Melbourne Law School - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3
-
ItemDocuments on securities and creditors rights(University of Melbourne, 1975)The materials herewith comprise examples of some forms of documents. They are to be used solely for the purposes of private study by students enrolled in the subject of Securities and Creditors Rights in the Faculty of Law in the University of Melbourne in 1975. They are not to be reproduced either wholly or. in part by any person except with written permission of Mr. A. J. Myers lecturer in the above mentioned subject.,
-
ItemReforming the corporate entity principle from a creditors' perspective( 1986)On 28 July 1892 Aron Salomon incorporated Aron Salomon and Company, Limited together with six members of his family. In performing this relatively simple task, he could little have suspected what was about to befall him. Within one year he was to go from riches to ruin. Within two years he was to have his reputation shredded. And within four years he was to have his name enshrined in legal history. In Salomon v. Salomon &. Co.,Ltd. the House of Lords unanimously held that, in English law, companies were legal entities in their own right, completely separate from their owners, and that companies were not the agents or trustees of their owners. This paper will examine this "corporate entity principle" from the viewpoint of trade creditors of companies. It is the thesis of this paper that the corporate entity principle as affirmed in Salomon should, and can, be modified in Australia to more adequately protect trade creditors. Trade creditors are the group who would most like to see the effect of Salomon modified in their favour, and are the group who have had the least success so far in attempting to do this. They have been chosen as the focus of this study precisely because of this lack of success. If the corporate entity principle can be shifted for them, it can be shifted for any other group. To expound on the thesis of this paper, it is first necessary to understand the decision in Salomon and to see the way in which it has been applied by the courts in Australia. Chapters 1 and 2 attempt to provide this background. Chapter 2 also contrasts the approach to the corporate entity principle taken by the courts in Australia with that of the English courts. Even though it is almost 90 years since the House of Lords decided Salomon, Chapter 2 makes it clear that Salomon is still good law in Australia. Chapter 3 suggests that not everyone is happy that this is so, and examines possible reasons why the corporate entity principle has remained intact for so long despite the criticisms that have been levelled against it. In a similar vein, Chapter 4 explores the suggestion that changes made when the Companies Code (2) was introduced in 1981 (in particular, the introduction of s.556(1)) have obviated the need for further changes to the principle. Both these attempts to pre-empt the need to discuss the thesis fail, so Chapter 5 discusses reasons why the corporate entity principle should be modified. Chapter 6 examines possible ways of modifying the principle in the light of the problems highlighted in the preceding chapters. Chapter 7 briefly summarizes the findings of this paper.
-
ItemDirectors' duties, creditors' rights and shareholder intervention( 1991)The time is ripe for a critical analysis of the scope of directors' duties, the role of shareholder intervention and the ability of company creditors to obtain remedies. Company directors are now the object of intense public scrutiny. Popular sentiment, law reform bodies and the judiciary all appear to favour expanding the duties owed by directors and increasing the ability of minority shareholders and company creditors to complain of breaches. Before any reforms are introduced, the existing law needs to be reassessed: it may already be capable of meeting the proposed demands. This thesis puts forward the view that no change to the existing law is necessary. It proposes a new analysis of the existing law to provide a logical legal framework for determining standing to sue, appropriate remedies and the effectiveness of shareholder intervention. This analysis suggests that shareholders and company creditors have greater rights than was previously thought: for this reason the existing law is adequate to meet the increased demands proposed. The absence of an adequate analytical framework in this area of the law is most evident in the debates concerning both directors' duties to creditors and the role of directors in company takeovers. The former are analyzed in detail in this thesis, but the same analysis is equally applicable to the latter. The analytical framework proposed to remedy this deficiency requires that a simple but fundamental distinction be drawn between directors' duties to act for proper purposes and directors' duties of loyalty to the company. The consequences of such a simple distinction are far-reaching: different remedies, different possibilities for shareholder intervention and different classes of possible complainants are appropriate for breaches of the different duties. It is these consequences which give the proposed analytical framework its value.