Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Corporate Attribution And Directing Mind â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Corporate Attribution And Directing Mind? Answer: Introducation A company is created through its member and lawfully it hold distinct lawfull entity from its members. Law considered a company is an artificial being with certain rights are responsibility. As per the Ferran (2011), the board of directors of the company can be recognized as companys directing mind and will. The board of directors gains their rights from the deal of agency in middle of them and company. Further an employee of the company can be recognized as the directing mind and will of the company if actual authority for the interest of the company has been given by directors to an employee. The power or authority surrogate should be explained or implied by Business administrators. The employee taking action beyond their power will be responsible personally. In the case of Aderemi v Lan and Baker Nigeria Ltd (2000)7 NWLR Pt. 663 at 51, the senior authority of the company gain their power to take an action from the board of directors for the interest of the company and determined them to be the directing mind and will of the company In the recent case of Sugarloaf Hill Nominees Pty Ltd v Rewards Projects Ltd (2011) WASC, the investor lost their assets in the investment scheme of the company , and they suffer major monetary damages; the court held liable the director of the company for monetary injury (Wheelwright 2006). Piercing the Corporate Veil The stakeholders of an organization are recognized as its owners but the legally the identity of an organization is distinguish from its stakeholders. All the deals and important decisions of organization are regulated by its directors and stakeholders. But the stakeholders or director cannot be held liable for the responsibility of an organisation; they are responsible for the share which they contributed in the organization. This shield provided to the stakeholders is considered as corporate veil. As per Vandekerckhove (2007), if a case is instituted against an organization, the court can hold the owner of such organisation responsible for such deal by piercing the corporate veil hence The court of law does not considered the distinguish lawful existence of the organisation and puts the responsibility on owner, this doctrine is known as piercing of corporate veil. This theory disbarred the clause of limited liability and held them responsible for the actions the operations. Generally, the legal idea of corporate veil is abused by the owner of the organization for example, they indulge in some illegal deals through the organization and at stage of recognizing the liability for such performance, the owner of the organization accesses corporate veil like a protection. Therefore, the legal idea piercing of corporate veil is useful to find the real wrongdoer as given in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] 2 AC 415. The court of law have power to pierce a corporate veil for several matters includes scam, illegal dealings or injustice (McClain 2002). References Ferran, E., 2011. Corporate Attribution and the Directing Mind and Will. McClain, B.W., 2002. Piercing the Corporate Veil.Ohio Law.,16, p.14. Vandekerckhove, K., 2007. Piercing the corporate veil.Eur. Company L.,4, Accounting. Wheelwright, K., 2006. Goodbye directing mind and will, hello management failure: a brief critique of some new models of corporate criminal liability.Australian Journal of Corporate Law,19(3), pp.287-303.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.