Task: Basing your answers on the set reading for this company law essay (set out in the reading list, which will be attached separately), please address the following questions: Part 1 (Legal Analysis):The legal analysis aspect of this essay involves addressing both of the following questions: 1. Given the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Cassimatis v ASIC, and given the High Court’s refusal to grant special leave to appeal, does the law now regard companies as having non-financial interests that must be considered, along with their financial interests, when assessing whether a director or officer has breached s 180(1)? In particular, for the purposes of s 180(1) does the law now regard companies as having non-financial interests in maintaining good reputations and in complying with the law? 2. Imagine that the High Court did grant the Cassimatis' application for special leave to appeal and that you are one of the judges on the High Court hearing the case. As a matter of law, are you more persuaded by Rares J's exposition of the legal test regarding how s 180(1) applies to so called 'stepping stone' cases and his application of that test to the facts of this particular case, or by the reasoning in the judgments of the judges in the majority (Greenwood and Thawley JJ)? Part 2 (Policy Analysis):As a matter of policy, do you think directors and officers should potentially be liable for breaching s 180(1) when they cause, or fail to take reasonable steps to prevent, their companies from breaking the law? If so, what legal test do you think courts should apply to determine liability in such cases?
Subject Name: Business Law
Level: Postgraduate
If you want the solution to this assignment or want to discuss any other assignment or course you may contact us directly at order@bestacademicexperts.org or message us on Whatsapp or Viber at +91-9303607402 (http://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=919303607402&text=Hello%20 )
Comments