Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Duties of Directors after the Centro Case. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 9 page paper looks at an article reviewing the Centro case, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey [and others] [2011], reviews the case and the contents and discusses the findings and why this may mean for the way directors duties are interpreted in Australian courts. The way that the findings fit in with existing statue and common law is discussed. The bibliography cites 10 sources.
Page Count:
9 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEcentrodir.doc
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
case, which is more commonly known as the Centro case may be seen as a landmark case that has the potential effect of impacting on the duty of deprecators and
the skills which they need to exercise. In an article written for the internet by Black Dawson, published only three days after the decision on the Lexology web site, Dawson
reviews the facts of the case and the ruling. The basis of the case was that the directors of the Centro companies, as well as the Chief Financial Officer
(CFO) were in contravention of the Corporation Act section 180(1), 344(1)) and 601FD(3) in the way that the consolidated financial statements were approved at a board meeting on the 6th
of September 2007. The accounts were for year ending 30th June 2007 and concerned Centro Properties Ltd, Centro Property Trust and Centro Retail Trust. The article gives the bass of
the case, but looking further a greater breakdown which adds to the article may be referred to in order to assess the scale of the problem. There were some
major errors in the accounts; this is not disputed, with the misclassification of liabilities in the accounts of the Centro Property Group and the Centro Retail Group. In the former
$1.5 billion of liabilities which should have been classified as short term liabilities were classified as non current liabilities, which would lead the investors that elide in the accounts to
believe that this amount was not due in the short term (Langes, 2011). In addition to this there were also $1.75 billion in guarantees for an associated company (Langes, 2011).
The latter company also had issues with the classification of short term liabilities as non current liabilities, in this case a total of $500 million (Langes, 2011). Centro
...