Legal Analysis of Company Law Issues in Two Scenarios
Verified
Added on  2023/06/04
|8
|2563
|110
AI Summary
This article provides a legal analysis of two scenarios related to company law, including the process of amending a company's constitution and the duties of directors in disposing of a company's assets. It also discusses the enforceability of pre-registration contracts and the liability of directors for breaching their duties.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Question 1 A. Advice for Salman In this part of the question, the process related with the Constitution of the company needs to be examined and at the same time. It needs to be seen if Salman can prevent the other directors of the company from including a clause in the Constitution. According to which a power has been given to the directors to expropriate her shares. The law provides that the company can modify or repeal its constitution with the help of a special resolution passed by the shareholders. That resolution has to be passed by at least 75% of the shareholders. This situation can be compared with other types of contract where all the parties should agree to an amendment in the contract. Therefore, with the help of 75% Majority, it is possible to amend the constitution of the corporation.1It needs to be mentioned that such amendments will be binding for the minority shareholders even if they may have voted against the amendment, unless the common law, constitution or statutory protections provide for any additional requirements. After the decision given in Gambotto v WCP, certain limitations have been placed on the power enjoyed by the majority shareholders of amending the Constitution in order to expropriate the shares of minority shareholders. In view of this decision, it is necessary that any amendment made to the constitution to give power to the majority to expropriate shares of minority can be considered as valid only if the power has been given a proper purpose and the power does not 1H A J Ford and R P Austin, Ford and Austin’s Principles of Corporations Law (Butterworths, 7thed, 1995) 262
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
operate oppressively for the minority shareholders.2Therefore it is necessary that the power should be fair under the circumstances. In this case, a members' meeting was called by Kody and Ryder. In this meeting a resolution was passed in order to other demonstration of Astounding Gifts and to provide that the directors of the company have a power to decide to buy back the shareholding of less than 12 percent. However, as required by law it is necessary that any amendment made in the Constitution to provide power to the directors to expropriate the shares of of the minority or valuable rights that are attached to the shares, it is necessary that the amendment should have been made for a proper purpose. Moreover, it is also necessary that the amendment should not be unfair for the minority shareholders. In view of these requirements, Salman can prevent the company from introducing a clause in the constitution of the company which gives a right to the majority to expropriate the shares of the minority. B. It needs to be seen if Melanie can enforce the contract against Astounding Gifts Pty Ltd that has been created by Ryder in the name of Incredible Gifts Pty Ltd. According to the law, before a company has registered, it cannot become a party to the contract. As a result, a pre-registration contract can be described as a contract that has been created by a person on behalf of or purportedly on behalf of the company we work the same has been registered with the ASIC. In this regard, it has been provided by the Corporations Act, 2001 that 2R P Austin and I M Ramsay, Ford’s Principles of Corporations Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 15thed, 2013) 432
it is possible for a company to ratify a preregistration contract after it has been created. In such a case the contract dated before the recession of the company becomes binding for the company. At the same time, liability has been imposed by the Corporations Act on the person who has created the contract on behalf of the company, to compensate the company in case any laws has been suffered by a third party as a result of the fact that they registered company fails to ratify the contract or it fails to perform the obligations imposed on the company under the ratified contract.3In case of such a liability, a person may seek release from liability towards the third- party the person has no right of indemnity against the corporation. It has been provided by the law that where the registered company fails to ratified the contract later on, an order may be issued by the court that it considers to be appropriate under the circumstances. Such order includes an order according to which certain actions have to be taken by the company. It also needs to be noted that any rights or liabilities that may be available to a person otherwise, on account of a preregistration contract have been replaced by the rights and obligations that have been provided in the Corporations Act. In this case, Ryder had entered into a contract with Melanie on behalf of Incredible Gifts Pty Ltd. This company was yet to be registered. Therefore, when the parties went to register the company, they came to know that the name Incredible Gifts has already been taken by another company. As a result they decide to register their company under the name of Astounding Gifts Pty Ltd. The company started to pay $5000 per month to Melanie. But in July, the board of the company decided that the company will refuse to continue to make the payment to Melanie. Under these circumstances, it can be said that in the present case, the promoter of the company, Ryder had delegated contract with Melanie. Although the name used in the contract was Incredible Gifts, but later on, the company was registered in the name of Astounding Gifts. Therefore it can be 3H A J Ford, Principles of Company Law (Butterworths, 2nded, 1978) 345
