Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
example of misappropriation of assets
scandal in corporate america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: example of misappropriation of assets
According to Salim and Kaur (2012), none of the member can sue to enforce the right of the company if it is a is a separate legal entity. Therefore, in order to avoid the multiplication issue on the suits on the same subject, the rule may now be justifiable. In the case of Foss v Harbottle (1843) contains of two members from the company named Victoria Park Co and they brought up an action against the five director from the company and also the shareholders by pointing out several action that they took to defraud the company such as selling land at a higher price. According to the case, instead of the claimant, it is the board of director’s responsibility to held a general meeting to make claim in this instance. Jenkins LJ from the case of …show more content…
There are various examples of fraud on the minority. Menier in the case of Menier v Hooper's Telegraph Works was a minority shareholder who complained that there are self-interested transaction occurs among the majority members and this lead to the problem where the fraud is about misappropriation of corporate assets. Then, the court then held that a minority shareholder's action was properly given in such circumstances. Another example that supporting the issue of fraud is abuse of power or discrimination is the case of Estmanco (Kilner House) Ltd v Greater London Council. This cases stated that, a minority can bring a claim even in the absence of complaint of fraud if it’s stated under the section. Whether the power is used intentionally or not intentionally, fraudulently or negligently by the directors in such a way that they are only benefits to the directors instead of the members, claims can be brought up by the members. Last but not least, Daniels v Daniels case is the other example of fraud can be seen on the issue of negligence which becomes beneficial to the wrongdoers. In this case three minority shareholders sued the two directors and minority shareholders decided to sell the land to Mrs. Daniels upon the company’s name at a lower price even though they know it worth more. It was held that it was right to sue in such a
On Friday, 09/23/2016, at approximately 0830 hours, I, Deputy Stacy Stark #1815 met with the reporting party, James R. Boucher (M/W, DOB: 07/25/1959) at the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office. I requested James R. Boucher to come to the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office to review the Wal-Mart video footage I collected and identify the suspect, James Roy Boucher (M/W, DOB: 03/16/1978) on the video footage.
In December 1973, Robert Steinberg (plaintiff) applied as a first year student at Chicago Medical School (defendant). He paid a $15 application fee and got rejected from the school. He filed against Chicago Medical school declaring that the school did not fully examine his application, in relation to the criteria posted on the school’s bulletin board. Steinberg claimed that the school made their decision of rejecting him on the basis of personal relationships one had with the school’s professors and vows made by the parents of the applicants to give huge amounts of cash to the school. Furthermore, Steinberg argued that there was a breach in the contract when the school took his application fee.
In doing so, the court departed from the previous rulings in Lister and Sinclar which only found a personal claim. FHR has attracted academic debates, not least because the effect on unsecured creditors. In this respect, Goode 2011 finds it hardly justifiable to allow a principal to rank ahead of the unsecured creditors who have given consideration. Furthermore, Rotherham deems that the finding of constructive trust does not reflect the true intention of briber, because the bribe arguably was never intended for the principal. These points have been noted by Lord Neuberger in FHR, who opined that these should be outweighed by the principal’s proprietary claim. Firstly, the bribe money should not be in the fiduciary’s estate in the first place. Secondly, the payment as such had very often reduced the benefit of the principal relevant transaction and thus can be seen as belonging to the
As what it came to be as one of the notorious case of fraud in the mid-1980s; the electronic store well known as (Crazy Eddie), its owner Eddie Antar and CFO Sam Antar committed every possible act fraud there is. Just to mention two of which they perpetrated; tax evasion and securities fraud. Basically, the tax evasion was committed for many years, it was not until the company became public in 1984 that their wrong doing near its end. Once Crazy Eddie went public, a new set of rules took place, such as compliance with the Securities Exchange Commission and the scrutiny of its investors. Soon, they both realized that their long committed fraud was nearing its end, when an external audit found the real numbers on the company’s inventory, revenues,
Conrad Moffat Black, is the former CEO of Hollinger incorporation. Hollinger inc. is the “fathering” company of Hollinger International, they were both Canadian media groups. Hollinger inc. went bankrupt in 2007.
Fraudulent activities within a company can lead to its downfall and prosecution of those responsible for said fraud. More than 80% of fraud committed within an organization occurred within accounting, operations, sales, executive or senior management, customer service or purchasing according to an Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) 2010 survey (Association of certified Fraud Examiners, 2010). In the case of Phar-Mor, the fraud was initiated by the Chief Operating Officer (COO), Mickey Monus, and supported by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Patrick Finn in response to declining profits of the company.
