Grand Ltd’s current share capital consists of 25000 ordinary shares, which were issued at a price of $5 per share, and 5000 preference shares that were issued at a price of $2.
The rights of the preference shares have been decided by passing a special resolution by Grand Ltd just after its registration. The rights of the preference shareholders are as under:
The document governing the organization does contain provisions that shall be applicable on the further issue of preference shares. Neither does it provide for variation or cancellation of the rights of any share.
The shareholding of the ordinary shares of the company is as under:
At the time of issue of ordinary shares, each carried one voting right.
Now, the company is willing to increase its capital base by the issue of shares. It has two options
Grant Ltd prefers to raise funds from the issue of equity shares. This shall dilute the shareholding of Audax family. The Audax family does not want to invest funds in the company any further. However, it still wants to retain its shareholding of 60% in Grant Ltd. Therefore, the company is considering adopting the following strategy to raise additional funds:
The main issue mentioned in the above case study is that whether Grant Ltd can go ahead with the above mentioned issuance of preference and ordinary shares or not. Further, whether Audax family can be granted two votes when a poll is demanded is also an issue of the case study. In the paragraphs mentioned below the these issues shall be dealt with in the light of the provisions of Corporations Act 2001.
As per Section 9 of Corporation Act, 2001, a redeemable preference shares means shares that have preference over other class of shares in the payment of dividend of the company or in the distribution of the assets of the company at the time of winding up (icnl.org, 2017). These shares may or may not carry voting rights. However, preference shares that are issued by a listed company must carry voting rights relating to certain matters (Freckelton and Selby 2013).
Corporations Act, 2001 defines ordinary shares as shares that do not carry any preferential rights. Ordinary shares are entitled to vote and participate in the dividends or in the distribution of assets of the company (icnl.org, 2017).
The Corporation Act further provides that without prejudice to any special rights previously conferred on the holders of any existing shares or class of shares and subject to the provisions of this Act, the Listing Rules and the Constitution, the directors can, at any time issue such number of shares that they consider appropriate (Coffee Jr, Sale and Henderson 2015). Further, the shares that the directors plan to issue can belong to any class of shares (icnl.org, 2017). These shares can be ordinary shares, preferred shares, deferred shares or shares having other special rights and restrictions with regard to return on capital, dividend otherwise or otherwise as the directors determine on their discretion (icnl.org, 2017).
The Corporation Act further elaborates on the rights attached on any class of shares. As per the provisions of this Act, share capital of the company can be divided into different classes of shares subject to certain conditions (icnl.org, 2017). According to the relevant provisions of the Act, the rights of any class of shares can be varied if three quarters of the shareholders of that class of shares give their consent in writing or if it authorized by a special resolution passed in a separate meeting of the class of shareholders whose rights are being considered to be varied.
The provisions of Corporation Act, 2001 have been mentioned above. On applying the above mentioned provisions of Corporation Act 2001 in case of Grant Ltd the following inferences can be drawn:
It can be concluded from the above discussion that all companies are required to follow the provisions laid down in Corporation Act 2001 and the document governing the company. However, if there is a contradiction between the document governing the company and the Act, the Act shall prevail. Further, in case the document governing the organization is silent relating to any matter, the company shall follow the provisions of Corporation Act. Grant Ltd needs to follow the provisions mentioned in the Corporation Act for raising funds through the issue of additional preference shares or ordinary shares. Grant Ltd also needs to follow the provisions contained in the Act in order to grant additional voting rights to Audax family. The Act authorizes the directors of any company issue any class of shares at any time as the directors deem fit. Hence, the directors of Grant Ltd can issue the required number of preference and ordinary shares at any point of time, as they consider appropriate. The Act also provides that when the rights of any class of shares are varied, a meeting of that class of shares shall be held and the proposal relating to the variation of the rights of shares should be approved by three quarter of the shareholders. The Act also permits to grant more than vote to any class of ordinary shareholders when a poll is demanded. However, such voting rights can be granted only if the requisite number of shareholders as provided by the Act pass the proposal granting such rights. Therefore, Grant Ltd needs to hold a meeting of the ordinary shareholders before granting any additional voting rights to Audax family in order to seek approval from the ordinary shareholders. In case, the requisite number of shareholders does not approve the proposal in the meeting, then the proposal shall fail and Audax family shall not be granted any additional voting rights.
Coffee Jr, J.C., Sale, H. and Henderson, M.T., 2015. Securities regulation: Cases and materials.
Ferran, E. and Ho, L.C., 2014. Principles of corporate finance law. Oxford University Press.
Freckelton, I.R. and Selby, H., 2013. Expert evidence: Law, practice, procedure and advocacy. Lawbook Company.
Gitman, L.J., Juchau, R. and Flanagan, J., 2015. Principles of managerial finance. Pearson Higher Education AU.
