Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Duties of chief financial officers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Duties of chief financial officers
The Kangaroo’s directors, chairman and non-executive directors have breached some of the statutory directors’ duties since they put their own interest ahead of the company. Ralph is considered as a director since he is the managing director meaning that he possess the same amount of power directors have therefore he is considered as a “de facto” director. Russell is the Chief Financial Officer so he has a special responsibility in regards to the financial statement.
The executive directors who are Mike, Matt and Sally have breached s180(1) because according to Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438 the minimum standards of care for all directors including non-executive directors to monitor management and they have an obligation to attend all
…show more content…
s182 by issuing a loan without informing the directors hence he is abusing his powers so the principle in R v Byrnes (1995) 183 CLR 501 applies and used part of the loan to purchase a diamond ring for his own personal interest similar to the case of Paul A Davis (1983) 1 NSWLR 440 as it misuses the company fund. It can be argued that the money used to purchase the diamond ring can be used to generate profit for the business. Moreover, he requested for the loan despite the knowledge of the poor financial situation and possibility of insolvency which happened in the case of ASIC v Plymin (2003) VSC 123. Thus, he breached s588G(1) because at that time there were reasonable grounds that the business would become insolvent from the decline in sales due to the new policy implemented and the company was having trouble paying its suppliers. Therefore, despite being aware of the possibility of insolvency, he still issued the loan which led to the company winding up. This is similar to the case of Circle Petroleum v Greenslade (1998) 16 ACLC 1577. Hence, he has misused his position to gain an advantage for himself and caused detriment to the company since the company is already having issues with paying its suppliers. Consequently, this led to the breach of s184 since he was intentionally dishonest by not disclosing the issue of loan and did not …show more content…
According to case ASIC v Rich[2003] MSWSC 85, chairman’s skills and experience are regarded as responsibilities of chairman. According to s180(1)(b), if they occupied the office held by and had the same responsibilities within the corporation as the officer or Director, they had the same responsibilities within the corporation as, the directors or officer. Therefore, they need to exercise their power and fulfill their duty under the statutory duty of care s 180(1). Anton did not inquire the relationship between Ralph and Mattella even though he suspected their relationship which means he had breached his duty of care and diligence which is similar to the case of Westpac Banking Corporation v Bell Group Ltd (2012) WASCA 157.Furthermore he breached s181 because he agreed to Ralph’s proposal of issuing the shares to contravene the law to keep his job, this relates to ASIC v Sydney Investment House Equities Pty Ltd (2008) NSWSC
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
Throughout this essay, the health, safety and welfare policy and practise that came about after the Victoria Climbie case will be reviewed and evaluated. After arriving in England in November 1991 from the Ivory Coast, eight-year old Victoria Climbie suffered abuse from her great-aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, and her great-aunts partner. The anguish and eventual murder of Victoria in 2000 from hypothermia, caused by malnourishment and damp conditions, provoked ‘the most extensive investigation into the child protection system in British history’ as described by Batty (Macleod-Brudenell, 2004). The high media profiled incident exposed a clear lack of precision and communication between all professionals and agencies involved. This is shown by the fact that the mistreatment Victoria was suffering had gone unnoticed by the social services, police and NHS staff, who failed to make each other aware of the clear danger signs. Within the Lord Laming Inquiry into Victoria Climbie’s death (2003), it can be seen that some features recur time after time in child abuse cases; inadequate resources to meet demands, inexperience and lack of skill of individual social workers. In addition, it can also be seen that crucial procedures were evidently not being followed. The procedure that was established after this case included the recommendations made by Lord Laming such as the Green Paper of Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003) and the Children Act (DfES, 2004). These ensure that all children have the fundamental right to be protected from harm and abuse. In addition to this, it also certifies all adults who come into contact with children and families have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
This is actually an example of mixed corporate governance. There are independent board members in order to make sure that the operational and financial health of the company can gauged accurately from time to time. Peter Langerman did an in depth enquiry into the financial matters just because Dunlap had offered to resign in response to a trivial question. The board should have kept a watch on the firm’s financial health from the beginning. But after realising the gravity of situation, board was prompt and unanimous in firing Albert Dunlap which shows good corporate governance.
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.
Before explaining about this point, we must know that prohibition provides protection to the public from directors and managers of companies that have an irresponsible, incompetent or irresponsible to make sure that, for the period of the prohibition, the director was not able to take advantage of the limited liability status of the company, or involved in the management of the company. Because of that company act have taken seriously in this action. In addition, there are six prohibition of director that we have to know. First is, purchase own shares or holding the company shares. Second, provide financial assistance for the purchase of own shares or holding company shares. Third is gives loans and securities for loans granted to its directors and directors of its related company. Forth is, gives loans and securities for loans granted to persons connected with its director and directors of its holding company. Fifth is, substantial value property transactions involving director or shareholder. Last but not least is, substantial value property transaction not involving director or shareholder.
