Commercial Law: Analysis of Capital Doctrine in Australia

Verified

Added on  2019/09/16

|6
|673
|449
Report
AI Summary
This report provides an analysis of the capital doctrine within commercial law, focusing on its historical development and application in Australia. It begins by defining the capital doctrine and explaining its importance in protecting the interests of creditors, referencing the "Flitcroft Case" and the significance of maintaining capital integrity. The report then examines the doctrine's evolution and its role in preventing the unlawful dispersal of company capital. A significant portion of the report is dedicated to the Australian perspective, detailing relevant provisions within the Australian Corporations Act 2001 and the specific transactions it governs, such as share buybacks, financial assistance, and dividend restrictions. The report highlights the more liberal approach in Australia, where directors bear personal liability, and the implications of this approach on insolvency and capital reduction. Finally, the report concludes by contrasting the Australian approach with the UK model and emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to capital maintenance in modern business environments. The report references key legal texts and scholarly articles to support its analysis.
Document Page
Commercial law
[Document subtitle]
tabler-icon-diamond-filled.svg

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Document Page
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
History and Development of Capital Doctrine................................................................................1
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................2
References........................................................................................................................................4
Document Page
Introduction
The capital doctrine is also known as "capital maintenance doctrine" i.e. it is must for a company
to obtain proper consideration for shares which it issues and after receiving such capital it must
not repay it to members except in certain circumstances which are enumerated by the corporate
statutes dealing with it. It is a safety measure for creditors to keep the capital of the company
intact as the creditors give credit to the company.
History and Development of Capital Doctrine
The doctrine was evolved in company law case of England in “Flitcroft Case” and highlighted
two important aspects of this doctrine 1) Creditors shall have the right to know that the capital is
not dispersed unlawfully 2) the members must not divert the capital to themselves.
The reason for the origination of doctrine is to protect the interest of creditors and to ensure
lawful distribution of the assets of the company. “The creditors provide capital on good faith that
the capital shall be applied in the best interest of the company” (Edwards, 2014). For example, if
a company buys its own share and later goes into liquidation a shareholder can file a suit on the
basis of the amount owed by the company as it is ultra vires for a company to purchase its own
shares as it would amount to a reduction of capital.
It can be very well understood that on winding up of the company or in its liquidation or in any
business dealing the company cannot disperse the capital unless and until all the creditors all the
creditors are fully paid.
Document Page
Capital Doctrine in Australia
The principal statute dealing with Corporate Law in Australia is the “Australian Corporations
Act 2001” and provisions relating to capital maintenance doctrine are to be found in Chapter 2J
of the Corporations Act 2001 (Goode, R.2015). It provides following kinds of transactions which
can affect the capital composition of a company:
Where company buy backs its share.
Control and self-acquisition of shares.
Any financial assistance by a company.
Restriction on the payment of dividends.
The Capital Doctrine approach is more liberal in Australia as it makes the Directors of the
company personally liable and not makes the act of company ultra vires (Ng, E. 2017). There is a
duty of the director to restrict from trading if there are reasonable grounds to believe that
company is insolvent. The modernized approach is contrary to other orthodox laws and allows a
reduction in share capital as per the provisions of Corporations Act. The reduction should be
reasonable and not biased, and reduction should not suit to any particular class say, shareholders,
it should be as per the statute.
Conclusion
“Australian approach is wider than the UK approach developed under the Trevor v Whitworth
which prima facie focusses on the protection of the interest of the creditors." Modern business
environments force business to take corporate risks which involve capital issues as well. The
companies can make capital changes but at the same time makes the director of the company
liable so that this liberal approach is not used to divulge the company's capital.
tabler-icon-diamond-filled.svg

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Document Page
Document Page
References
Edwards, L. H. (2014). Legal Writing: Process, Analysis, and Organization. Aspen Law & Bus..
Goode, R., Kronke, H., & McKendrick, E. (2015). Transnational commercial law. Oxford
University Press,.
Ng, E. (2017). Feeding the Minotaur: Is International Commercial Arbitration Hindering the
Development of Commercial Law?. Asian Dispute Review, 19(1), 22-28.
chevron_up_icon
1 out of 6
circle_padding
hide_on_mobile
zoom_out_icon
[object Object]