Discuss And Critically Analyse The Court/Tribunal Decision And The Reason For The Decision In View Of The Corporations Act?
The Corporations Act, 2001 (Cth) is the applicable act in Australia, governing the duties of the directors. The case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No. 11)  NSWSC 287 is one of such cases where the Supreme Court of New South Wales determining whether or not, the officers and directors of the company JHIL, i.e., James Hardie Industries Ltd had contravened the duties covered under this act, through its section 180(1). This section relates to the statutory requirement of duty of car and diligence, and this was raised in the context of the approval of board and released a defective media statement to the ASX, i.e., the Australian Securities Exchange (Hargovan, 2009).
In the following parts, this case has been detailed, where by the contentions made by the ASIC, i.e., Australian Securities and Investments Commission, along with the decision of the court in this matter have been detailed. But before the same can be done, a discussion has been carried on the duties breached as per the governing act, along with the factual background of this case.
In this case, the holding company of the James Hardie Group was KHIL, which manufactured, as well as, sol the asbestos products till the year of 1937. Two of the wholly owned subsidiary companies of the JHIL, Jsekarb Pty Ltd, aka Jsekarb, and James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd, ala Coy, from 1937 to 1987 were also the manufacturer and seller of the asbestos products (Czoch and Mulder, 2010).
In the initial period of February 2001, JHIL’s board formed a foundation by the name of Medical Research and Compensation Foundation. The purpose of this foundation was to manage and pay the claims relating to asbestos which were made against the James Hardie Group. Regarding the formation of the foundation, a draft announcement for the ASX was approved by Board and the same had to be circulated as public release (Lavan, 2017). At the same time, a deed of covenant and indemnity was entered into by JHIL with both Jsekarb and Coy, as a result of which, JHIL was indemnified from all of the liabilities which were raised due to the manufacturing or sale of the asbestos products (Czoch and Mulder, 2010).
An ASX announcement was then released by the James Hardie Group, as per which the Foundation contained assets to the value of $293 million and that the same would have been adequate for meeting all of the legitimate compensation claims, which were anticipated from the individuals who were injured as a result of the asbestos products. When a press conference was held, it was stated that the CEO of JHIL, i.e., Macdonald had made a statement which showed the sufficiency of funds in the Foundation. And ASX announcements, having the same theme, were made in the following weeks regarding the Foundation. However, none of the ASX announcements contained a disclosure about the Deed (Norton Rose Fulbright, 2010).
One the Foundation was established, a new holding company, JHINV was formed which was actually a restricting of the James Hardie Group and the same was incorporated in Netherlands. Macdonald made overseas presentations in 2002 regarding the James Hardie Group and represented the sufficiency of funds in the Foundation (Plessis, Hargovan and Bagaric, 2010). For their misleading and deceptive conduct, continuous disclosure reaches and the false statements made regarding the securities, in February 2007, the ASIC initiated civil proceedings against both JHNIV and JHIL (Czoch and Mulder, 2010).
As per section 180(1) of the Corporations Act, 2001, the directors, along with the other officer in any company/ corporation in Australia have a civil obligation of exercising their powers, and discharging their obligations in a manner, which depicts a degree of both care and diligence, which any prudent individual would undertake, in case they occupied the same office and had the same responsibilities as such director and officer, or if the individual was himself the officer or director of such company (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2017). A contravention of this section results in attraction of penalties as per section 1317E, which relates to the declaration of contravention by the Court (Federal Register of Legislation, 2017).
This duty is usually applied with the provisions pertaining to the deceptive or misleading conduct of the directors, in cases where the directors have been sanctioned with the release of some important or crucial information which results in a civil claim being raised against the company for such a misleading or deceptive conduct. Hence, it is crucial for the directors to take care and ensure diligence when the information is released, and have to be certain that no information is contained which is likely to deceive or mislead (Gadens, 2010).
Section 181 of this act imposes a civil obligation on the directors, along with the other officers of the company, to discharge their duties, and exercise their powers for a proper purpose, which is in the best interest of the faith and with good faith (Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2016). The penalties for contravention of this section are same as section 181(1)’s contravention (Federal Register of Legislation, 2017).
When the court was giving its decision, it was held by His Honor Justice Gzell that:
It was also held by His Honor Justice Gzell that on part of ASIC, there was a failure in establishing a range of different allegations which were made against the James Hardie Group, its executives and its non-executive directors. One of the allegations in these was related to a claim which was made against the CEO of the company, for breaching section 181 of this act, regarding his obligation pertaining to acting in good faith (Czoch and Mulder, 2010).