said that in the present case, the company can be reasonably identified. Moreover, the contract created by the promoter, Ryder has been ratified by Astounding Gifts. The company even made a payment to Melanie for a few months. As a result, it can be stated that in the present case, the contract has been ratified by the company. Hence the contract is legally enforceable against the company. In the present case, the Melanie can claim the monthly payments for the rest of the 12 months contract. Question 2 A. It has to be seen here if the directors of Chip-Eze Pty Ltd can be held responsible for the breach of duty prescribed by s181. The reason behind this issue is that when the company has been facing financial problems, the directors decided to transfer the profitable business of the company to another company that was incorporated by them. Under the name of Freeze Me Pty Ltd. In this regard, the law provides that when the directors are going to dispose of the assets or the business of the company, which is facing financial difficulties, the director should consider all the alternative courses of action available to them. The director should also be in a position to establish that it was honestly believed by them that the course of action taken by them was in the best interests of the corporation and they had taken prisoner the appropriate.4Whenever a company is in financial difficulty, there are three options available to the directors. Therefore, the directors may arrange for the sale of assets of the company to an associated company; the company can go into liquidation, and the assets can be sold by the liquidated as a going concern; 4John H Farrar and Brenda Hannigan, Farrar’s Company Law (Butterworths, 4thed, 1998) 382
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
or the company may go into liquidation and the assets of the company can be sold by the liquidator in the open market.5 On the other hand, it is available to the liquidator to claim that there has been a breach of duty by the directors, which requires the directors to exercise due care, skill and diligence and promote the success of the corporation. The breach of these duties can be claimed by the liquidator if the directors have placed the interests of the other company before the interests of the company while arranging for the sale or transfer or in the sale was not for the best price available. Similarly if the sale for a deferred payment was high risk move and it was not in the best interests of the creditors of the company. In the present case, Chip-Eze Pty Ltd had to businesses. While the business of manufacturing potato crisps and other snack foods have been making the loss for the last few years, yet the business of manufacturing frozen potato chips and other foods was reasonably profitable. Under these circumstances, the directors of the company Jordan, Michaela and Marianne, owning 25% shares each in the company decided that a separate company should be incorporated under the name of freeze Me Pty Ltd. According to the resolution, the profitable frozen food business was going to be transferred to this company. The directors passed this resolution unanimously. Therefore, the new company was incorporated and the assets related with the frozen food business were transferred to it. Now the liquidator, Archibald wants to know if this amounts to a breach of duty by the directors. In view of the legal position discussed above, it can be said that in the present case, the directors of the company, Jordan, Michaela and Marianne can be held liable for the breach of the duty including the duty that has been imposed on the directors by s181. This duty requires that the directors have an obligation to discharge their duties in good faith. Moreover, the powers given to the directors should be used by them for proper purpose. 5W E Paterson and H H Ednie, Butterworths, Australian Company Law, vol 2 (2nded, 1976)
Under the circumstances, in the present case, it can be concluded that there has been a breach of duty by the directors of the company. In case the directors failed to perform their duties that have been imposed on them by the Corporation Act and also the common law, the director may be held guilty of a criminal offense. In such a case, the penalty may go up to $200,000 or imprisonment after five years or both. It may also be held that such director has waged a civil penalty provision. In such a case, the director may be ordered to pay a fine of $200,000. A director may also be held personally liable to compensate the company or any other party for any loss or damage that may be the result of the breach of duty by the director. At the same time, the director may also be prohibited from managing a corporation in future. B. In this part of the question, it needs to be seen if Faizah can pick action against Jordan for the breach of his duties as the director of Chip-Eze Pty Ltd. Jordan sold 5% of his shareholding to Faizah. Even when he was aware of the critical financial position of the company. Soon after transferring shares to Faizah, the company went into liquidation. Strict duties have been imposed on the directors by the Corporations Act, as well as the common law. In this regard, the Corporations Act provides that the directors are under a duty which requires them to refrain from using their position in the company improperly. As a result of this
duty, the directors should not use their position improperly.6The improper use of position by the directors takes place when the director has used the position for achieving a benefit for themselves or with a view to cause a loss to the company. This duty has been imposed on the directors by section 182. Another relevant duty in this regard is the duty mentioned in section 183. According to this duty, the directors should not use any information that has been received by them as a result of their position in the company and while performing the duties of the director, improperly.7It can be said that the information has been used by the directors improperly if the directors have used the information for the purpose of achieving personal benefit or to cause any loss to their corporation. In the present case, Faizah approached Jordan and asked if she can purchase additional shares in Chip-Eze Pty Ltd. This transaction was completed on 8th of August. Under this transaction, Jordan sold 5% off his shareholding to Faizah. However, the creditors of the company who had not been paid, maybe an application to the court and an order was made by the court that are liquidated should be appointed and the company should be wound up. In view of the above- mentioned circumstances it is clear that there has been a breach of duty by Jordan. Therefore, Faizah can take action against Jordan for the breach of duty as the director of Chip- Eze Pty Ltd. 6Douglas Menzies, ‘Company Directors’ (1959) 33 Australian Law Journal 156 7Zelman Cowen, ‘Company Directors: Their Powers, Duties and Responsibilities’ (1967) 2 University of Tasmania Law Review 361
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Bibliography Douglas Menzies, ‘Company Directors’ (1959) 33 Australian Law Journal 156 H A J Ford and R P Austin, Ford and Austin’s Principles of Corporations Law (Butterworths, 7th ed, 1995) 262 H A J Ford, Principles of Company Law (Butterworths, 2nded, 1978) 345 John H Farrar and Brenda Hannigan, Farrar’s Company Law (Butterworths, 4thed, 1998) 382 R P Austin and I M Ramsay, Ford’s Principles of Corporations Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, 15thed, 2013) 432 W E Paterson and H H Ednie, Butterworths, Australian Company Law, vol 2 (2nded, 1976) Zelman Cowen, ‘Company Directors: Their Powers, Duties and Responsibilities’ (1967) 2 University of Tasmania Law Review 361