A number of legislative controls are available to shareholders wishing to exercise their rights. If it appears that the affairs of the company are not being conducted properly, shareholders have some options available to them and among which, the statutory remedy for shareholder oppression. It protects minority shareholders against being deprived of their fair share and greatly improves their ability to take action against the company alleged to be in breach of good corporate practices. The Courts have adopted a liberal approach in the interpretation of the oppression remedy following some leading common law cases and it is now the broadest of all the remedies available to minority shareholders. There could be many instances where conduct has …show more content…
However, some meeting practices may amount to an oppression and any shareholder believing so may initiate action. There have been many other cases involving company meetings which were conducted in an unfair manner. Thus, in John J. Starr Pty v Robert R. Andrew Pty Ltd (1991), the majority shareholders – Andrew and his wife, controlled the Board meetings. They did not provide sufficient notice to directors and there were mini-board meetings prior to actual Board meetings to ensure certain outcomes. The Court held that there was oppression as there must be proper notice of meetings and proper time to discuss. It was essential that all persons who …show more content…
As was established in Thomas case, it is not necessary for a complainant to point to any actual irregularity or to an invasion of his or her legal rights or to a lack of probity or want of good faith towards the complainant from those in control. The remedy is directed to instances of conduct amounting to an unjust detriment to the interests of a member of the company. The most important factor for the Courts has been the test of unfairness, whereas all interests of the company must be weightned and balanced. Following the Thomas case, the Courts have been given significant freedom, as it has extended the oppression remedy’s scope. The “oppression remedy” now provides shareholders with a wide range of remedies for a broad range of conduct. The type of conduct which has been held to constitute oppression includes many instances including improper exclusion from participation in management or oppressive conduct of company meetings, where the interests of shareholders are unfairly disregarded and they are not able fully participate in meetings and exercise their
The chapter’s discussion of discrimination in the workplace is a frequently occurring ethical issue in today’s business environment. There have been many laws and regulations passed to help promote equality in the workplace, yet even in today’s day and age we still struggle to abolish all forms of discrimination. Discrimination comes in many forms including, disability, race, religion, and sex to name some of the most prevalent issues. Because proving discrimination in the workplace can be difficult sometimes, employees can be put in a strenuous position depending on the leadership of the company and support of company culture.
The perpetrators referred to the employee and other customers as being ‘curry munchers’ or ‘boat people’. Disputation aroused when the company declined the employee’s claims, with relying on investigation by a WorkSafe insurer that rejected worker’s compensation on the basis of management acted “rationally”. Luckily, the RDA has a legal procedure to prevent racial discrimination – contacting the Australian Human Rights Commission, furthermore the political right racism victims have is a solicitor, advocate or trade union, which may protest on the victims’ behalf. To lodge a complaint, firstly, fulfilling a remonstrance document via online or hardcopy, for those whom English isn’t a first language a translator is available. Conversely, Anti-racism gambits were required across Australia, as racial bigotry can be seen as a mounting culture that is urgently mandatory to be controlled. This is a prime sample of racism in Australia and how it’s still a prominent concern for many citizens. Additional awareness and fortification should be provided for everyone in contradiction of discrimination. Contrastingly, many Muslim Australians also experience discrimination and racial abuse, from a report comprised from Australian Human Rights Commission, the RDA
The New Zealand (NZ) Framework for Financial Reporting is in the process of changing since 2009, as a result of the review of the statutory reporting requirements in New Zealand by Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and the Accounting Standard Review Board (ASRB). The mainly recommendation was to remove small and medium sized companies from the statutory reporting framework (Ernst & Young, 2013, p.11). This New Zealand Framework for Financial Reporting 2010 (NZ Framework) was issued by the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board of the External Reporting Board (XRB) in 2011. The changes of framework pull open the NZ financial reporting standards that comprise NZ Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) setting movement from ‘rule-based’ approach to ‘principle-based’ approach. Then comes to the question: Whether the application of NZ GAAP is supported positively by the NZ Framework with the appropriate underlying principles, or it preserved a largely ‘rule-driven’ approach? From my perspective, NZ Framework provides parts of applicable underlying principles in guidance of NZ GAAP but there are rooms for improvement.
