• My Account
  • solution


    CORPORATIONS LAW Assignment Help

    CORPORATIONS LAW Assignment Help


    Growing a business as a sole trader can be extremely default and time consuming process. The owners of a sole trading business hold the position of the director and the manager at a same time. This makes the business procedure more time consuming and complicated. The owners of these types of business are legally responsible for every aspect of their business. Though sole trading business models are bit complicated, yet it has gained a lot of popularity in the recent past. Because the owners of these types of business get complete decision making authorities and they can keep the profit to themselves only. 
    If Bibek is willing to continue with the sole trading model of business, then he may follow some simple well established ideas to grow his business.

    Hiring an Intern or Apprentice:
    Conducting the entire business operations single handily becomes difficult and it is time consuming as well. Bibek can maximise his working capabilities by hiring an apprentice or an intern. There is no fixed salary, or work timing for an intern and there is no specific job role as well. That is why; hiring a junior staff can help him to grow his business significantly. Also the interns are not as expensive as hiring the trained human resource. Also, local governments offer monetary support for the sole traders, who appoint interns.
    Out Sourcing Can Help The Organization Grow At a Faster Speed?
    Hiring full timer staffs can get the job done, but it also invites a lot of responsibilities. The same job can be done easily and conveniently by outsourcing it. Most of the sole traders outsource their work for better productivity. Though it also makes the business operations more costly

    In the modern day scenario, some organizations are also hiring freelancers, to get their job done. Freelancers are trained professionals and they can deliver professional quality job with multiple benefits (Trotman & Bradley, 2011). Freelancer is not as expensive as the full time office staffs and the owner can remain free from all the responsibilities.

    Hiring Financial Experts:
    If the organization has less transaction, then finance accounting can be done easily by using accounting software. Accounting software’s have become popular these days, and no organization can complete their accounts related task without accounting software. If the organization has to deal with multiple complicated transactions, then Bibek should opt for hiring a professional accountant to manage all the finance related tasks. Keeping a track on every finance related task is important, because cash flow is very important for every business. The owners should never underestimate the expenses. Wrong or bad expenses can ruin the business completely. If the owner of the business is not ready to hire a full time accountant, then he may opt for an accountant consultancy firm. Outsourcing the account related task may cost him a bit more than hiring a permanent staff, but it will help the owner to stay free from multiple responsibilities.

    Cutting Down the Marketing Expenses:
    As Bibek is running a news agency, then he may cut down his business marketing expenses by using social media platform and other online tools. This will help him to reach out to the global market as well. Social media platforms are offering free advertising tools to the solo traders and some organizations age also using the online platforms effectively to make money and grow their small business. In the modern day era, people are looking for digital news and Bibek can penetrate a better market with these online tools. 

    If Bibek applies these tips, then he can make his organization grow at a faster speed. These steps will help him to manage his expenses, and reach out to a larger market. No business can grow without a big and large market, and that can be achieved easily my using internet as a tool of conducting business operations. These steps will also help him to cut down his business operational costs and with fewer responsibilities.
    Topic 2 – Types of Companies
    What are the basic differences between a proprietary company and a public company in Australia?
    Proprietary companies are also known as the private companies. Public companies and private companies may look similar, but they are completely different from each other. Though, the main aim of both these companies is same and that is making profit. Yet, there are multiple differences between the private companies and the public companies and these differences were created by using the strength of the share holders, revenue structure, regulators, and the liabilities of the share holder. Because of these features, the public organizations can be differentiated from the private organizations. 

    Number of the Share Holders:
    Public companies usually have more than 50 share holders, and there is no upper limit of the share holder. The number of share holder in the private companies is fixed to 50 share holders. The private organizations must have at least one non-employee share holder. A private company or a proprietary company can’t have more than 50 non-employee share holders at a time.

    Structure of Revenue and Fund Razing Methods:
    The private companies can be differentiated from the public organizations based on their fund collecting methods (Kiel & Nicholson, 2013). The private companies can’t gather fund by selling their shares to the public. On the other hand public organizations collect their fund by selling shares to the public. Only by using this method, the public organizations and the private organizations can be differentiated.

    Liabilities of the Share Holders:
    The share holders of the private company are completely responsible for their investment. Therese is no system of assurance in the case of private organizations. On the other hand the public organizations are liable to their share holders and they need to provide some sort of security to their share holders. The public organizations are liable to return fixed amount of money after a certain time period to their share holders. 