This case comes in market in May 8, 2002. This case is based on mail fraud in Florida District court. Kevin Gray is a businessman.
On April 15, 2015, Brian F. Guillot, Esq., of Metairie Louisiana, contacted Office of the Bar Counsel regarding Ernest A. Solomon, Esq. Guillot has been retained by the family of Elmore Charles Desvigne, Sr., to assist in the execution of Desvigne Sr.’s estate. On January 18, 2011, Desvigne, Sr., named Solomon as the executor of his Last Will and Testament, his appointment was confirmed by the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans; approximately two years later Desvigne, Sr., passed away. Solomon has never been admitted to the bar of Louisiana, and his appointment was solely to act as an executor.
It is the duty of the shareholder who files the derivative suit to prove that the majority of the directors were financially interested in the challenged transaction or were not able to make an independent decision, so that the defence of business judgement does not apply in a particular case. Then a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) would be constituted and it consists of independent and disinterested directors. If the SLC is of the opinion that, the continuance of the derivative suit is in contravention with the interests of the company, then the court considers that business judgment rule protects the decision of SLC and grant that the suit may be dismissed. It is seen that, judges invoke the business judgment rule defence to protect boards of directors from legal liability in the vast majority of shareholder derivative
As the lead prosecutor, the first fact that I would convey to my investigators is that the system was broken. Shipman was fired from the Todmorden Medical Center for forging prescriptions in order to support his addiction to pain medicine. He should have lost his medical license from the General Medical Council (GMC) and that would kept him from being able to practice ever again (Batty, 2005). Instead, the GMC only sent him a stern letter denouncing his actions, but allowed him to continue to practice medicine once he completed rehabilitation. As a result of the negligence of the GMC, anyone who ever looked into Shipman’s medical history, his forgery and addiction would not have been revealed by the GMC. Shipman resumed his medical profession in Hyde, England in which his patient’s high death rate came into question. The police failed to properly investigate the coroner’s concerns by not even running a criminal history on Shipman, which could have revealed his
“…separate legal entity possessed of separate legal rights and liabilities so that the rights of one company in a group cannot be exercised by another company in that group …”
John George Haigh was born on July 24, 1909, in Stamford, Lincolnshire (Crime Investigations, 2018). Charming during his adolescence, Haigh would attend classical music concerts and be awarded several scholarships within his academic career. On July 6, 1934, Haigh married Beatrice Hammer, a 21-year-old woman he barely knew and lived with his parents (Crime Investigations, 2018). However, at the age of 25, Haigh would be arrested and imprisoned for fraud, just months after marrying. Upon his imprisonment, his wife Beatrice left him and his parents wanted absolutely nothing to do with him. After serving just two years, he was released from prison and moved to London, where he became a chauffeur (Katie Serene, 2017). Despite his short prison
It was argued by Cheung the reference by Lord Scott in Gamlestaden is still a summary of principles derived from Re Chime Corp. It is submitted that the reading of the case of Gamlestaden as it is does not state any criteria to allow corporate relief in unfair prejudice petition but rather the decision just endorsed that the court “may make such order as it thinks fit for giving relief in respect of the matters complained of” under an unfair prejudice petition. This could be a cautious approach not to restrict the ability of the court to may make such order as it thinks fit which would not be available if a test is introduced.
A derivative claim is a claim by a member of a company in respect of a cause of action vested in the company and seeking relief on behalf of the company and was established as an exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle. The derivative action protects the minority shareholders by allowing them to bring an action on behalf of the company (after they got a leave from the court) where the company itself was not pursuing because the wrongdoers were in control and preventing it from initiating an action against them. They seem to be given an opportunity to ‘stand up’ to preserve their interest indirectly and seek the justice for the company as a whole. By bringing this corporate remedy, they may remain as a member of the company and they have a possibility of having an indemnity for cost (as in the judgment of Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) : the court may order the company to pay the plaintiff’s cost as the benefit of a successful derivative claim will accrue to the company and only indirectly to the plaintiff as a member of the company).
Currently, directors have no prima facie entitlement to be remunerated for their work (Hutton v West Cork Railway Co 1883), but Article 23 of the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008 establishes that it is for directors to decide the lev...