Regulations Of Corporation Operation Act

Discuss about the Regulations of Corporation Operation Act.

 

 

Considering the issue of the present case, it can be said that the regulations of Corporation Act 2001 requires a company and management to disclose the organizational document with respect to the business details. The regulations of Corporation Act 2001 section 180- 197, requires the directors of the company to act as per due diligence, good faith and integrity by using the position and relevant information within the company. In addition, section 191- 196 of Corporation Act requires the directors of the company to provide all the relevant disclosure based on the business activities to avoid the potential conflict of interest and to prevent insolvent trading. Section 180 (2) of the Corporations Act 2001 states that while taking a business decision or judgment it is essential to take decisions by considering the appropriate business purpose and in good faith. It is further stated that the directors of the company should not have any material interest while taking any business project or subject matter for business operations. The regulation further provides that the directors are required to take business decisions based on the company’s best interest together with the benefits of the company’s stakeholders.     

In view of the regulations of Corporation Act for duties of directors and managers to be performed while considering business decisions, it can be said the present case involves several issues for performing the business activities for providing meals to the school. As per the rulings held in case of Healey v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2011) FCA 717, court contended that the directors of the company failed to provide appropriate disclosure for liabilities and debts. It was held that the director of the company failed to provide information on short- term guarantees and other short- term liabilities, reflecting the breach of section 180(1) affecting the company’s true and fair view. Accordingly, it can be said that in the present situation, Gordon noticed the huge loss within the business but failed to disclose the information about the lack of money to pay debts.

Further, considering the case of Daniels v Anderson (1994) SC of IL, the court contended the equitable conversion, the party breached the regulations for not providing duty with due care as well as appropriate skill. Similarly, in the present case It has been noted that the concerned person of the company failed to disclose the failure of business project while the idea of modification in the original business plan was also not disclosed.

Conclusion

As the directors of the company failed to disclose appropriate information that resulted in huge loss in the business income, Gordon can be said to have breached the regulations of section 180. Accordingly, Heston is recommended to review the actions of the directors and file a legal application for breach of regulation.