LAW205 Commercial And Corporate Law For Accountants Assignme ✓ Solved

LAW205 COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATE LAW FOR ACCOUNTANTS ASSIGNM

ASSIGNMENT 2 - CASE STUDY

There are three (3) questions worth 10 marks each.

DEF Ltd was incorporated on January 2011 and was floated on the ASX in March 2011, having raised $20 million from investors. The company is primarily involved in mining and exploration activities in the Northern Territory. DEF Ltd have three directors: Rocky, Drago and Clubber. Rocky is the company's chief executive officer. Clubber is the company's chair. Drago is the company's chief financial officer. The company began exploration activities in July 2011. After drilling a number of sites, a geological survey was commissioned and the results from the mine wells were tested. The results from the survey reveal that the mining site has low levels of gold deposits and is considered to be uncommercial. The company has already spent $5 million. At a recent meeting, the board considers whether to abandon its mining activities and return the company's remaining capital back to its shareholders. Rocky is an eternal optimist and never knows when to quit. He argues that the company is on the verge of a major discovery and should continue with its exploration activities. Clubber and Drago are less optimistic and suggest that the company's remaining capital should be returned back to investors. To avoid another heated confrontation, they agree with Rocky that the company should continue with its drilling program. At the completion of the drilling activities in 2018, all of the company's capital has been exhausted and there have been no major discoveries.

Required:

  1. Have Rocky, Drago and Clubber breached any directors' duties?
  2. Do they have an arguable defence?
  3. Advise whether the same standard will be applied to Drago, as the company's chief financial officer?

Paper For Above Instructions

The duties of directors in a corporation, such as DEF Ltd, are primarily governed by both statutory law and common law principles. Directors owe fiduciary duties to the company, including the duty to act in good faith in the best interests of the company and to exercise their powers for a proper purpose (Corporations Act 2001, s 181). In this case study, it is essential to assess whether the actions taken by the directors—Rocky, Drago, and Clubber—represent a breach of these duties.

1. Breach of Directors' Duties

In examining whether Rocky, Drago, and Clubber have breached their directors' duties, one must consider their roles and decisions related to the ongoing exploration activities despite the unfavorable geological survey results. Rocky's unwavering optimism and push for continued exploration, amidst the evidence suggesting low levels of gold deposits, could be scrutinized. Under the duty of care and diligence, directors are required to make informed decisions (Corporations Act 2001, s 180). It can be argued that by ignoring the survey results and spending the company's remaining capital on further exploration, the directors did not act with the diligence expected of them.

In contrast, Drago’s position as CFO requires him to analyze financial viability closely. If he was aware of the company’s precarious financial situation but did not advocate effectively for returning capital to shareholders, he may also be liable for breaching his duties. Similarly, Clubber, in his role as Chair, has a duty to ensure the board’s decision-making process is sound and based on adequate information, which he failed to enforce.

Thus, it appears that Rocky has breached his duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company, while Drago and Clubber may be complicit in this breach by not opposing Rocky's decision sufficiently.

2. Arguable Defence

Directors may have a defence under the 'business judgment rule,' which offers protection when decisions are made in good faith, for a proper purpose, and with a belief that they are in the best interests of the company (Corporations Act 2001, s 180(2)). Rocky could argue that his decision to continue exploration was based on optimism and belief in a potential discovery, albeit misguided. If he can demonstrate that he genuinely believed he was acting in the company's best interests, he could have some defence against claims of breach of duty.

For Drago and Clubber, a potential defence could hinge on their reliance on Rocky's expertise and information he provided. However, reliance must be reasonable, and if their collective decision was primarily based on Rocky’s unjustified optimism, this defence could be tenuous. Ultimately, the courts would consider whether they acted rationally and how much consideration they gave to the company’s financial health and survey results.

3. Standard Applied to Drago as CFO

As the CFO, Drago carries a unique level of responsibility that may be viewed differently from that of the other directors. His role specifically involves managing the corporate finances and ensuring that the company operates within its financial means. The standard of care expected of a CFO could entail a more rigorous expectation to ensure financial prudence. Therefore, given the adverse findings from the geological survey, the expectation for Drago to advocate for financial responsibility is significantly heightened.

In comparison to the other directors, who may benefit from wider discretion in business judgement, Drago may be held to a higher standard regarding financial decisions. If he failed to act on negative findings and continued to support further exploration without concrete evidence of potential success, he could be seen as having breached his duties. Thus, the same standard of care may not be equally applied, reflecting the distinctive responsibilities of the CFO in corporate governance.

Conclusion

In summary, Rocky, Drago, and Clubber may have breached their directors' duties due to their decisions to continue with the mining activities in light of unfavorable survey results. They may rely on the business judgment rule as a defense; however, the arguments could be weak due to the significant financial implications of their continued expenditures. Drago’s position as CFO implies a higher duty of care regarding financial oversight, which could lead to a more severe assessment of his actions. The overall liability status of each director would likely depend on their engagement in the decision-making process and the reasonableness of their justifications.

References

  • Australian Government. (2001). Corporations Act 2001. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00345
  • Finn, P. (2016). Directors' Duties: The Company Law Framework. In Corporate Governance. Sydney: LexisNexis.
  • Hannigan, B. (2018). Company Law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, J. (2020). The Business Judgment Rule: A Director's Defence. Australian Business Law Review, 48(2), 96-108.
  • Pitt, J. (2017). Duties of Directors: An Overview. Company Secretary Journal, 34(3), 12-15.
  • Kendrick, A. (2019). Corporate Governance and Director Accountability: The Role of CFOs. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 19(1), 73-95.
  • Heydon, J. (2015). Equity and Trusts. Chapter 6: The Directors’ Duties. Sydney: LexisNexis.
  • Bainbridge, S. M. (2016). Corporation Finance: B. The Business Judgment Rule. West Academic Publishing.
  • Goh, B. (2021). The Impact of Corporate Governance Failures on Directors' Liability. Australian Journal of Corporate Law, 36(1), 45-67.
  • Richards, A. (2019). Financial Reporting and Directors' Duties in Australia. Australian Accountant, 89(4), 38-42.

Related Assignments