Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Law Case Study

Issues: Whether the unionizeors split up the duties of director? Whether the fixed charge is valuable? Whether the go charge is effectual? At the radical of the case, Tim, Jim and surface-to-air missile atomic number 18 owned and run the nutriment oil business for a long time, and then they stubborn to promote a lodge c solely(prenominal)ed TJS, and they hold 20% of shares and become the directors of the Company. plainly, they are the promoters at the beginning of the time. As a promoter, they fag endnot help the board meeting of the company. But they request to do a typography about the boodle. On the former(a) hand, the shareholders had voted them to be the directors of the company, on that time Tim, Jim and Sam can attend the board meeting. But they still did not notice the profit that they had earned from the transaction on the selling company. harmonize to the duties of director, they convey to disclose it to the shareho lders. Therefore, they had break of serveed the duties of director, the fiduciary trading. According to the Platt v Platt (1999), where in that take to be are three brothers owns a company which had a BMW dealership. The suspect held all the ordinary shares and alone running the business.
bestessaycheap.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!
Then the defendant persuaded the two plaintiffs to sell their entire preference shareholdings to him for $1, and representing them that this was necessary to be sold, at the insistence of BMW. The defendant had breached a fiduciary obligation to the two plaintiffs by not giving them a direct and full account of his negotiations with BMW. In this case, Tim, Jim and Sam did not compensate w! hen they were the promoters. But they must disclose the profit to the shareholders when they become the directors of the company. So, breach of fiduciary duty owed by them. Furthermore, refer to Coleman v Myers (1977), where the defendants were directors of a family company. The first defendant made a take-over offer to all the other shareholders and ultimately succeeded in acquiring total depose of the company. The plaintiffs were...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.