Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Company law

Article Abstract:

Two 1992 Australian cases in company law dealing with unauthorized acts by agents show the difference between the statutory and common law forms of the indoor management rule. The common law indoor management rule relies on the notion of being put on inquiry while the statutory counterpart does not. In cases under the common law rule it may be important when, exactly, notification was given, however this is not crucial in the statutory version. When the statute applies, greater protection is afforded those dealing with companies, but third parties may have to rely on the common law version.

Author: Worthington, Sarah
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1992

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Directors' and officers' liability insurance - recent reforms and developments in Australia and New Zealand

Article Abstract:

Changes in the statutory and case law on directors' and officers' liability insurance in Australia and New Zealand will make such insurance more readily available and may temper premiums increases. Case law will now require directors to make disclosures even if they are not parties to insurance contracts. An Australian law was enacted to allow companies to pay for insurance for their officers and directors. Improving access to affordable insurance will promote economic growth by protecting risk-taking corporate officers.

Author: Ansell, Shaun
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1995
New Zealand, Directors' and officers' liability insurance, Fiduciary duties

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Enforcement of corporate rights and duties by shareholders and the Australian Securities Commission: evidence and analysis

Article Abstract:

Review of litigation brought to enforce corporate rights and duties reveals that actions by both shareholders and the Australia Securities Commission (ASC) are important to ensure that corporations and their officers comply with their responsibilities. The survey shows that stockholders brought actions for different purposes than did the ASC. The enforcement actions of the ASC should persist because they address issues not contested by shareholders and because enforcement can be integrated with other ASC functions.

Author: Ramsay, Ian M.
Publisher: LBC Information Services
Publication Name: Australian Business Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0310-1053
Year: 1995
Stockholders' derivative actions, Shareholder lawsuits, Australia. Securities and Investments Commission

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Cases, Corporate directors, Corporation law, Australia, Laws, regulations and rules
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Directors' and officers' liability for Y2K: a corporate governance litigation bear and a securities litigation bull?
  • Abstracts: An axiology for national health insurance. Mistakes and fraud in medical research. The moral standing of animals in medical research
  • Abstracts: What can trade associations and their officials do and say under competition law? - some recent Australian and American enlightenment
  • Abstracts: Foreign irrevocable life insurance trusts can save estate and income tax. Estate planning: planning for retirement plan benefits
  • Abstracts: Enforcing restrictive franchise covenants in bankruptcy and beyond. Summary of the LaFalce legislation
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.