Shareholder’s agreements are contractual documents that work as a complement to the constituent documents and that are usually kept secret. They include clauses which intend to level the rights between majority and minority shareholders, so that no single block (majority shareholders) can adopt decisions that would bind or undermine the other block (minority shareholders). These clauses are the rearrangement of voting rights, appointment rights or exit rights, for example. Shareholder agreements allow for the rearranging of voting rights so that in the case of a corporate decision to make fundamental changes such as in the structure, the bylaws or to merge the company, the power is fairly distributed. These types of charter amendment decisions are usually adopted by supermajority voting of shareholders in order to protect minority shareholders from being excluded –their decision power is comparatively smaller than the majority shareholders. If there wasn’t a clause requiring supermajority for special resolutions in the shareholder’s agreement, a director appointed by the minority sh...
Internal controls are in place to protect entities against theft from dishonest workers and outside predators. They are also an accurate series of checks and balances and are in place to find discrepancies.
Ralph Nader, Mark Green and Joel Seligman, in an excerpt from Taming the Giant Corporation (1976, found in Honest Work by Ciulla, Martin and Solomon), take the current role of the company board of directors and suggest changes that should be made to make the board to be efficient. They claim the current makeup of the board does not necessarily do justice to the company because “in nearly every large American business…there exists a management autocracy” (Nader, Green and Seligman, 1976, p.570). The main resolution they present is to make the board more democratic with the betterment of the company as its first priority. Currently the board no longer oversees operations, or elects top company executives and they are no longer involved in the business operations to the extent they should be. Nadar, Green and Seligman argue that that all of these things need to be changed. For a corporation so large to be successful there must be separation of powers just as there is in any current government system ( p.571). They claim this is the only and best way to success (Nader, Green and Seligman, 1976, p.570-571).
According to Alice Watson (1984), who wrote about the history of Jamaica Service Program for Older Adults (JSPOA), states that the agency came together from an earlier community effort in the 1970 by agencies, churches and local organizations that observe the needs for more sufficient, low-cost housing for the elderly. The agency formed a partnership that sponsored the construction of Conlon-Lihfe Towers, a 216-unit facility built under private auspices as a complete operation and now supervised by the New York City Housing Authority. Once it became evident that the housing would come into being, there were problems that remained a central concern, such as changing a variety of services to allow seniors to stay in the community. For a while, the community had done well in developing housing that would enable older persons to remain in their community. However, other crucial services were unavailable. “At that time, only two senior centers served the area. There were no elderly health clinics, few recreational programs, no educational or transportation services for older people, few in home services (other than for Medicaid eligibilities), and no programs to promote safety, a primary concern of the elderly “The lack of these services brought about changes that were implemented.
Individual Article Review Lily Cobian LAW/421 March 31, 2014 Ramon E. Ortiz-Velez Individual Article Review Introduction My article review is based on Sarbanes-Oxley and audit failure, a critical examination why the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was established and why it is not a guarantee to prevent failure of audits. Sarbanes-Oxley Act talks about scandals of Enron which occurred in 2001 and even more appalling the company’s auditor, Arthur Anderson, found guilty of shredding company documents after finding out Enron Company was going to be audited. The exorbitant amounts of money auditors get paid to hide audit discrepancies was also beyond belief. The article went on to explain many companies hire relatives or friends to do their audits, resulting in fraud, money embezzlement, corruption and even the demise of companies. Resulting in the public losing faith in the accounting profession, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 by congress was designed to restrict what company owners and auditors can and cannot do. From what I gathered in the article, ever since the implementation of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act there has been somewhat of an improvement but questions are still being asked as to why there are still issues that are not being targeted in hopes of preventing more audit failures. The article also talked about four common causes of audit failure: unintentional auditor mistakes, fraud, fatigue and auditor client relationships. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct clearly states an independent auditor because it produces a credible audit, however, when there is conflict of interest, the relation of a former employer, or a relative or even the fear of getting fire...
The corporation’s business is carried out by its management, under the direction of the Board of Directors. The Board, and each committee of the Board, has complete access to management. Also, the Board and committee member’s has access to independent advisors as each considers necessary or appropriate. Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt (2010) state that the Board of Directors also, issues shares, Adopts articles of merger or sha...
It is proper to present a business definition of merger as it found on legal reference with the ultimate goal in the pursuing of an explanation on which this paper intents to present. A merger in accordance with the textbook is legally defined as a contractual and statuary process in which the (surviving corporation) acquires all the assets and liabilities of another corporation (the merged corporation). The definition go even farther to involve and clarify about what happen to shares by explaining the following; “the shareholders of the merged corporation either are paid for their share or receive the shares of the surviving corporation”. But in simple terms is my attempt to define as the product or birth of a corporation on which typically extends its operation by combining with another corporation. So from two on existence corporations in the process it gets absorbed into becomes one entity. The legal definition also implied more than meet the eye. The terms contractual and statuary, it implied a process on which contracts and statuary measures emerge as measures to regulate, standardized, governing or simply at times may complicate whole process. These terms provide an explicit umbrella and it becomes as part of the agreement formulating or promoting a case for contracts to be precedent, enforced or regulated in a now or in the future under a court of law under the Contract Business Law Statue of Practice. As for what happens to the shares of the involved corporations no more explanation is needed as the already actions mentioned clearly stated of the expectations of a merge’s share involvement.
In contrast , the shareholder theory organisations or organisation's decision-makers only have the responsibility to their shareholders by increasing the organisation profits and should only make the decisions to increase as much as possib...
This separation between ownership and managerial control in this instance can be problematic as the principal and the agents have different interests and goals. In a large publicly traded corporation such as NOL/APL, shareholders (principals) lack direct control when the CEOs (agents) make decisions t...
...ust make an allegation of negligence”. It seems too easy for the shareholder to bring the action without knowing their hidden agenda. Second, the courts will be more involved with companies' internal management as they are given the full power of giving permission on a derivative action. Besides that, the filtering process is a time-consuming and will affect the interest of the company. Third, even after the prima facie case has been proven, the court must dismiss the claim if it falls under section 263(2). Lastly, when it regards to the court’s discretion whether to allow the claim to proceed, the court has to spend more time to analyze the requirement of good faith, various combinations of interest within the company as a whole, the views of the independent members, the ratification analysis and accordingly shifting away to the nature of the wrongdoing itself.
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.
The governing relationships include the shareholders. Shareholders employ decision-making rights at the annual shareholders’ meetings held in Stockholm, Sweden during the first half of each year (Annual Report 2015, 2016). The shareholder must be present at the meeting, either personally or through a proxy, to participate
It will basically analyse how Mauritian companies would profit by corporate negotiation and corporate mediation . The exposition will break down certain particular issues that organisations in Mauritius face and how negotiation and mediation can go to an organisation's offer assistance. Upon this point by point proposals, changes and recommendations will be given.
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
Nottingham Trent University. (2013). Lecture 1 - An Introduction to Corporate Governance. Available: https://now.ntu.ac.uk/d2l/le/content/248250/viewContent/1053845/View. Last accessed 16th Dec 2013.
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.