The Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman was a case that regarding a test for a duty of care. In this case, an organization called Fidelity Plc which is manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the objective of a takeover by Caparo Industries Plc because of Fidelity Plc was not doing well. In May 1984 fidelity’s directors made an announcement in its yearly profits for the year up to March affirming the negative viewpoint, the share price fall. At the point, Caparo Industries had started purchasing up shares in huge numbers. In June 1984 the annual records, which done by the accountant Dickman, were issued to the shareholders which currently included Caparo Industries. Therefore, Caparo Industries who had a majority shares,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Overview of the Case: The Securities and Exchange Commission claims Mark D. Begelman misused proprietary information regarding the merger of Bluegreen Corporation with BFC Financial Corporation. Mr. Begelman allegedly learned of the acquisition through a network of professional connections known as the World Presidents’ Organization (Maglich). Members of this organization freely share non-public business information with other members in confidence; however, Mr. Begelman allegedly did not abide by the organization’s mandate of secrecy and leveraged private information into a lucrative security transaction. As stated in the summary of the case by the SEC, “Mark D. Begelman, a member of the World Presidents’ Organization (“WPO”), abused his relationship of trust and confidence and misappropriated material, non-public information he obtained from a fellow WPO member about the pending merger. It was the specific written policy of the WPO that matters of a confidential nature were to be kept confidential (Securities and Exchange Commission). Mr. Begelman maintained a relationship with a fellow WPO member, an insider with BFC Financial, who provided access to non-public information regarding the merger. Mr. Begelman used this information to purchase 25,000 shares of Bluegreen stock prior to the announcement of the acquisition. After the merger was made official and disclosed to the street, Mr. Begelman sold his stake for a net gain of $14,949. He maintained ownership of Bluegreen securities for fifteen days (Gehrke-White).
The company I chose to do my report on for Small Business Management is Dick’s Sporting Goods. You may say to yourself “Why Dick’s Sporting Goods?” As with most large companies we see today, most have come from humble beginnings. It is hard to imagine sometimes in today’s faced paced and technologically advanced era. Especially, if you can remember the dot com era. Companies were springing up left and right. Some with potential to take off like a rocket, while others seemed to have crashed and burned. Usually, when those of my era (generation x) thinks of a large company and well to do rich families, names such as the Rockefellers and Carnegies come to mind. These families started from just about nothing to become considered the one
General Electric (GE) has manufactured and sold products that span from a small household appliance to health care equipment, and also jet engines for years. They are a business that has a solid footprint in the global markets and technology growth. Growing demands for new technology remains just as strong as ever. GE has combined technology and globalization by taking their state of the art products around the globe and they are in 130 countries (Directory, 2016). In January 2015, GE Ventures (Geventures, 2015), a division of GE, has partnered with Rethink Robotics, which designs and makes robots for dozens of industries that use robot applications to help build and assemble products (Collaborative, 2008-2016).
It was in 1836, two brothers named Adolphe and Eugene Schneider acquired the Creusot mines, forges and foundries in LeCreusot, France. The founding Schneider family benefited from the spectacular rise of industry that took place in the early 19th Century by making smart technical choices and building a strong network of relationships.
In this case of Abigail Reesor vs. Stonecrest Manufacturing Ltd., Stonecrest is a company with a very high turnover rate and is incapable of appropriately motivating their employees. Abigail's motivation to work was destroyed throughout her one year she worked at Stonecrest. In the beginning before starting her job Abigail's motivation can be related to Expectancy Theory, she believed that if she worked hard enough that she would receive her desired outcome. In this case she took the job hoping that her hard work will ensure that she will get compensated equally and this also relates to instrumentality as she believed her performance will lead to the outcome of making more money. This was the first incident that affected her motivation to work,
We are very thankful to have received all the information you had to offer. We are excited about the web hosting opportunities, and the fan based spirit wear store. I informed Hank that Ben would be reaching out to him. We are hoping to possibly utilize one of our mite teams this year to be able to learn the system before rolling the program out team wide in 2018.
For both years, approximately 26.5% of the assets were financed by the company's creditors (long –term and current creditors). The fair value of the assets would have to decline to 26.5% below their carrying amount. The creditors would not be protected in liquidation.
The PolyMet Company wants to build a copper and nickel mine in Northern Minnesota near the city of Virginia. It is a very controversial issue, but I believe building this mine can solve many of the problems in Minnesota. Finding jobs in Northern Minnesota is difficult, because of the lack of job opportunities. If PolyMet builds this mine it would create many jobs and opportunities for people living in Northern Minnesota.
In the case of Scottish Equitable plc v Derby , Mr Derby received an overpayment through the carelessness of his life assurance company and spent some of it on small improvements to his daily lifestyle. Despite the fact that Mr Derby had acted honestly and that Scottish Equitable was at fault, the defence was denied.
Furthermore, the directors were given a small cash fee as compensation, so therefore, an appreciation of stock was the only form of compensation available. The directors, employees and management depended on the company’s growth and stock appreciation for compensation. The board of directors had a large amount of a significant influence on the approval or disapproval of company decisions. As a result of their approvals of the acquisitions, WorldCom’s grew to an increase that led to a higher stock price and a large amount of compensation. Directors then began to depend on this type of large issuances of equity, this did not only conveyed an unhealthy practice, it also created a conflict of interest where the major goal was focus more on the growth of the stock rather than the best interests of the company (Ashraf, 2011). There was another conflict of interest
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 been held to constitute oppression, among them is the conduct of company meetings. Formal exercise of majority power may in fact, be unfairly prejudicial to a minority shareholder, justifying Court intervention.