Legal Case for ASIIC vs. Adler - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Write about theLegal Case for ASIIC vs. Adler . Answer: The case of ASIIC vs. Adler is very unique and complicated as well. This case consists of various breaches of duties given in the corporation act 2001. In this case, directors, duties, their legal position, business judgment rules and statutory duties to act in good faith and for proper purpose have been taken into consideration (Bainbridge, 2002). This case is revolving around the Alder who was Non- Executive director of HIH. Williams was the director and CEO Company and Dominic Federal were the director and financial controller. The case was held for the misconduct in shares of other associated company and these three directors were liable for the conflict of related party transactions. It was given that Adler made AEUT to buy various investments amounted to more than 3 million dollars from his company. In this AEUT held that all the directors of company contravened all their duties (Clarke et al, 2003). In addition to this, duty provisions and directors duties given corporation ac t were also contravened as per the rules and regulation given for related party transactions in corporation act. It was held that all the directors act without holding meeting and passing resolution. Adler incorporated new company and enter into transactions with the company for his personal benefits. (Beans, 2007).He acquired three unlisted technology investment to PEE and unsecured loans from AEUT. In addition to this, Williams also breached his position by authorizing the ten million dollars payment by not following proper procedure (El Vault, 2003). In this case it was held that, it is their duty to follow all the rules and regulations for smooth running of business. After hearing all the facts and rules of this case, Tribunal ban Adler from acting as director of company for twenty years and provided that all the members and employees should follow all the laws, rules and regulation given in corporation act otherwise heavy penalties would be imposed on them (Hill McDonnell, 20 12). After analyzing all the facts and rules of this case, it was held that Adler had used his position for his personal gain and also breached various duties and laws which are given in corporation act. Therefore, he was banned from being a director in current and other companies for at least 20 years. On the other hand, William was also held liable for doing misuse of information and for helping Adler in his ill- intentioned. In the hand, Supreme Court penalized directors associated in this act and imposed heavy penalties for violation of corporation act (Lee Swartz, American Bar Association, 2007). Adler was banned from being a directors for 20 years while, on the other hand, William was disqualified from being a directors for at least 10 years. These penalties were necessary to teach them the outcome of violation of laws and regulations (Bainbridge, 2015). References Bainbridge, S. (2015).Corporate Law. West Academic. Bainbridge, S. M. (2002).Corporation law and economics. New York, N.Y: Foundation Press. Clarke, F. L., Dean, G. W., Oliver, K. G. (2003).Corporate collapse: Accounting, regulatory and ethical failure. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. El, K. Z., Vault (Firm). (2003).Vault guide to corporate law careers. New York: Vault Inc. Hill, C. A., McDonnell, B. H. (2012).Research handbook on the economics of corporate law. Cheltenham, U.K: Edward Elgar. Lee, D., Swartz, M., American Bar Association. (2007).The corporate, securities, and M A lawyer's job: A survival guide. Chicago: ABA, General Practice, Solo Small Firm Division.