悉尼代写report

澳洲犯罪学论文代写:财务案件

澳洲犯罪学论文代写:财务案件

提姆在胁迫财务总监的行为是不道德的,他还严重违反职务主任。提姆主要负责处理公司的财务和业务。因此,提姆是负责任何问题或错误的公司的财务和运营根据公司的协议在任命期间。发生这种情况,因为提姆是该公司的直线经理没有这个信息,或尽管有信息,他忽略了存在的债务威胁。在这里可以说,提姆没有满足他的董事职务。在丹尼尔斯V安德森的情况下,一个客观的标准,必须满足的人谁是在董事的位置。然而添加CLERP修订根据第180的规定(1)说明董事必须确保他们的职责的一种方式,将类似于任何其他合理的人排出(可能具有相同的资格)如果他们这样做会被上述公司的董事和持有相同的责任(Allen,2003)。在这种情况下,可以说,任何其他人在提姆的立场将坚持所承担的责任时,他开始了他的工作,这是信贷政策必须严格执行。第二,案例研究表明,提姆是公司财务总监的直线经理,直接负责财务活动、现金流、信贷政策等。财务总监是一个人谁知道严重的债务问题可能会上升,信贷政策不执行,尽管提姆已经威胁到信贷政策改变财务总监(不执行它,而是改变它使公司堆积的债务)。这不是一个行动,有人在提姆的指定和立场将选择做。即使此人不了解债务情况,他们也会坚持财务总监的建议,即提姆(即本案中的人)是新招募的人。然而提姆作为他的前雇主涉嫌被夸大的能力。董事职务上的过失使提姆对增加信用额度的选择和支付会费的天数负有直接责任。

澳洲犯罪学论文代写:财务案件

The actions of Tim in coercing the financial controller are unethical and he has also seriously breached his duties as director. Tim was given major responsibility to handle finance and operations of the company. Therefore, Tim was responsible for any issue or mistake in the finance and operations of the company as per company’s agreement during the appointment. This happened because Tim being line manager of the company did not have this information or in spite of having the information he ignored the debt threat that existed. Here it can be said that Tim did not meet his director duties. In the case of Daniels v Anderson an objective standard that has to be met by the person who is in the position of director has been given. The CLERP amendments however added the provisions under section 180(1) stating that a director must ensure that their duties and responsibilities are discharged in a way that would be similar to any other reasonable person (presumably with the same qualifications) would do if they were to be the director of the stated corporation and had held the same responsibilities (Allens, 2003). In this case it can be said that any other person in Tim’s position would have adhered to the responsibilities laid out when he took up his job which is that the credit policy has to be strictly enforced. Second the case study indicates that Tim was the line manager for the company’s Financial Controller who in turn is directly responsible for the financial activities, cash flow, the credit policy and others. The Financial controller hence is a person who knows the seriousness of the debt issues that might rise when the credit policy is not enforced, despite this Tim is seen to have threatened the Financial controller to have the credit policy changed (not enforce it as such, but change it so as to make the company pile up on its debts). This is not an action that someone in Tim’s designation and standing would choose to do. Even if the person did not understand the debt situation, they would have adhered to the advice of the financial controller given that the person (Tim in this case) was a new recruit. However Tim as alleged by his previous employer is seen to be overstating competence. The negligence of director duties makes Tim directly liable for the choice of increasing credit cap and the number of days for the dues to be paid.