Scintillators Pty Ltd Case Study - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

CASE STUDY 1 
Scintillators Pty Ltd is a company engaged in the event management for celebrities. It is a  family owned company and Joe Johnson, his wife and three adult children all own shares. Joe  Johnson, a former bankrupt, is the sole Director. Joe manages the day to day business of the  company which employs 30 employees, comprising event planners, designers and  administrative support.  
In June of the year the company is engaged by Jerome Best, Australia’s wealthiest gardening  equipment manufacturer, to plan his daughter’s wedding to Simon Stash, the son of Australia’s  wealthiest marketing magnate. The wedding promises to be the most glamorous celebrity  event of the year and Joe Johnson delegates the planning of the event to a team of 4 wedding  planners. The planners arrange the flowers, venue, security and drinks for the event,  scheduled for December in that year.  
All of the suppliers of these services to Scintillators Pty Ltd require payment in advance and the  usual practice of the business is to obtain a personal guarantee from the clients and a 50%  deposit. In relation to this particular event, Joe Johnson, directs the planners that they should  not obtain a personal guarantee, nor require a deposit because he believes that this particular  wedding is worth the risk and will situate the company at the centre of the Celebrity events  market. 
The total supplier’s costs, paid out of company funds, put the company in a financially  precarious position, and Joe Johnson, not knowing the full financial impact, enters the  company into a lease for office premises for a five-year period in the most expensive office  building in Melbourne, owned by Jerome Best Pty Ltd. This forms part of his grand plan for the  company to become the premier celebrity event manager in Australia. In the process of  moving premises Joe Johnson discovers that he did not provide written consent to his  appointment as Director.  
In the meantime, Joe Smith’s wife leaves him shortly after, citing irreconcilable differences and  breach of duties owed to the Company. She also says to him that she is going to sue him  personally for breaching his director’s duties and notify ASIC of his former bankruptcy and  what he has been up to in relation to the company. Jerome Best also personally telephones  him to advise that the wedding has been cancelled by the groom and that neither he nor his  daughter would be paying a cent to anyone that has provided anything to do with the  wedding.  
Joe becomes concerned about his legal position, honestly believing he has acted with  proprietary and professionalism. He comes to you for advice.  
REQUIRED  
Advise Joe Johnson in relation to any potential equitable, common law and statutory liability.  Provide relevant statutory law and/or case law as authority for your answer. 
CASE STUDY 2  
Brian is a non-executive director of 'OTC Ltd.' Rakesh is a director and the CEO of OTC Ltd.  Michael is a director and the finance controller of OTC Ltd. Brian has a substantial shareholding  in OTC Ltd. This has entitled Brian to appoint a nominee director, who happens to be Rakesh. 'H2O Pty Ltd' is a wholly owned subsidiary of OTC Ltd. Brian requested, and Rakesh and  Michael arranged, for H2O Pty Ltd to advance $10 million to 'Dithery Pty Ltd' - a company  controlled by Brian.  
During the next two weeks Dithery Pty Ltd used some of these funds to purchase OTC Ltd  shares to the value of approximately $4 million. Soon after the advance and the purchase of  the shares, Brian created a unit trust with Dithery Pty Ltd as trustee.  
Units were issued to H2O Pty Ltd at a price of $10 million. A further 10% of the units in the  trust were issued to another corporation controlled by Brian, ‘Myne2 Pty Ltd'. The trust  property comprised of the shares in OTC Ltd and the residue of the $10 million advance. Over  subsequent months, Dithery Pty Ltd had the opportunity of selling the OTC Ltd shares at a  profit but chose not to. Eventually they were sold at a loss of $2.5 million. The residue of the  $10 million advance was used by Dithery Pty Ltd to:  
(i) purchase from Myne2 Pty Ltd unlisted technology shares (they were purchased at  the price Myne2 Pty Ltd had initially paid for them. They were almost worthless at  the time of purchase and were ultimately sold at a loss of $3.8 million);and  (ii) (ii) make unsecured loans to further corporations controlled by Brian.  
ASIC has received a complaint from a preference shareholder in OTC Ltd. He is angry that the  board of OTC Ltd has not declared a dividend in many years "despite the fact that my shares 
have a guaranteed right to 10% annual dividends." He has outlined to the ASIC the above facts  that he has discovered through his own investigations.  
He has complained that "the management of OTC Ltd" is appalling. ASIC now approaches you  seeking your advice on the above matters.  
REQUIRED  
Advice ASIC on whether Brian, Rakesh and Michael have breached any of their general law  and/or statutory duties as a directors and outline the remedies and/or penalties which would  apply if any general law and/or statutory director’s duties have been breached. 

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.