Case Study of Daniels v Anderson (1994) Free-Samples for Students

Question: Using only the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Common Law Cases, advise Heston using the ILAC Method as of todays date. Answer: Issue Under the Corporation Act 2001 (CTH): As per the case study the issue that arises that, the decision of Gordon can modify the original idea of Jamie who can accept to rescue the company from economic collapse. The case was involves criticized the business operation in consideration with the regulations of corporations Act 2001. Law As per the case study, this case, it can be said that the regulations of Corporation Act 2001 requires a company and management to disclose the organizational document with respect to the business details. The regulations of Corporation Act 2001 section 180- 197 established the facts that the directors of the company to act as per due diligence, good faith and integrity by using the position and relevant information within the company. In addition, section 191- 196 of Corporation Act requires the directors of the company to provide all the relevant disclosure based on the business activities to avoid the potential conflict of interest and to prevent insolvent trading. In section 180 (2) of the Corporations Act 2001 established that while taking a business decision or judgment it is essential to take decisions by allow the proper business purpose and in good faith. It is also establish that the directors of the company must not have any material interest at the time of taking any business project or subject matter for business operations. The regulation of this act also provides that the directors can be applied to take business decisions based on the best interest of company where they together work with the benefits of the companys stakeholders. Application As per the case study, the regulations of Corporation Act for duties of directors and managers to be performed while considering business decisions, it can be said the present case involves many issues for performing the business activities for providing meals to the school. As per the rulings held in case of Healey v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2011) FCA 717, court contended that the directors of the company failed to provide appropriate disclosure for liabilities and debts. It was held that the director of the company failed to provide information on short- term guarantees and other short- term liabilities, reflecting the breach of section 180(1) affecting the companys true and fair view. Accordingly, it can be said that in the present situation, Gordon noticed the huge loss within the business but failed to disclose the information about the lack of money to pay debts. Again in the case of Daniels v Anderson (1994) SC of IL, the court contended the equitable conversion, the party breached the regulations for not providing the duty with due care as well as appropriate skill. Similarly, in the present case it has been noted that the concerned person of the company failed to disclose the failure of business project at the time of giving the idea of up gradation in the original business plan was also not disclosed. Conclusion According the case study, the directors of the company failed to disclose proper information, which give results of in huge loss in the business income, Gordon, can be said to have breached the regulations of section 180. Accordingly, Gordon had recommended reviewing the actions of the directors and filing a legal application for breach of regulation