Schwartz Matter Of Baby Belle Pty Ltd FCA -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Schwartz Matter Of Baby Belle Pty Ltd FCA? Answer: Introducation The fact of the mentioned case is the plaintiff Mr. Schwartz is owned the company Babybelle Pty Ltd and he is the part of the board of directors and also holds the share in the company. He had also appointed another director for the company[1]. It was found that he has been sought for a leave for appointing that new director for the company. However, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) claimed that Mr. Schwartz has not maintained his duty as a director of Babybelle Pty Ltd and alleged him.[2] The major legal issues According to the case study, it has been found that Mr. Schwartz has been made several mistakes as the director of the company. The legal issues has been arises when he has appointed the new director for the company which is not appointed according to the terms of the company[3]. Therefore it has been found that he has been breach the duty of the directors according to the Corporation Act[4]. He appointed Mr. Goodman as the new director of the company who also hold the share of the company. A legal issue has been arises when the court has been found that the office address has been registered at OLoughlin Street, Ormond until 1 March 2007 but later it was discovered that the address has been moved or transferred at the home address of Mr. Schwartz[5]. He is one of the director and as a director of the duty and services toward the office administration and contract services like heated towel rails, spa pools and various sports equipments. However the Australian Securities and Investme nts Commissions define that he has committed the offence contravened of under sec- 206A of Corporation Act. Here the offence has been occurring under Sec- 206G of Corporation Act 2001(Cth)[6]. The relevant law relied on by the judge(s) in making their decision The Federal Court of Australia has mentioned that Mr. Schwartz has been breach the duty of the director by disqualified the acts of hypothesis for dishonesty offences towards the company[7]. According to sec- 206A (1) Corporation Act the court has been taken the supportive judgments from Adams v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003)[8] where a person who also holds the position of the director has been disqualified for the breach of the duty toward the company[9]. In this case, the new director of the company has failed to control the business and dissatisfy the terms of the 206A (1) and 206G of Corporation Act. Mr. Schwartz was also appealed to the court but it not allowed him due the finding of the case[10]. In the hearing of the case The actual decision of the case According to the case study of it can be concluded that the application which has been Mr. Schwartz appealed for defense has rejected by the court due to the invalid application. However he was charged by the Federal Court and found guilty under the Sec- 206A (1) and Sec- 206G of Corporation Act Cth)[11]. The Honourable court has been fined him with the $13,578.94. He also charged with namely contravention of s 1350 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), two contraventions of s 215 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) and two contraventions of s 135.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)[12]. Reference Adams v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 46 ACSR 68 Coffee Jr, John C., Hillary Sale, and M. Todd Henderson. "Securities regulation: Cases and materials." (2015). du Plessis, Jean Jacques, and Jeanne Nel De Koker, eds. Disqualification of Company Directors: A Comparative Analysis of the Law in the UK, Australia, South Africa, the Us and Germany. Taylor Francis, 2017. Hiller, Janine S. "The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility." Journal of Business Ethics 118.2 (2013): 287-301. Schwartz: In the matter of Babybelle Pty Ltd (ACN 116 052 683) [2007] FCA 1469 (September 2007) [1] du Plessis, Jean Jacques, and Jeanne Nel De Koker, eds. Disqualification of Company Directors: A Comparative Analysis of the Law in the UK, Australia, South Africa, the Us and Germany. Taylor Francis, 2017. [2] Coffee Jr, John C., Hillary Sale, and M. Todd Henderson. "Securities regulation: Cases and materials." (2015). [3] du Plessis, Jean Jacques, and Jeanne Nel De Koker, eds. Disqualification of Company Directors: A Comparative Analysis of the Law in the UK, Australia, South Africa, the Us and Germany. Taylor Francis, 2017. [4] Hiller, Janine S. "The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility." Journal of Business Ethics 118.2 (2013): 287-301. [5] Coffee Jr, John C., Hillary Sale, and M. Todd Henderson. "Securities regulation: Cases and materials." (2015). [6] Hiller, Janine S. "The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility." Journal of Business Ethics 118.2 (2013): 287-301. [7] Coffee Jr, John C., Hillary Sale, and M. Todd Henderson. "Securities regulation: Cases and materials." (2015). [8] Adams v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 46 ACSR 68 [9] du Plessis, Jean Jacques, and Jeanne Nel De Koker, eds. Disqualification of Company Directors: A Comparative Analysis of the Law in the UK, Australia, South Africa, the Us and Germany. Taylor Francis, 2017. [10] Coffee Jr, John C., Hillary Sale, and M. Todd Henderson. "Securities regulation: Cases and materials." (2015). [11] Hiller, Janine S. "The benefit corporation and corporate social responsibility." Journal of Business Ethics 118.2 (2013): 287-301. [12] du Plessis, Jean Jacques, and Jeanne Nel De Koker, eds. Disqualification of Company Directors: A Comparative Analysis of the Law in the UK, Australia, South Africa, the Us and Germany. Taylor Francis, 2017.