Gullifer, L. and Payne, J., 2015. Corporate finance law: principles and policy. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hanrahan, P.F., Ramsay, I. and Stapledon, G.P., 2013. Commercial applications of company law.
Hanrahan, P.F., Ramsay, I. and Stapledon, G.P., 2013. Commercial applications of company law.
Harris, J., Hargovan, A. and Adams, M.A., 2013. Australian corporate law(Vol. 2). LexisNexis Butterworths.
Hilb, M., 2012. New corporate governance: Successful board management tools. Springer Science & Business Media.
icnl.org, i. (2017). [online] Available at: research/library/files/Australia/Corps2001Vol4WD02.pdf [Accessed 30 Jul. 2017].
Monem, R.M., 2013. Determinants of board structure: Evidence from Australia. Journal of contemporary accounting & economics, 9(1), pp.33-49.
Tricker, R.B. and Tricker, R.I., 2015. Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press, USA
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2018). Company Law Of Grand Ltd. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/company-law-of-grand-ltd.
"Company Law Of Grand Ltd." My Assignment Help, 2018, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/company-law-of-grand-ltd.
My Assignment Help (2018) Company Law Of Grand Ltd [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/company-law-of-grand-ltd
[Accessed 24 January 2021].
My Assignment Help. 'Company Law Of Grand Ltd' (My Assignment Help, 2018) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/company-law-of-grand-ltd> accessed 24 January 2021.
My Assignment Help. Company Law Of Grand Ltd [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2018 [cited 24 January 2021]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/company-law-of-grand-ltd.
MyAssignmenthelp.com has become one of the leading assignment help provider in New York City and Boston. We provide top class auditing assignment help. Not only auditing, but we also cover more than 100 subjects and our writers deal with all types of assignments with utmost expertise. To make writing process faster and accurate, we have segmented our assignment experts' teams as per their expertise on writing different types of assignments. We guaranteed that students who buy our assignment online get solutions worth their investment.
Answer: Issue The issue is to determine whether Ann has an enforceable contract with Jack or not. Law The main elements for the enactment of a valid enforceable contract between the two parties are highlighted below (Carter, 2012). Valid offer by the offeror Valid acceptance by the offeree Presence of consideration Capacity of the parties to enter into legal relationship Intention of the parties to create contractual relationship ...
Read MoreAnswer: Part A This case was an appeal against the decision of the lower court that the defendants had not been negligent. The appellants had raised a cause of action that there was negligence on the part of the defendant of not providing proper warning about kangaroos coming to the golf course. The court of appeal unanimously overtured the decision of the district court stating that the defendants had been liable for negligence. The primary ...
Read MoreAnswer: Issue The issue is to determine as to in which of the given scenarios would Sam be held liable for the losses suffered by plaintiffs. Rule A person must provide reasonable care to another person and if he/she fails to do so and as a result that person suffers harm then the defendant would be liable to pay the damage to the concerned person under the applicability of the tort of negligence. The person who behaves negligently is terme...
Read MoreAnswer: 1 PART A Issue A Can Vincenzo Franco for the violation of the contractual term that was established amid the two. If yes, then on what basis the contract can be rescinded by Vincenzo Franco? Relevant Law An agreement is the combination of a valid legal offer complied with valid acceptable. This agreement is combined with other contract components makes a valid contract. Thus, to form any contract which is enforceable in law the mai...
Read MoreAnswer 1 Section (A) Issue: Whether Rupali owed a duty of care to the guests, and was the duty breached? Law: Under the tort of negligence, a person in business owes others a duty of care to ensure that their actions do not cause harm to others. A claim of negligence establishes that the defendant owned a reasonably foreseeable duty of care. The court in Bourhill v Young stated that a claimant must show the proximity between him/her...
Read MoreJust share requirement and get customized Solution.
Orders
Overall Rating
Experts
Our writers make sure that all orders are submitted, prior to the deadline.
Using reliable plagiarism detection software, Turnitin.com.We only provide customized 100 percent original papers.
Feel free to contact our assignment writing services any time via phone, email or live chat. If you are unable to calculate word count online, ask our customer executives.
Our writers can provide you professional writing assistance on any subject at any level.
Our best price guarantee ensures that the features we offer cannot be matched by any of the competitors.
Get all your documents checked for plagiarism or duplicacy with us.
Get different kinds of essays typed in minutes with clicks.
Calculate your semester grades and cumulative GPa with our GPA Calculator.
Balance any chemical equation in minutes just by entering the formula.
Calculate the number of words and number of pages of all your academic documents.
Our Mission Client Satisfaction
I was very satisfied with the expert\'s work. I would recommend this site for anyone having trouble with an assignment or trouble meeting a deadline.
Australia
Will use again, sometimes I have issues getting the creative part of writing going and love being able to reach out to help with drafts
Australia
The best way to paraphrase is to change every few words in the sentence or paragraph I want to use in my assignment.
Australia
good and excellent I am satisfied with your work. All the work done on time. Experts are good.
Australia