This essay assesses the Statement “the actions undertaken by a corporation in pursuit of shareholder wealth are justified, as long as the actions are not illegal”. Most commentators in the world have agreed that one of the corporation’s primary objectives is to maximise shareholder wealth, regardless of a narrower approach of sole responsibility to shareholder interests or a wider approach of responsibility extending to stakeholders. In evaluating the validity of this Statement and developing an argument, I examine how various journal articles presented their views regarding the issue of whether corporations should be responsible for matters beyond acting within the law.
The unfair prejudice petition has always been regarded as the easier and more flexible option for minority shareholders’ protection compared to the statutory derivative action. The restrictive leave requirements under the statutory derivative claim where the concept of prima facie, good faith and ratification have been interpreted within the confines of the origins in the case of Foss v Harbottle do not add any appeal the statutory derivative claim. Further, the approach in relation to granting indemnity costs orders which is rather limited does not in any way encourage any potential claimant to pursue a derivative action. Recent cases which allows corporate relief to be obtained via unfair prejudice petition and even the possibility if recovering costs under and unfair prejudice petition has further relegated the significance of the derivative action.
Racial discrimination in the labor market cost companies millions each year. Legal costs and a possible loss of development from the exclusion of a qualified employee are among the expenses faced by the company. For example, an employer can force qualified employees out of their positions. This can potentially cost the firm huge profits. Unfair treatment of employees can also lead to re...
Financial accounting is the process of reporting a variety of information from a specific entity with hope to aid internal and external parties about the financial position of the entity (Hoggett et al., 2006). The guidelines of these reports are heavily regulated by an array of corporations to provide a true and honest image of the entities financial position. There are a select group of main bodies that construct the framework for the Regulations of Financial Reporting with in Australia. To regulate financial reporting the Corporations Act was formed so that all accountants may conform to the standard. This act was created by the Commonwealth of Australia and focuses not only on companies but also investments and partnerships.
Discrimination is a significant issue that many employees are facing in their work place. Discrimination is the unfair treatment of one particular person because of their gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, culture, race, or other personal traits. It is unlawful to refuse to hire a potential employee based on one of the attributes listed above. Discrimination in the workplace generally falls into two categories, direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination is when a person is treated less favourably due to their personal traits, while indirect discrimination involves actions that may involve an imposition of a condition, requirement or practice in which one class will be able to comply with, while another class of employees will fail to do so. Discrimination is an important aspect of Australian workplaces, as Australia is known for its multiculturalism.
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.
There are a range of strategies managers could use to minimise instances of dysfunctional discrimination occurring in their workplace. These selected strategies aim to reduce the frequency of dysfunctional discrimination, rather than the severity. Some of these strategies include; a discrimination audit, enforced policies, selection procedures, and providing an effect complaint handling system.
In conclusion, there are many rights to the employees’ when it comes down to equal opportunity employment. In this paper you learned of a few different types of discrimination towards employees’ and how different acts protect them in the workforce. It also has shown what rights a person has as an employee in the working environment.
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.
Work plays an important role in our daily life, it is considered much more huge part of our personal life. During our daily work we make many relationships throughout our career history. Sometimes these relationships become lasting, and sometimes employment discrimination might happen. This relationships that we thought it last could be cut off by the devastation of claims of discriminatory treatment. Discrimination in the workforce has been an issue since the first people of workers in United States in the present day and as well in the past. Some employees were subjected to a harsh working conditions, verbal abuse, denial of advancement,, and many other injustices. There was also the fact that certain employees were being treated differently than other employees.
The office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE, 2015), Ireland defines Corporate Governance as “the system, principles and process by which organisations are directed and controlled. The principles underlying corporate governance are based on conducting the business with integrity and fairness, being transparent with regard to all transactions, making all the necessary disclosures and decisions and complying with all the laws of the land”. It is the system for protecting and advancing the shareholder’s interest by setting strategic direction for the firm and achieving them by electing and monitoring the capable management (Solomon, 2010). It is the process of protecting the stakes of various parties that have their interest attached with a company (Fernando, 2009). Corporate governance is the procedure through which the management of the company is achieving the goals of various stake holders (Becht, Macro, Patrick and Alisa,