A range of factors were considered by His Honor against the executives, directors containing both executive and non-executive, of the James Hardie Group in his findings, and these included the intelligence and sophistication of the directors, the experience, the importance of restructuring, the nature of the company, in addition to the fact that a considerable professional advice was given to the non-executive directors regarding the restricting (Czoch and Mulder, 2010).
The submissions from all the parties where heard by the Court in late July 2000 regarding the exoneration of the defendants as per sections 1317S or 1318 of this act pertaining to these breaches, and also regarding the form of sanction or penalty, which should be imposed over the defendants (Austin, 2012). A contention was submitted by the ASIC to the Court, as per which:
Another submission was made by the ASIC to the Court regarding the consideration of the penalties which had to be imposed upon the case defendants and that the issue of indemnity should also be taken into consideration. Even though, the Corporation Act restricts any Australian company from indemnifying against such kind of civil penalty, a submission was made by ASIC that some of the defendants could be indemnified within the James Hardie group by the foreign companies (Czoch and Mulder, 2010).
The defendants sought to be fully exonerated from the claims of ASIC as they contended that the banning orders and the fine sought out by the ASIC were excessive in nature, with the exception of the CEO as he had admitted the seriousness of these breaches (Czoch and Mulder, 2010).
However, Justice Gzell, on August 20th 2009, refused to exonerate any of the former members of the board and he also handed down certain penalties, which were as follows:
ASIC considered this particular case as a leading decision in the corporate governance of the nation as it presents the crucial direction and guidance to the boardrooms regarding the practical applicability of the content and the scope of the duties of the executives, when they take any significant matter to the board and regarding the disclosure of these matter in the market. This was in addition to the direction and guidance pertaining to the responsibility of the non-executive directors of any public companies, when they are questioned regarding the consideration of strategic matters by the board, as well as, for the approval of disclosure in market regarding the decisions of the board (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2009).
Civil proceedings were initiated in this case by the ASIC against JHIL, JHINV, i.e., James Hardie Industries NV, along with the previous seven non-executive directors, and the three former executives of the JHIL, for breaching the governing act, regarding the preparation, as well as, approval of the public statements.
The decisions taken in this case highlights the significance which is placed over the director’s role, which includes both the executive and the non-executive directors, along with the senior executives of a company, when the crucial strategic matters of the company are considered and implemented. Keeping the corporate governance issue aside, the decision in this case raised the broadening focus put over the senior executives below the board level and the non-executive directors.
Austin, R. (2012) The High Court decides the James Hardie case. [Online] Minter Ellison. Available from: https://www.minterellison.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Publications/Alerts/NA_20120509_JamesHardieDecision.pdf [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2009) Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 11)  NSWSC 287 (23 April 2009). [Online] Australasian Legal Information Institute. Available from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2009/287.html [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Australasian Legal Information Institute. (2017) Corporations Act 2001 - Sect 180. [Online] Australasian Legal Information Institute. Available from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s180.html [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Czoch, K., and Mulder, M. (2010) Australia: The James Hardie Decision: Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Macdonald (No. 11)  NSWSC 287. [Online] Mondaq. Available from: https://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/106690/Corporate+Governance/The+James+Hardie+Decision+Australian+Securities+Investments+Commission+v+Macdonald+No+11+2009+NSWSC+287 [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Department of the Premier and Cabinet. (2016) 7.3 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act). [Online] Queensland Government. Available from: https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/policies-and-codes/handbooks/welcome-aboard/member-duties/corp-act-2001-c.aspx [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Federal Register of Legislation. (2017) Corporations Act 2001. [Online] Federal Register of Legislation. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00605 [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Gadens. (2010) Misleading and deceptive conduct in the corporate sphere. [Online] Gadens. Available from: https://www.gadens.com/publications/Pages/Misleading-and-deceptive-conduct-in-the-corporate-sphere.aspx [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Hargovan, A. (2009) Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald [No 11] Corporate Governance Lessons from James Hardie. Melbourne University Law Review, 33(3), pp. 984-1021.
Jacobson, D. (2009) ASIC v James Hardie Decision: Company, Directors and Officers Were Misleading. [Online] Bright Law. Available from: https://www.brightlaw.com.au/asic-v-james-hardie-decision-company-directors-and-officers-were-misleading/ [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Lavan. (2017) The responsibility for continuous disclosure announcements in the light of James Hardie - Australian Securities and Investments Commission and Macdonald (No 11)  NSWSC 287. [Online] Lavan. Available from: https://www.lavan.com.au/advice/banking_finance/the_responsibility_for_continuous_disclosure_announcements_in_the_light_of [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Norton Rose Fulbright. (2010) Insurance & Financial Services Bulletin. [Online] Norton Rose Fulbright. Available from: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/30007/insurance-financial-services-bulletin#section12 [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Plessis, J.J.D., Hargovan, A., and Bagaric, M. (2010) Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 59.
