Company Law Name: Institution: COMPANY LAW Fraudulent phoenix activity refers to the evasion of a company’s liabilities and tax. Such liabilities would include employee entitlements and occur via systematic, deliberate, and cyclic liquidation of corporate trading entities…
Limited liability possessed by companies shield shareholders and directors from any costs related to the company’s failure. Genuine failure of business, which occurs even after a diligent management of a business, followed by a subsequent change of corporate entity, can be viewed as a legitimate utilization of the corporate form. Fraudulent phoenix activity, in its basic form, involves an entity carrying out its business via accumulation of debt with no intention of re-servicing the debt for wealth creation and giving a boost to the business’ cash flow (Hannigan, 2012). The corporate entity then liquidates in order to avoid being made to repay their debts. However, the business exists under a different name but is controlled by the same group of individuals. However, most fraudulent phoenix arrangements are more sophisticated than this. A typical arrangement of this nature is structured as follows: a closely held group is put up, consisting of various entities such as one, which plays the role of human resource management. The entity charged with hiring labor normally has one director who does not serve as the group’s ultimate controller. The entity has very few assets and minimal share capital. When the labor hire entity cannot fulfill its liabilities, it is put into liquidation or administration by the ATO. Another labor hire entity is put up, with the labor moved to work under the new entity, with the process being repeated with limited or no disruptions to daily operations. The financial benefits reaped from unpaid liabilities are then shared out among the whole group. An example of this involves a labor hire business with an annual turnover of thirty million dollars and negligible assets, which is made up of fragmented operations through fifty-three related companies. These companies lodged accurate BA statements but did not remit the amounts required under the PAYG system. The director of the single company then proceeded to liquidate all of the other companies in a matter of one week, moving his two thousand seven hundred strong work force into eight newly created entities and went on trading. The director then proceeded to flee the country with over eight million dollars in unpaid taxes. The labor hire firm continues its trade activities without complying with the set down obligations. Rule Australia’s regime of corporate law is based on the Corporations Act 2001, which provides for the separation of control and ownership and imposes specific duties on directors, aimed at ensuring that they stay loyal to the company (Macmillan, 2012). The duties that are expected from the director are, in addition to those they have, under general law. If a director gets involved in phoenix activities, then he or she breaches several director duties such as duties that concern proper information use, duty not to allow a company to keep accumulating debt during insolvency, and the duty of good faith. Fraudulent phoenix activity could also involve contraventions of part 5.8A provisions of the corporations ACT that aim to protect the entitlement of employees, as well as voidable transactions. During these circumstances, civil recovery mechanisms, coupled with other general law features, which seek to protect company members and creditors against operators with unscrupulous intentions, may be started (Pennington, 2011). However, the Act required several amendments as ...
Cite this document
(“Company Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/other/11767-company-law
(Company Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words - 1)
“Company Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words - 1”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/other/11767-company-law.
The study helps to analyze the legal matters associated with the companies act and to distinguish between situations under which a person serving for the organization are held guilty and in situations where he is simply let off. It can concluded that the court of Law is very much strict with matters of fraud and punishes the convict and provides him with no opportunity to hide behind the reasons of serving his obligation for the company.
Note however, that the arbitration system and enforcement capacities also have a role to play as far as business law is concerned. Under this sphere are the commercial courts and the specialized economic courts. They come in when transactions between parties are not honored.
The law outlines that directors cannot receive any benefit from their position, unless they obtain an express legal authority from the board to do so. The Companies Act outlines that a director of a company must to circumvent situations in which the director possess, or can manifest an express or indirect interest that diverges of may clash with the interests of the company.
It has been enforced with the intention to govern the operations of the corporate houses of the country and instructs them to operate with the best interest of all the stakeholders involved with them1. As per the Company Law, it is commonly admitted that company is a separate legal entity which advocates that the members of the company are distinct from the corporate body.
It is particularly owing to the fact that the extension of the case led to the foundation of the Salomon principles in relation to Company Law related statutes. The principle, in simple terms, implies that the company has been legally incorporated and accordingly it should be considered as an independent person with certain specific rights along with liabilities to guide its operations.
g the position of director, by whatever name called", which includes a person who is treated by the board as such despite not having been validly appointed. The law also recognises the concept of shadow director, which is defined by section 251.
In the shareholder-centred view
out of the trust property, and (ii) any right to be indemnified out of the trust property for any liability that incurred by reason of any act or omission in the performance of its duties as trustee1.
In the law clearly stated above, Healthy Eating Ltd. is duly referred to as
When legal provisions that govern the interaction of employers and employees are violated, or when either party fails to meet their legal obligations, lawsuits are highly likely to occur. In the Chandler v Cape plc  EWCA 525 case, a health and safety issue resulted in a
In other words, this verdict has provided a veil between an owner and a company and through this veil the owner would not be personally blamed or persecuted if corporate actions have been taken on behalf of the company; Thereby, the company would itself be
10 Pages(2500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Company Law for FREE!