Pages 8 (2008 words)
Download 0
In case of Microplex it was a wholly owned subsidiary of Megaplex. According to the details given the parent company is investing (financing) the subsidiary. The financed amount is taken in the form of debentures and with reasonable security. In case of crisis like insolvency the secured lending can be realized but unsecured lending cannot be realized as it have no ground under the common law.


If the company directors know it, they can stop any body from purchasing the land by convincing peter not to sign for it. But here the problem is not about purchasing land but the amount owed to Burkes and Wills and the clause that it was a heritage land and cannot be used for private commercial purposes.
Here there was a provision in the corporate act (2001) to get enough time by applying for compensation. Microplex can get compensation from the Katrina family for deliberately hiding the legal tangles bebind the land scape (water front) they wanted to purchase from them. If they get the compensation then they can successfully get rid of burden of Burkes and Wills. If they did not get it they can get at least time for settling the legal tangles in Babinda trust and get credit from them to pay the dues of Bukes and Wills. The company can approach court according to the following provisions.
(1) If the information in the application for a market licence in Australia contains information about the proposed compensation arrangements according to paragraph 881B(2), the minister can be compelled to treat the application as a thing for approval of the compensation arrangements and, for that action, he must consider the proposed arrangements were adequate.
(3) When it was felt by the minister that the proposed compensation ar ...
Download paper
Not exactly what you need?