LAWS19032 - TERM 1, 2017
ASSESSMENT 1 - INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
Marks: 40% of the overall assessment for the course
Submission: Online via Moodle
Format: One file in .doc or .docx(MSWord) format.
Submissions in any other file format (e.g. .zip) will be treated as a non-submission.
Due date extended: Week 8 Thursday (04-May-2017) 05:00 PM AEST
Return to students:Week 10 Friday (19-May-2017)
Extensions policy:
The university policy on extensions of time will be strictly enforced. Extensions will usually only be considered if made via the online system and based on medical or compassionate grounds. Any extension application should be made before the due date for submission. Medical conditions should be supported by a medical certificate, and, since students are expected to start the assignment early, temporary or last-minute conditions are usually not grounds for an extension. Professionals are expected to manage their time to meet their obligations, so work or personal commitments are insufficient grounds for an extension.
Plagiarism:
The university’s plagiarism policy will also be strictly enforced. If plagiarism is found, a minimum penalty is likely to be zero marks for the assessment. It could be worse.
Part A: Case Analysis (1000 words) 15 marks and 15% of the subject
In doing this task, you are to interpret and analyse sections of the Corporations Act (2001) and cited cases in the given case and then answer a series of short questions.
Read Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] HCA 18 (3 May 2012) - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/18.html
Answer the following questions:
1. Summarise the facts of this case.
2. Outline the scope of s.180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
3. Discuss whether MrShafron breached s. 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Part B: Problem Question (500 words) 5 marksand 5% of the subject
The case selected relates to legal principles that are covered in the unit. The second part of the written assessment is based on a hypothetical factual situation relating to business transactions within a business structure. Students are required to discuss and analyse the likely outcomes for the parties concerned, including their rights, obligations and remedies, identifying the legal issues and applying legal principles to the hypothetical scenario.
Jean, Aldrin and Sanal are executive directors and equal shareholders of ‘Grand Rialto Pty Ltd’ (Rialto), an Australian east coast residentialdevelopment company which builds townhouses in the trendy inner suburbs of Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney. Jeans works in sales and marketing, and Aldrin and Sanal in legal and finance respectively. Aldrin and Sanal arealso non-executive directors and equal shareholders in a business consultancy company called ‘A&S Consultants Pty Ltd’ (AS).
Rialto has never distributed a dividend despite it being very profitable.Jean wants to buy a 2017 Jaguar F Type sports car, buthis salary package is not enough to buy the sports car. At the next director’s meeting he puts a motion to the board to distribute a$100,000 dividend to each shareholder. However, both Aldrin and Sanalvote against a dividend distribution and tell Jean that the business is still growing and in need of funds. Jean wants to see the most recent financial statements, but Sanal claims that the statements have not yet been finalised.
Jeanreally wants the sports car so heoffers Aldrin and Sanalhis shares for a reasonable $100,000. The shareholder’s agreement limits the sale of shares to existing shareholders at a reasonable price. However, Aldrin and Sanal decline Jean’s offer and pass a motion at a shareholdersmeeting that Jeanbe dismissed as a director because he is acting in an erratic manner and not fit to be a director.
As Jean begins to clear out his desk, Richelle, the bookkeeper, hands Jean the most recent financial statements that show that AS has been paid $300,000 in consultancy fees in the last 3 months. Jean is furiousover his dismissal and the AS payment because he believes that the payment is unreasonably excessive.
Solve the issues as to whether Jean has any rights, obligations, and remedies in the circumstances.
Part C: Short Essay (not exceeding 1500 words) 20 marks and 20% of the subject
The third part of the written assessment is an essay requiring that students research and analyse various aspects of the company structure.
The company structure is generally unpopular in Australia because the owners of a company must act in the best interests of the company rather than themselves, and may lose control of the management of their company.
Do you agree with this statement? Discuss.