Concise corporations law

This highly regarded exposition of Australia's complex corporations law has been rewritten to take account of changes to September 2000, including most notably the CLERP Act 1999 and the decisions in "Re Wakim and Hughes". Includes succinct, plain language explanations and case summaries.

Corporations law text and essential cases

Corporations Law: Text and Essential Cases is designed as a student text but will be a useful book for practitioners seeking a good, current, concise book on corporations law. Author Julie Cassidy is a proven, successful author and has carefully ensured that the case extracts in this book are long enough to be useful to lawyers needing to cite case authorities in opinions and court submissions.

Concise corporations law

The purpose of this text is to provide a comprehensive, yet succinct, examination of the most significant areas of corporations law. By identifying the key elements underlying the pertinent statutory provisions, writing in a plain English style, and using a simple format, the text seeks to make corporations law more accessible to students and practitioners.

Corporations law : text and essential cases

Corporations Law: Text and Essential Cases is designed specifically to meet the needs of students undertaking one-semester, case-based courses in Corporations Law. The 13 chapters each contain extracts from the leading cases supported by commentary, further readings, and review questions.

Regulatory and enabling approaches to corporate law enforcement : patterns of litigation 1986-2002 and the effect of recent reforms in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom

Enforcement of corporate rights and duties may follow either a ‘regulatory’ or ‘enabling’ model. If a regulatory approach is taken, enforcement action will generally be undertaken by regulatory agencies such as, in New Zealand, the Registrar of Companies and Securities Commission, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) or the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in the United Kingdom. If an enabling approach is chosen, enforcement action will more often be by private parties such as company shareholders, directors or creditors. When New Zealand's company law was reformed in 1993, a primarily private enforcement regime was adopted, consisting of a list of statutory directors' duties and an enhanced collection of shareholder remedies, based in part upon North American models and including a statutory derivative action. Public enforcement was largely confined to administrative matters and the enforcement of the disclosure requirements of New Zealand's securities law. While the previous enforcement regime was similarly reliant on private action, the law on directors' duties was less accessible, and shareholder action was hindered by the majority rule principle and the rule in Foss v Harbottle. This approach is in contrast with that used in Australia and the United Kingdom, where public agencies have a much more prominent enforcement role despite recent and proposed reforms to directors' duties and shareholder remedies. These reforms are designed to improve the ability of private parties to enforce corporate rights and duties. A survey of enforcement litigation in New Zealand since 1986 indicates that the object of a primarily enabling enforcement regime seems to have been achieved, and may well have been achieved even without the 1993 reform package. Private enforcement has, in fact, been much more prevalent than public enforcement since well before the enactment of the new legislation. Most enforcement action both before and after the reform was commenced by shareholders and shareholder/directors, and most involved closely held companies. Public enforcement was largely undertaken in areas such as securities law, where the wider public interest was affected. Similar surveys of Australian and United Kingdom enforcement litigation reveal a proportionally much greater reliance on public bodies to enforce corporate rights and duties, indicating a more regulatory approach. The ASIC and DTI enforced a wider range of provisions, affecting both closely and widely held companies, than those subject to public enforcement in New Zealand. Publicly enforced provisions in Australia and the United Kingdom include directors' duties and provisions dealing with disqualification from managing companies, as well as securities law requirements.

A Look at Corporate Code of Conduct Legislation

Over recent years, there has been a growing perception among civil society in the developed world that multinational corporations are engaged in socially and environmentally exploitative practices that they would never get away with, or even attempt, in their home countries. Whether right or wrong, that perception and its political and economic ramifications have driven a global movement for more responsible corporate behavior. As part of that global movement, three common law jurisdictions—the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom—have seen legislation introduced to enforce standards of practice for multinational corporations based in those countries in respect of their overseas activities. None of those Bills has yet passed into law, but they are worthy of analysis as attempts to transform hitherto amorphous concepts like 'corporate social responsibility' into concrete legislation. This article compares and critically analyses the three Bills, making recommendations as to how they could be improved, with particular emphasis on the need to forge stronger links between the legislative provisions and international human rights law.

The separation of ownership and control under a happiness-based theory of the corporation

Explores the happiness-based theory of the corporation, suggesting that there is no conflict between the pursuance of economic and social objectives on the basis that their interplay is required to facilitate shareholder happiness. Considers: (1) the Berle-Means hypothesis and the separation of ownership and control, the dominant governance structure for large companies; (2) a happiness-based perspective on the separation; and (3) law reform applicable to a happiness-based theory. Argues that the separation of ownership and control is not in shareholders' best interests because the structure is not conducive to the happiness of individual shareholders and should be reformed.

Where is a corporation's "centre of main interests" in international insolvency?

The international community has long sought the appropriate means by which insolvencies involving several jurisdictions should be conducted. Central to the solution proposed is the view that jurisdictions should primarily co-operate with the proceeding underway in a company's "centre of main interests". This concept will be of increasing importance to Australia with the passing of the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 , which enacts domestically the provisions of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency. This article examines how this concept was intended to operate, the actual provisions of the relevant Instruments together with how it has been judicially interpreted. It will be shown that while some certainties concerning the operation of this concept have been achieved, determining this actual location remains surrounded with considerable vagueness. This article proceeds to suggest the most appropriate interpretation of this "centre of main interests" concept.

Shareholder participation in the corporation

Given that recent empirical happiness findings demonstrate that psychological needs are more important to individuals than the generation of wealth, the coporation should be considered as a mechanism utilised by individuals, through the acquisition of shares, to satisfy psychological needs, rather thean simply a means to generate and maximise wealth.