Question 1 Whether the company Mike and Yap form is private or public company. According to Section 42 (1) Companies Act 2016, a private company is also known as a company limited by shares and the number of shareholders must not exceed 50 people and the minimum number of shareholder is 1. With the following Section 11 (2) Companies Act 2016, there should have issued shares capital in a private company. So the company decided to form by Mike, Yap is a private limited by shares company which can be accepted by the constitution. Whether the name of the company incorporated by Mike, Yap, Kate is legal. In Section 26 (1) Companies Act 2016 a name can be use in order to form a company if it is not undesirable or unacceptable, same as existing company or being reserved under Company Act. In Section 27 Companies Act 2016, after they decided the name, they should get the Registrar to make sure that the name is still available. In Section 22 (3) also requires a limited company to have the word ‘Berhad’ or its abbreviation ‘Bhd’ as part of and at the end of its company name. …show more content…
Under case law Gopal Sri Ram JCA in Tengku Abdullah Ibni Sultan Abu Bakar & Others v. Mohd Latif bin Shah Mohd & Others[1996] Gopal has said that a promoter is one who starts off a venture, not only for himself, but for others, of whom he may be one. So from the case that discussed can be seen that Mike and Yap is an active promoter. Under case law Tracy v Mandalay Pty Ltd - [1953] HCA 9 - 88 CLR 215 ,the court held that if The person who takes no active part in the incorporation of a company and the raising of its share capital, but leaves this to others on the understanding that he or she is to profit from the enterprise, it is held to be a passive promoter. So Kate is categorised as passive promoter since she invest RM 15,000 and not involved in the formation of the
The case study of Angela and Adam describes a situation in which a Caucasian teenage mother, Angela, does not appear to have a bond with her 11 month old son, Adam. According to Broderick and Blewitt (2015) Angela and Adam live in the home with Angela’s mother, Sarah. Angela’s relationship with her own mother is described as a bit dysfunctional as Sarah is reported to continue to be angry with Angela for becoming pregnant in the first place. Sarah’s anger has caused her to deny Adam’s father the ability to come to the home and play an active role in Adam’s life, therefore putting more of a strain on Angela who has already had to drop out of high school in attempt to take care of Adam on her own. Angela has openly admitted
The case study on Kevin Miller is very challenging. Kevin Miller is White 5th grade student, and his parent are very supportive. Kevin has a problem with attention span; consequently, he I has been identified as a candidate for Greentree Elementary School Gifted and Talented Program. I will attempt to describe the issues related to Kevin’s moral judgement and self-concept; furthermore, I will make recommendations on his part.
The issues involved in Kevin’s case starts with his family values. Kevin seems to thrive on the attention he’s getting from his peers during school. The problem is its negative attention because it’s encouraging him to engage in negative behaviors during class. Kevin is narcissistic he feels as if he’s above the rules at school and in a way, he is because his parents have been preventing him from receiving consequences for his behaviors. Kevin’s parents are enabling these negative behaviors by defending him.
Besides, section 216 of Insolvency Act 1986 restricts a director of re-using the old company’s name. Directors are prohibited from incorporating or involved in setting up a new company with the same or similar name as the old company for a period of 5 years from liquidation. This section imposes personal liability on the directors. If a person breach of this section is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both . In order to convince its customers and creditors the company is the same entity, the directors of the original company may often change the new company name only very slightly. Thus, the scope of this section has been widened by the UK courts, applying it where the same business is conducted by the same entity and even if only one word...
According to the vignette, the appropriate diagnosis for Peter is antisocial personality disorder with borderline features. According to the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), “antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others” (324). For this disorder, one must have three of the given symptoms: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors (repeated acts that could lead to arrest), deceitfulness (repeated lying, using aliases or conning others for personal pleasure or profit), impulsivity or failure to plan ahead, irritability and aggressiveness (repeated physical fights or assaults), reckless disregard for safety of self or others, consistent irresponsibility (failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations), and lack of remorse (being indifferent or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another) (324-325).
Forms of Private Sector ownership are: Sole Trader, Partnership, Private Limited Company, Public Limited Company, Franchisee, and Co-operatives. Sole Trader These are... ... middle of paper ... ...ility. This is why many small businesses that have only a small number of partners will change their business ownership and become a private limited company. Background Information When Mac and Dick McDonald first ran their restaurant in San Bernardinosuccessfully for 21 Years it was a form of partnership, in which they made high profits which they were happy with.
Thank you for joining the kick-off call for the New York Life Investment CIO Lab earlier today. As discussed, please find information about next steps below. I’ve also included the email draft you can leverage in your communication with Bill explaining what we need from him below.
There are a number of options to choose from, Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), Family limited
(Section1 - Partnership Act, 1980) defines partnership as “a relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit”. It refers to both natural and artificial person thus, both individual and corporation are eligible to form a partnership. Joint Venture agreement does not necessarily create partnership.
In order to transfer a company to a limited company under the terms of the Companies Act [1862], a minimum of seven people must be named, with or without liability. Therefore, the addition of Salomon 's wife and five children constituted the minimum requirement of seven persons needed for Salomon 's company to assume limited liability, according to LJ Lindley.
Finally I will state whether or not I agree with the given statement.cobd bdr sebdbdw orbd bdk inbd fobd bd. When a company receives a certificate of incorporation it has a 'separate legal personality'. In law the company becomes a legal person it its own right. The fundamental concept to become familiar with when starting up a business is the idea that the business has a legal personality in its own right, particularly when it assumes the form of a limited liability company. This essentially means that if one commences business as a limited liability company, then the corporation... ...
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.
These two types of shares are ordinary shares and preference shares. From the third sentence of the quote “Many companies (limited companies) have preference as well as ordinary share.”, we still cannot conclude that which types of limited companies of the quote is discussed about due to the reason that we will state below. In the section 15(1) of the companies act 1965, there are not restriction of private limited company to issue or have shares if it has complied with the subsection(a), (b), (c) and(d) stated in the companies act. These restrictions stated in the Companies Act 1965 include restricts the right to transfer its shares, limits its member to not more than fifty, prohibits any invitation to the public to subscribe for any shares or debentures of the company, and prohibits any invitation to the public to deposit money with the company for fixed periods or payable at call, whether bearing or not bearing interest. The restrictions do not prohibit any private limited company to issue and have ordinary and preference share. Hence, it is possible for both private and public limited companies to have preference as well as ordinary shares. We cannot conclude that which types of limited companies in the quote is belonged
The Companies Act 2013 is an Act of the Parliament of India on Indian company law which regulates incorporation of a company, responsibilities of a company, directors, dissolution of a company.
This report is about Procter and Gamble Co., which is a consumer goods company headquartered in the US. However this report focuses on P&G’s perfume brands and cosmetics. The company’s brief introduction followed by the market analysis has been explained. Moreover its competitive environment using Porters five forces has also been analysed. Further analysis include the company’s growth strategies using Ansoff’s Matrix and the company’s drivers of internationalization examined using Yips framework.