代写价格-ASIC企业监管机构对《公司法》适用的案例分析

代写价格-ASIC企业监管机构对《公司法》适用的案例分析。ASIC是一个独立的澳大利亚政府机构。ASIC的作用是作为澳大利亚公司的企业监管机构。保护消费者、投资者和债权人是ASIC的主要职责。本报告以ASIC分析师的身份编写，主要报告2001年《公司法》第183条对Dr Dawes、Mr. Foster、Mr. Huckenfusser和Mrs. Duck的违反行为。并对随后的民事处罚措施进行了讨论。在这种情况下，正在考虑《公司法》第183条的适用。第183条就信息的使用以及董事、其他高级职员和雇员应履行的义务作出了规定。在给定的案例场景中，ASX发现了许多违规行为，并调查了与信息滥用相关的问题，其中董事、高管或员工试图为自己和他人谋取利益(Harris, 2008)。

Under section 183 of the Corporation Act (Cth) 2001, the use of information by directors, other officers and employees is presented. These are stated for people who have obtained the information because they are directors, officers or employee or have been an officer, director or employee (Harris, 2008). So Mr. Foster, Mr. Dawes and Mr. Huckenfusser would come under these categories but not Mrs. Duck. The three of them should not use information to gain an advantage to themselves or to someone else, or do an action that could result in a detriment to the corporation. It is also specifically mentioned that such a duty would continue even after the person stops being an officer or employee of the company. Any person who breaches this duty is said to have contravened section 1317E as well.
Considering the issues, firstly, Mr. Foster is no longer a director of the company. However according to part 1 of section 183, he is still obligated to follow these rules of not using the information to gain an advantage to self or others. Now Mr. Foster has used the information and has advised QECG to buy around 60,000 shares. This was done with the interest of advancing his career with his new company. Although Mr. Forster does not benefit directly because of the purchase of the shares, he has shared information as intelligence to his new company by breaching his duties to his old company. Secondly Mr. Dawes as a consultant director has also made use of information improperly when he recommended to his wife to buy 20,000 shares of MMM. Similarly, Mr. Huckenfusser who is the Audio Visual Technician of GML has recommended stock tips to be used by his sister-in-law. Now according to the decision published in Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Green [1978] VicRp 48; [1978] VR 505 (16 February 1978) the following elements of 183 must be proven in order to establish that a breach has occurred.
That the person was at the relevant time was an officer of the corporation.
Mr. Foster was a director of the corporation when he heard the information that he was to use at his new company. Similarly, although Mr. Dawes had declared bankruptcy, he was not yet relieved and continued to draw a consultant salary from the company and hence would also be considered as being a part of the corporation during the relevant time. Finally, Mr. Huckenfusser was the Audio Visual Technician who worked on arranging the board meetings and was present at the board meeting, too. Hence he is a relevant officer in the corporation. Now Mrs Duck who made use of the information to buy the shares was not an officer of the corporation at the relevant time.

Mr. Foster and Mr. Dawes were present in the Board meeting in the capacity of director of the company and hence had access to the information. Mr. Huckenfusser had access to the information because he was involved in arrangements for the board meetings and was present in the meeting where the information was shared. Mrs Duck acquired the information outside the office settings.

澳洲论文代写Advanced Thesis网站平台是一家论文代写信誉高的留学教育机构，其中有24小时专业客服为留学们提供随时在线咨询服务，还有一些硕士论文代写、paper代写、essay代写、report代写、assignment代写等论文服务，澳洲论文代写Advanced Thesis 会以专业认真的教学态度来帮助留学生们完成学业目标，从而顺利拿到专属自己的学位证书！而且以上提供的论文范文，未经授权任何人不得私自转发，如有发现将依法追究其法律责任！