992 resultados para Corporation law


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The claim of Thomas Westwood to be a burgess of the borough of Chepping Wycombe, tried in the court of King's bench.

Relevância:

80.00% 80.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

"Fourth printing."

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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.