Business and Company Law Case Study

This case study examines the legal issues surrounding Babybelle Pty Ltd and its director, Mr. Schwartz, focusing on disqualification under the Corporations Act 2001. It outlines the relevant facts, major legal issues, applicable laws, and the court's decision, highlighting the consequences of failing to adhere to corporate regulations.

Running head: BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW
Business and Company Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW
Table of Contents
a. The relevant facts of the case:..................................................................................................1
b. The major legal issues..............................................................................................................1
c. The relevant law relied on by the judges(s) in making their decision:.....................................2
d. The actual decision of the case:................................................................................................3
Reference.........................................................................................................................................4

2BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW
Schwartz: In the matter of Babybelle Pty Ltd (ACN 116 052 683) [2007] FCA 1469
(September 2007)
a. The relevant facts of the case:
In this case the fact is Babybelle Pty Ltd is an organization which is owned by Mr.
Schwartz and also the director of the company. He has appointed another director for the
company. It has been found that Mr. Schwartz has been disqualified for the failure to
manage the corporation according to the regulations (du Plessis and De Koker 2017).
b. The major legal issues:
The legal issues has been found that Mr. Schwartz has been granted a leave for manage
the organization under the sec- 206G of the Corporation Act 2001 (cth). However the
court has been found that the application is not formed according to the terms and
conditions of the organization and he also appointed another director for the company (du
Plessis and De Koker 2017). Mr. Goodman is the new appointed director who was not
appointed according to the terms of the company regulations. Another legal issue has
been found when Mr. Schwartz changed the office address 22 O’Loughlin Street,
Ormond to in his own resident address. It was found that until 1 March 2007 the office
address was same and later it has been found to change another address (Coffee, Sale and
Henderson 2015).
According to the case study, it has been found that Mr. Schwartz breaches his
duty toward the office and as a solo director it is his duty to provide every services
(Hiller, 2013). The organization provides the services of sports equipments, heated towel
rails and spa pools. Therefore, Australian Securities and Investments Commission
investigate the issue and find that he was involved with disqualifying conduct through

3BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW
hypothesis for dishonesty offences toward the office. However the offence has been
committed under the sec- 206G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (du Plessis and De
Koker 2017).
c. The relevant law relied on by the judges(s) in making their decision:
According to the Adams v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003)
case the Federal Court of Australia has been found that disqualification of any person can
make threatening to the organization (Coffee, Sale and Henderson 2015).
In this case, the Federal Court of Australia has mentioned that Mr. Schwartz has
committed offences under the Sec- 206A (1) Corporation Act Cth). When any director of
the company has been identified to disqualification under a corporation then it will
granted as an offence (du Plessis and De Koker 2017). The directors has the rights to
involved in the decision making process when it’s about the own company. The Sec-
206B (2) of the Corporation Act 2001(Cth) defines the period of disqualification (Hiller,
2013).
The application which has been submitted by Mr. Schwartz has failed to prove
and satisfy the court by the unsatisfactory evidences for solving the legal issues.
Therefore it breaches the terms of Sec- 206A (1) and Sec- 206G of Corporation Act (Cth)
of the Corporation Act 2001 (du Plessis and De Koker 2017).
Here in this case Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”)
send reply to Mr. Schwartz trough a letter for not attending on the hearing date of the
case (Hiller, 2013).

4BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW
d. The actual decision of the case:
According to the case study of Schwartz: In the matter of Babybelle Pty Ltd, it has
been identified that application made by Mr. Schwartz was invalid and the facts are not
related with the facts. The Federal Court of Australia stated that he has breached the Sec-
206A (1) and Sec- 206G of Corporation Act (Cth) and found guilty for committing the
offences (Hiller, 2013). The offences he has committed to appoint the new director and
disqualified to maintain the company (Coffee, Sale and Henderson 2015). He was also
charged with another 5 offences under contravention of s 1350 of the Social Security Act
1991 (Cth), two contraventions of s 215 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
(Cth) and two contraventions of s 135.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). For
committing the offence Mr. Schwartz has been fined the capital of $13,578.94 (du Plessis
and De Koker 2017).

5BUSINESS AND COMPANY LAW
Reference
Adams v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 46 ACSR 68
Coffee Jr, J.C., Sale, H. and Henderson, M.T., 2015. Securities regulation: Cases and materials.
du Plessis, J.J. and De Koker, J.N. eds., 2017. Disqualification of Company Directors: A
Comparative Analysis of the Law in the UK, Australia, South Africa, the Us and Germany.
Taylor & Francis.
Hiller, J.S., 2013. The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics, 118(2), pp.287-301.
Schwartz: In the matter of Babybelle Pty Ltd (ACN 116 052 683) [2007] FCA 1469
(September 2007)