    Method of Disclosing:
    The private organizations have no need to conduct Audit. The director may not be liable for the annual financial statement disclosure in case of the private companies. On the other hand the public companies need to conduct audit every year to disclose their annual financial statement. The directors of the public company are completely responsible for every aspect of the annual financial discloser. Also, in case of the public organizations there can be multiple directors. In the private organizations there is only one director in the company. The public organizations are also liable to their share holders and they need to pay the promised amount of money after a fixed tenure.
    The private and public companies are completely different from each other and their method of conducting the business operations as well.

    What are the differences between a company limited by shares and a company limited by guarantee in Australia?
    In the case of companies limited by shares are liable for the payment to their share holders only. This term is completely based upon money, and the owner of the organization will keep the profit to himself. The owner of such organizations is not liable to return the complete amount to their share holders. Most of the private organizations follow this rule to conduct their business operations (Kiel & Nicholson, 2013). Often organizations need money from the share holders to raise fund. If that project doesn’t make profit, then the owner of that particular business is not liable to pay the money to the share holders. 

    On the other hand, in case of the organizations limited by guarantee are liable to pay a fixed amount of money to the share holders. Even if the organization or the company doesn’t make profit from that particular project yet it has to return the money to the share holders. Larger organizations like National Government and other big organizations come under this category. These organizations are bound to have more than 3 directors and they also need to conduct audit every year to announce their annual financial statement. 
    Topic 3 - Delhi Australian Curries Limited
    The director of a private organization like Delhi Australian Curries Limited can call a meeting or reject the meeting of share holders. The Australian corporate act 2001, section 249C has empowered the directors of the private organization the power to call or dismiss the meeting or the share holders. The section 249C of the Corporation act 2001 can’t be replaced by rule. 

    Though, if the director doesn’t perform well then the share holders may remove the director by practicing their decision makes power. Share holders can replace a director by passing a resolution. Though, in order to pass the resolution the share holders need to gather 95% vote in the support of the resolution (Kiel & Nicholson, 2013). 

    Members of a proprietary organization can remove the director, and the section 203C of the corporation act empowers them to do so. Not only in the case of private organization, in case of the public organizations also can the share holders remove the director by applying the 203D of the corporation act. Though, the share holders of the organization need to publish a notice to the director about the removal before the meeting. According to the corporation act, the notice should be issued at least 2 months prior to the meeting.

    In Adams v Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC [2014] WASC 467 case, the court declared

    that the removal of 10 directors and the appointment of the 10 new directors were valued, and no rules and regulations were violated in that case. 
    The other director may call the general meeting or the share holders can also call the meeting, if all the directors are not present. Normally, the directors are the only people who are authorised to call the general meeting with the share holders. Before the 2001 corporation act, only the directors were authorised to call the general meeting (Deegan & Rankin, 2016). After the passing of the corporation act 2001, the share holders can also call the general meeting and they can also remove the director of the organization.  

    Section 249D of the corporation act 2001 empowers the share holders to call the meeting. If the share holders are willing to call the meeting, then the share holders have to pass a simple resolution and to pass this resolution only 5% vote is required.  
    In the matter of Molopo Energy Limited; Molopo Energy Limited v Keybridge Capital Limited, the share holders had to call the meeting. To call the meeting, they asked the director. But the director refused to call the general meeting for two times in a row. 

    According to the section 256A (a) of the corporation act 2001, the share holder can reduce amount of investment capital, and the director has no power on that. The corporation act 2001 was creating to protect the interest of the share holders. Multiple directors of well established organizations were indulged in unethical activities to gain profit and because of this many share holders and investors had lost their money. That is why; the government of Australia has brought the new corporation act of 2001 (Deegan & Gordon, 2016). According to the section 256D(3) and section 588G of the corporation act, the investment amount and other decision making procedure lies completely in the hand of the share holders. The shred holders can withdraw their money and other support at any time by practicing their power. Though, the share holders must have at least 95% vote to withdraw their investment before the promised time period. 

    In the case of the Delhi Australian Curries Limited, the share holders can call the meeting with the director by practicing their power of conducting general meeting. The section 249C of the corporation act empowers them to do so. If the share holders found the director is involved in any unethical activity, then they can also remove the director as well. To remove the director, the share holders of Delhi Australian Curries Limited need to pass a resolution by 95% vote of the share holders.