Sixth Floor St James Hall Pty Limited. (2009) ASIC v Macdonald (No 11)  NSWSC 287. [Online] Sixth Floor St James Hall Pty Limited. Available from: https://www.sixstjameshall.com.au/recent-cases/2016/7/14/australian-securities-and-investments-commission-v-macdonald-no-11-2009-nswsc-287 [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
Taylor, T. (2012) James Hardie – The final instalment – NSW Court of Appeal disqualifies and penalises company officers. [Online] Holding Redlich. Available from: https://www.holdingredlich.com/corporate-commercial/james-hardie-the-final-instalment-nsw-court-of-appeal-disqualifies-and-penalises-company-officers [Accessed on: 26/04/17]
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
My Assignment Help. (2018). In This Case, The Holding Company Of James Hardie Group Is KHIL. Retrieved from https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/in-this-case-the-holding-company-of-james-hardie-group-is-khil.
"In This Case, The Holding Company Of James Hardie Group Is KHIL." My Assignment Help, 2018, https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/in-this-case-the-holding-company-of-james-hardie-group-is-khil.
My Assignment Help (2018) In This Case, The Holding Company Of James Hardie Group Is KHIL [Online]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/in-this-case-the-holding-company-of-james-hardie-group-is-khil
[Accessed 30 March 2020].
My Assignment Help. 'In This Case, The Holding Company Of James Hardie Group Is KHIL' (My Assignment Help, 2018) <https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/in-this-case-the-holding-company-of-james-hardie-group-is-khil> accessed 30 March 2020.
My Assignment Help. In This Case, The Holding Company Of James Hardie Group Is KHIL [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2018 [cited 30 March 2020]. Available from: https://myassignmenthelp.com/free-samples/in-this-case-the-holding-company-of-james-hardie-group-is-khil.
MyAssignmenthelp.com is one of the noted service providers that deliver essay help. We provide tailored essay assistance to make sure that student gets online essay help exactly in the way they want it to be written. We at MyAssigemnthelp.com have built teams of consultants, who readily attend every query related to help me writing my essay. We provide essay writing help in forms of tips and steps in order o assist students with tough essay assignments.
Answer: Activity 1 The fundamental ingredients of an insurance contract include the following: the offer and acceptance between the assured and the insurer, presence of an insurable interest, utmost good faith, the immediate and the proximate causes are under the insurance contract. Furthermore, the methods of subrogation, indemnity and contribution are under the elementary principle of an insurance. It also includes the key idea of having ...Read More
Answer: Introduction Internal competition, decentralization and several elements increase the risk of the company; risk exposure calculator calculates the risk of the company by considering the pressure points related with the performance, information management and growth of the company (Forouzanfar & et al. 2015). The present study is related with the analysis of risk of the company named as Property Millionaire. The company...Read More
Answer: Report To Chairperson Board of Directors From: Jane White, Corporate Governance Consultant Date: 22 January 2019 Subject: Cybersecurity policy of the company In the world full of technology, every organization is diverting it is focused on the use of technology. The reason behind the same is the infinite advantages that technology adds to the overall value of the company. The use of the internet and other technological innovatio...Read More
Answer: Introduction A teenage girl, Abigail Sataur from Ontario has sued Starbucks claiming that the company and its employees have failed to take reasonable care to ensure her safety. It has also been held by the plaintiff that the company has failed to take measures to prevent the injury, which was foreseeable. The plaintiff claimed general and special damages of $1 million from the defendant (Adriano, 2019). In such case, the court in ge...Read More
Answer: Introduction The code of conduct refers to the set of the rules defining the social standards, spiritual rules and liabilities of, and or suitable exercises for the people. The code of conduct which is written for the company’s employees, secures the business and provides the notification to the workers in respect of expectation of the employees. In the following parts, the code of conduct of Wesfarmers limited is discussed. Wes...Read More
Just share your requirements and get customized solutions on time.
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.
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
thank you guys i have not got grade but look vey good. you always doing good job. thank you again and again
Amazing work done by the expert. Would love to give more work to this team. Attention to detail
It was awesome and got desire score..I am very happy to work with them and I will work with them.
I\'m okay with the work. Took time to answer my concerns and feedbacks. Delivered within the required timeframe