain issues cropped up regarding the dispute raised in the
case of ASIC v. Cassimetis. The issues can be categorized as follows:
 The first issue is whether the directors of the alleged company had made breach
against any provisions of the Corporation Act 2001 or not.
 The second issue is whether the Directors of the company, Mr. & Mrs. Cassimetis
had followed up every duty mentioned under the provision of the Corporation Act
or not (Aroney et al 2015).
In the case of the Cassimetis, certain provisions of the Corporation Act 2001 should be
followed up. A brief Observation of the case reveals the fact that a serious breach has
been done by the directors of the alleged company. Australian Securities and
Investigation Commission have made an allegation against the acts of the company
towards its shareholders and the following issues are cropped up thereby (Barnett 2017).
2. Relevant laws:
The core of the case is based on certain principles of the Corporation Act 2001. The
applicability of the Act in the continents of Australia is wide in nature. Corporation Act is
a general Act deals with the various aspects of the company related matters in Australia.
Allegation that brought against the company enlightens the provision of the director’s
duty that is particularly mentioned in section 180 of the Act. The duties of the directors
are mentioned under section 180 to section 184 of the Act. In this case, section 180 (1)
will be applied (Berk et al 2013).

2COMPANY AND ASSOCIATION LAW
It was contended in the case of Australian security and investigating Commission vs.
Adler that the position of Corporation Act should rely upon certain sections that I deal with
the director duty. The case is solely depend upon the provision of directors duties. Certain
principles of Corporation Act was accepted in that case.The problem regarding the directors
duties are a common problem in the societies of Australia. It should be kept in mind that
Australia is a business country. Under the Corporation Act it has been stated that directors
owe an important position in a company. It is there duty to maintain a professional
atmosphere while performing their job. A director must make a bridge between the company
and the shareholders (Blair 2015).
It is stated under the provision of the Corporation Act that it director should show certain
care and diligence to the shareholders.He must do his duties with good faith. However there
are certain situations, where it can be seen that the directors are not maintaining that part of
their duties. Section 180 subsection (1) it has been mentioned that directors should not misuse
their post at any cost. It has also been mentioned that the directors should have to retain the
prestige of their post. He is under the liability to devote his duties and responsibilities towards
the interest of the company and he is also under the liability that he will not feather his own
nest (Chia, & Ramsay 2015).
There are other sections under the Corporation Act that are specifically deals with the
matter of a director's obligations. Under section 184 of the said act it has been written that a
director ought to remember that he is holding a prestigious post.He should not coerce any
other person for attending his self interest (Coffee et al 2015).
The provision of Corporation Act is widened in nature. In Australia it is very common
that the directors from the financial sector are engaging themselves in a illegal way and try to
Breach their duties regarding the same. there are a number of cases where the related the

3COMPANY AND ASSOCIATION LAW
relatedmatters take place. In case of Australian security and investigating Commission vs
FMG (2011) it has been observed by the learned Court that if there is an allegation against a
director of a company that he has received the shareholders of the company for some illegal
purposes that is related to his own interest then the provisions of section 1041H will be
applied. It was held by the court that if the allocation was proved by evidences the director
will be held guilty of the offence and he should be convicted under the section of 1041 eye of
the Corporation Act 2001. However the nature of the penalties is civil. The court held that
along with the civil penalties the director can be imposed with certain monetary penalties that
are in engraved under section 674 sub section 2 of the said Act (Crane & Matten 2016).
The present case is solely based on the principle that is laid down under section 180 of the
Corporation Act. It has been stated under the act that the rules and norms of the act is
applicable upon any kind of directors of a company. There is no limitations of exceptions
mentioned under the section. Are closed interpretation of the section stated that the rules of
the section is also applicable on the sole directors of a company. The ultimate objective of
section 180 of the actors that it is taking an attempt to secure the interest of the shareholders
of a company as they are playing an important role in the economic benefit as well as the
establishment of a company. Therefore it can be said that the shareholders are in wasting their
money to buy the share of the company. These activity are supposed to give a strong support
to the economic backbone of the company. Under the Australian law, it has been stated that
the interest of the shareholders are not going to be excused at any cost. The directors are
under the application that the interest of the shareholders should not be diminished at any
cost. It is also a duty of a director of a company that he must disclose all the essential
documents that are related to the interest of the shareholders and should not hide any
information from the shareholders so that their interests can be suffered by such things. It is a
director's Duty 2 state about the risks of a financial sector so that the shareholders can