CAD:+1-604-396-3267 ,IN:+91-7503070001, IN:+91-9519066910


Research Project Starbucks Assignment

Online Assignment Help Australia




One of the most significant and well-distinguished Act that is the Corporation act 2001, a key Act in the set of laws in Ministry of justice, was overstepped by a few Australian directors. The case of the North V marra Development private Ltd was expanded vigorously and came into attention when a primary Act like the Corporation Act was deliberately violated.

The Corporation Act is introduced and followed for the the security and prosperity of the financial as well as organizational growth of the reputed and established firms of Australia. The act typically depicts the criteria of allegiance and devotion of employers and employees business owners (Gorris, Hamermesh & Strine, 2011). This particular act was founded to be infringed by a group of directors as observed in the case of the North V marra Development private Ltd (1981), when it came to the payment of a particular amount of share, which was rigidly unacceptable in the eye of legislation and regulation.

















Explanation of the duties that were breached and the reasons behind them




Dispute and illegal activities or violation of rules and regulations in business firms from small scale to establish is a likely happening across the nation. In the opinion of Strine Jr, (2015), while running a convenient business or even playing the role of a share or stakeholder consists of several criteria and conditions, as per the regulations of the particular nation. Some of the eminent laws and Acts strictly executed in such cases can include the state financial corporation act, the road transports corporation act and more. One of the most eminent Act followed by numerous firms and organization across the nation is the Corporations Act, 2001.

As per Mansell (2015), some of the significant constituents or sections of the Corporation Act has been violated by the directors are as follows,

       Section 180(1)

       Section 182

       Section 184 (1)



The breakage of such significant court order leads to a huge expansion of inconvenience on a large scale. Immense numbers of large firms to small companies, businesspersons and the people of the nation experienced a controversial situation for a particular period.

According the Corporation Act, in the ministry of justice, an owner or director of the firm is expected to obey and dedicatedly follow a set of rules and regulations in order to keep the business hassle free or away from any illegal disputes (Gevurtz, 2010).

According to Machado, Galhano & Trujillo (2014), the directors of Marra development private Ltd, overlooked the consequences that could lead to broader issues affecting the business, its reputation, market value of the business on a great scale. According to the findings, a part of the share that was about to be paid by the directors but as it seems they had pulled away from their responsibilities and duties towards the rules and regulations.

The possible Pros and Cons due to the violation of the Corporation Act, 2001






Since, a director holds huge set of responsibilities in a business or project than any other working body or department, the criteria declared in the Corporation Act was needed to be maintained, as a dedicated chief person. The corporation Act 2001, and its several sections is not only applicable for this particular scenario, but for each firm involved with finance and business.

As opined by Klettner, Clarke & Boersma (2014), there are a number of controversies about the reason behind the negligent violation of the act by the directors. It is also known that the two leaders of the firm were more or less at the stage of retirement and undergoing a comparably low-income phase.

Thus, it is relevant that the business run by the board of directors for a certain period of time or in the later part, involved artificial pricing as well. In Order to acquire stability, the appropriate rules and regulations of pricing and cost were not met or ignored.

The intention to increase or grow the final profit by adapting few illicit strategies, led the business to be at greater risks.

As set in the Corporation Act, 2001, the duties of a director have minor details that are to be carefully followed according to the ministry of justice. Under the Section 180(1), an officer of chief person or the chairperson is expected to act diligently and loyally and perform their appropriate duties along with maintaining good will. They are also affirmed to release themselves off their responsibilities while retirement, only after the position is handed over to a suitable individual (Munch, 2012).

In this scenario, the denial of the payment of the dividend led to a breakage of the particular section of law as stated by the ministry.

Even though the court has accepted certain explanation from the directors of Marra Development, to a certain extent, exceptionally, the final settlement brought the business an obstructive announcement.

As per the section 182, under Corporation act, 2001, the director is not eligible to take any higher advantage of his superior position, concerning the financial, reputational or any other aspects of the firm, which was violated in the particular scenario as well, O'Connell & Clark, (2017).

In order to gain profit, unfortunately the firm made unexpected losses in the final revenue facing several other issues and downfall in their growth.


A critical point of view expressed based on the specific case or scenario




While bringing up the breaching of the Corporation Act, 2001, and the case of the North V Marra Development private Ltd, there has been several practice of illicit manipulation of business terms and conditions in the market. They were only spotted when the incidents were reassessed in the ministry of law. Some of the Acts and their violated terms and conditions compared to the Corporation Act, 2001 shall be discussed in this particular case study.

Another blazing example for law violation has been observed in the case of Howard Smith Ltd v. Ampol Ltd. Similar to the Corporation act, 2001, the s. 171 Companies Act is though the circumstances vary in the scenario that the corporation Act, but in both the scenarios, the duty, diligence and loyalty of the directors were violated. As the directors, pulled away from their respective responsibilities, in case of the Marra development Pvt Ltd, the director of reputed firms that being the, Howard smith and Ampol pvt ltd acquired unlawful attempts in order to take over shares and letting down another member, Biotechnology Company: Vaccine Ltd (2017).



Submit Works

Assignment Help Australia

Our Top Experts

Karen Betty

Holding a PhD degree in Finance, Dr. John Adams is experienced in assisting students who are in dire need...

55 - Completed Orders

Daphne Lip

Canada, Toronto I have acquired my degree from Campion College at the University of Regina Occuption/Desi...

52 - Completed Orders

Mr Roberto Tuzii

Even since I was a student in Italy I had a passion for languages, in fact I love teaching Italian, and I...

102 - Completed Orders

Harsh Gupta

To work with an organization where I can optimally utilize my knowledge and skills for meeting challenges...

109 - Completed Orders


JOB OBJECTIVE Seeking entry level assignments in Marketing & Business Development with an organization...

202 - Completed Orders


Current work profile Project manager- The Researchers Hub (2nd Jan 2016 to presently working) Researc...

20 - Completed Orders

Tan Kumar Ali

Sales Assistant, Mito Marina Assigned to the Stationery dept – assisted in merchandising, stock taking...

100 - Completed Orders

Wesenu Irko

Personal Profile Dedicated and highly experienced private chauffeur. High energy, hardworking, punctua...

200 - Completed Orders

Lizzy Darley

I'm Lizzy, full time education specialist in English, Essay Writing, Economics and Maths. Having Assi...

109 - Completed Orders


HSC PREPARATION I specialise in English coaching programs for HSC students. My personalised and results-...

202 - Completed Orders