Home > Company Law

Company Law

Question: Problem Scenario

A new client called Dangerous Sports Plc (DSP). DSP is the parent company in a group of companies which specialises in offering risky sporting events to travellers in the UK.

DSP provides all the administrative support for the group and it receives most of the profits from the group's subsidiaries. David Matthews is the Managing Director of DSP and runs the group.

DSP holds all of the shares in two wholly-owned subsidiaries in the UK and one wholly-owned subsidiary in New Zealand. The two UK subsidiaries are Wildfire Rafting Ltd (WRL) and Courageous Caving Ltd (CCL). The New Zealand subsidiary is called Barmy Bungee Ltd (BBL).

The following is a series of excerpts from the initial interview with David Matthews.

DM: I don't know what to do. It feels like all my hard work with this group is starting to fall apart.

Let me tell you the worst news first. There was a terrible accident at BBL - a party of six British tourists were all injured by a faulty bungee rope. I blame the temporary staff which BBL had hired, for not checking the bungee rope, but the tourists are proceeding with an action against DSP in the UK. Can they do this? Me and the DSP team have been on some trips to see the operation of BBL, and we have given them some advice in the past, but they were pretty much running the company independently of us. So why are the British tourists bringing an action against DSP?
Also, I am worried about a long-standing matter connected to WRL.

A young man called James was hurt in a white water rafting accident due to the negligence of some staff of WRL who were acting under the authority of the then Managing Director of WRL, Richard. James brought a successful action against WRL, but it turned out that WRL had no assets by this point. Richard had been trying to run WRL down, because he knew that the claim would break the company and he told me that he didn't want to give James the satisfaction of taking WRL's money. He transferred some of the money to another company which Richard's wife owns, called Active Breaks Ltd. And the rest of the money was transferred to DSP (which we were happy about as DSP was having some cash-flow problems at the time). I've heard that James is taking further legal advice and now I'm worried that DSP might suffer because of Richard's actions.

Finally, we have bad news from CCL. We recently found out that CCL has been put into insolvent liquidation. During the months before its liquidation, the Managing Director of the company, Linda, had been making increasingly bizarre attempts to keep the company afloat, including spending huge sums on advertising. She also made some outrageous claims about the company's ability to fulfil some large contracts for holiday companies, and as a result secured several large deals which were then breached by CCL. We are wondering whether the liquidator or the holiday companies could place any of the blame on her, as she has loads of cash and DSP is still hoping to recover some of CCL's assets after all the creditors have been paid.

Please prepare some written advice for David Matthews.

Answer: Solution - Counsel to David Matthews The following analysis is devoted to examination of the issues confronting Dangerous Sports Plc. and provides advice pertinent to their resolution at law. Source utilization embraces...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 73% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2044 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2013 | Date submitted: November 04, 2014 | Coursework ID: 886

Question: To what extent do you share the late Professor Kahn-Freund’s view of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL) as a “calamitous decision”?

Answer: To provide a critical answer to the above statement it is important to look at the concepts with regard to incorporation, firstly the history of the incorporated company and its case law,...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2998 | References: Yes | Date written: May, 2007 | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 666

Question: Company Law Reform Act

‘It is the case that the UK still has not had a thorough review of the relationship between limited liability and unlimited liability legal forms for small firms and that the LLP’s role for small firms has not been properly addressed. Nevertheless, the need for a special limited liability company regime for owner-managed firms has been reviewed and rejected for clear and convincing reasons. The temptation to create a new legal form because other jurisdictions have something of this type has been resisted, rightly.’

In the light of this statement, evaluate the comparative treatment of the small firm and the reasons why the UK Company Law Review (CLR) rejected the creation of specialist legal forms for closely held companies.