Koalas are located in the Southeastern and eastern part of Australia. One reason why they are located there is because of the Blue Gum trees. Frogs are located in every continent in the world exept for Antarctica because of the ponds and water streams. Both Koalas and Frogs are becoming extinct. Frogs population is dying. Koalas population dropped after farmers cut down many of the forests where Koalas lived and hunters killed the animals for their fur. Also Koalas are losing their home. For example wild goats eat the small Blue Gum trees. Meaning Koalas would run out of food. As we know both Koala and Frogs have similarites but they also have lots of differences.
There are five potential sources of jurisdiction of English courts regarding the insolvency of companies , namely the European Union (EU) Insolvency Regulation 2000 (EC Insolvency Regulation), the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as embodied in Sch.1 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (Model Law), the Insolvency Act 1986, the Banking Act 2009 in relation to banks, and the common law conflict of laws rules governing the insolvency of companies.
One of his workers in this process, Risselle Sng, was in charge of writing the transactions. She handled the settlements in the back office in Singapore. Nick told her what to write and when to do it so that no one else knew. He took advantage of Baring’s client accounts and created a hole in the account that he claimed did not exist because of documents he forged and sent to the auditor. In order avoid this, segregation of duties should be required. It is important to have managers checking up on internal controls and what employees are doing. The company should also require another employee 's signature when asking for constant loans to double check Nick is handling the money the right way. The fake transactions Nick created should have been sent to a manager in the company in order to approve the process and what he was doing.
Professor Ian Ramsay, ‘Independence of Australian Company Auditors, Review of the Current Australian Requirements and Proposals for Reform – Report to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation’, Canberra, October 2001.
The Australian Stock Exchange’s (ASX) Corporate Governance Council (2014) defines corporate governance as “A framework of rules, relationships, systems and processes within and by which authority is exercised and controlled within corporations”. One goal of corporate governance is for the board members to increase shareholder value (Tricker 2015). In order to achieve this, it is important that the board act appropriately and justly so that the best interest of investors are protected. This report will explore the effectiveness of JB Hi-Fi’s corporate governance. JB Hi-Fi is Australia’s largest home entertainment retailer, selling a variety of products at discounted prices. Over the years, they have maintained a substantial
As a consequence of the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines within the UK’s unitary based system, company law had to develop responses to the ‘agency costs’ that arose. The central response is directors’ duties; these are owed by the directors to the company and operate as a counterbalance to the vast scope of powers given to the board. The benefit of the unitary board system is reflected in the efficiency gains it brings, however the disadvantage is clear, the directors may act to further their own interests to the detriment of the company. It is evident within executive remuneration that directors are placed in a stark conflict of interest position in that they may disproportionately reward themselves. The counterbalance to this concern is S175 Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) this acts to prevent certain conflicts arising and punishes directors who find themselves in this position. Furthermore, there are specific provisions within the CA 2006 that empower third parties such as shareholders to influence directors’ remuneration.
Since the adoption of the 1996 Constitution, South African law has been reviewed comprehensively. One of the scrutinised areas is corporate governance. Because company management is a vital task to the company and the shareholders, directors play a very important role in the execution of this task. It should be noted that a company cannot act in its own. It acts through its representatives which consist of the board of directors as entrusted with the management of the company’s business. Cumulatively they are subjected to fiduciary duties. These duties bind directors, individually and collectively, with the obligation to act in the best interests of the company and to do so in good faith. Within these director’s duties to act in good faith lies the duty of director’s not to unlawfully
On the 10th and 14th of August, two sentencing hearings were observed. The two hearings were held at the Brisbane Supreme Court and lasted approximately three hours in total. This essay will describe the events that occurred during both trials, while critically discussing the aspects of the hearings and linking elements to the due process and the crime control model. Overall, both trials contained more aspects of the due process model than the crime control model. This can be seen in the manner the trials were conducted in, and the emphasis of upholding the rights of the accused.
2012). As defined by the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), “corporate government is the system by which companies are directed and managed” (ASX Corporate Governance Council 2003). In addition, ASX outlines eight principles of good corporate governance, such as “structure the board to add value, promote ethical and responsible decision making, safeguard integrity in financial reporting and respect the right of shareholder, etc” (ASX Corporate Governance Council 2003). These principles of good governance need to be employed by every organisation to ensure its integrity and avoid corporate
Everything running inside your cooperation should always stay within the boundary of legal system, and you have to be the supervisor keeping eye on every detail of your company’s business. Please do remember the lines of law which are concerning to your running trade, because the directors may ask you to advise them on their legal responsibilities and updating them on developments in the law concerning the running of companies.