Answer: In March of 1998, the DTI, concerned with the performance of the UK in the new global economy, and with the aim of creating a more competitive and efficient company law regime,...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 71% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3372 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2007 | Date submitted: March 30, 2011 | Coursework ID: 659

Question: Case study: Tesco’s horsemeat scandal
Legal Governance, Risk Management and Compliance

Answer: Introduction In the late 2012 and early 2013, Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) announced that several beef products sold in the UK and Ireland supermarkets contained horsemeat. In January 2013, British...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1500 | References: Yes | Date written: October, 2013 | Date submitted: April 16, 2014 | Coursework ID: 858

Question: ‘Incorporation is the bedrock upon which Company law is built.’

Critically examine this statement.

Answer: To examine critically the above statement it is important to look at the concepts with regard to incorporation, firstly the history of the incorporated company and its case law, including the ‘veil...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1885 | References: Yes | Date written: February, 2007 | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 667

Question: The general idea behind the Community Interest Companies (CIC) is to have available a custom made legal vehicle for community and social enterprises where the profits are to be made available for public work.

However, a more focused Community Interest test is in place which has been said to make the implementation of such Companies impossible. Further, it has been said that the Regulator of CIC does not seem to have proper guidance as what constitutes a Community Interest Company.

Do you agree with the above statement? Discuss.

Grade B, University of London
LLB, 2nd year, Company Law

Table of Contents
The View Behind Community Interest Companies 2
Types of CIC 2-3
Implementation of Community Interest Companies 3-4
Objectives of a CIC 4
Community Interest Test and Guidance As To What Constitutes a CIC 4-6
The role of the Regulator 6-7
The duties of the Regulator 7
The powers of the Regulator 7-9
International Comparisons 9
Proposals For A More Focused Community Interest Test 10
Conclusion 10-11

Answer: A Community Interest Company(CIC) is a type of limited company specially set up for social enterprises which want to use their profits and assets in favor of the public. However, they are...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3003 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: April 23, 2014 | Coursework ID: 862

Question: Discuss corporate personality and limited liability.

Answer: While that legal system imposes obligation on the legal person it confers rights. In essence humanity is a state of nature and legal personality is an artificial construct which may or may...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1913 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: May 02, 2013 | Coursework ID: 785

Question: 'In practice, in no circumstances is it possible to pierce the corporate veil between a parent and a subsidiary company.'

Critically assess this claim.

Mark: 65% | 2nd Year LLB | Business Association Company Law

Answer: This claim raises issues relating to the veil of incorporation and the relationship between a parent and a subsidiary company. To a certain extent, this essay acknowledges that since the 1970s, the...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 65% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 1485 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: May 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 686

Question: In what circumstances may the veil of incorporation be lifted at common law?

Answer: In the past, the corporate veil has been lifted where a group of companies have been viewed as a single economic entity. This argument was raised successfully in the case of D....


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: Company Law | Year: 1st | Words: 565 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: April 05, 2011 | Coursework ID: 668

Question: The general idea behind the Community Interest Companies (CIC) is to have available a custom made legal vehicle for community and social enterprises where the profits are to be made available for public work.

However, a more focused Community Interest Test is in place which has been said to make the implementation of such companies impossible. Further, it has been said that the Regulator of CIC does not seem to have proper guidance as what constitutes a Community Interest Company.

Do you agree with the above statement?

Discuss.

DETAIL: 2nd Year, Undergraduate, Company Law, University of Liverpool
SUBJECT: COMPANY LAW ASSIGNMENT
MARK ACHIEVED: 62%
GRADE: B

Answer: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to “actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law.\" (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001) The...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 62% | Course: Company Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2991 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2013 | Date submitted: April 24, 2014 | Coursework ID: 866


Page 1 of 212 »

New user?

Registering is fast
and easy

Welcome back

Gain access

  1. Register with us
  2. Pay for instant access
  3. Or submit 3 pieces
    of your work for
    free access

Categories

Adobe Reader is required to access all coursework & essays. (pdf)
PayPal handles payments on our behalf. All major credit cards and currencies accepted.
A PayPal account is not nessesary.