Company law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Company law - Essay Example Rangers Ltd can proceed with the proposed alteration if Muna continues to express interest with the rival company. However, Kumar illegally helped his cousin acquire shares in the company posing a threat to the legal procedure; this is also another legal issue, which is actionable in a court of law, but it is unfortunate that mark is not aware of the issue. This is because nepotism is illegal according to the law and parties should not favour their relatives over other partners. Kumar abused his position as the managing director to promote his relatives. By telling his cousin to support his decisions, he corrupts the process of decision making for the company. This means that all decisions were in his favour but not for the well-being of the company and other shareholders. It is evident that proceedings Rangers Ltd in the have been for the interest of the Kumar as there are only three directors in the company. This is a serious offence and Kumar should as well be terminated from the company. It is evident that the two want to attain full ownership of the company under majority shares. The third shareholder is a determinant where the party he supports attain the majority opinion, which is considered in ruling out their case by voting. The majority rule favours Kumar who has the support of Mark, such a situation reduces the chances of Muna succeeding in his accusations. They should follow the procedure outlined in the business ethics. It illustrates that liaising with another company with an aim of combining shares is against the law. The initial Article of Association is significant in showing the duties and responsibilities of individual. All directors are subject to the article and thus Muna should be answerable in a court of law action as far as is actions are concerned. This adds to why the company is justified to take legal charges against Muna (Geltzer & Trainor, 2010). According to the previous case laws, the company should be the complainant and not indi vidual shareholders. Therefore, the three should all support each other in filling the case against certain decisions. This points out that the proposed alterations cannot be made until the final ruling is done. The statute in the Company’s Directors Disqualification Act of 1986 states that if the director goes against the rules of the company then disqualification is a disciplinary measure. Under the companies Act of 2006, any member is prevented by law from selling any shares from the company without an agreement from other members and shareholders. In addition, the agreement for sale or shifts of shares must be by all the members. The proper claimant principle helps in ruling a case where the company is the sole complainant. However, in this scenario, there is a tag of two members against one thus the common law that protect the minorities is enforced based on the argument presented. Some of the members’ rights have been infringed, and thus the exceptions are applic able for this case (Aiman, 2008). All occurrences must be considered to achieve a fair ruling on all parties. For the two shareholders to add clauses to the current article all members must be present to avoid fraud. This ensures that they are both heard and a base for their argument established. Muna is not justified in assuming more control for the company since he is a director and Kumar is above him as the managing director; his actions are against all ethics of company law thus should face

Economic questions Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Economic questions - Assignment Example ect an offer of zero units, but at an offer of one unit they will accept it if they are self-interested and risk-neutral because it is one more unit than they would be getting if they rejected the one unit offer. c) The subgame perfect Nash equilibrium does not match the actual behavior at all. The different assumptions we can make in part a to explain this is basically that if people feel that the amount they are getting is unfair, they will try to hurt the other person as well as themselves by making sure nobody gets anything. 2- In this situation, the drug-dealer’s best option is to go to the park because if the officer is at the park the dealer will still make 50 deals whereas if they are both on the street he will only make 30 deals. The officer can do better if she stays on the street but knows the drug dealer will do better at the park given that they both choose the same place. Therefore, the most likely payoff would probably be the bottom right square where 50 deals are made and 120 are stopped. However, Player Two has a bigger payoff when they are at different locations. Because of this, a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium shows that the dealer would average about 100 deals, meaning the officer would be able to stop an average of 70 deals. If Player Two is self-regarding, Player One will benefit more from sending payment if Player Two delivers (P,D). In this situation Player One will also make a profit if they don’t send payment and Player Two delivers (NP, D). In the other two situations Player One & Player Two will benefit equally (NP,K) and Player One will lose in the payment – non delivery situation (P,K). If Player Two is reciprocal, Player Two stands to benefit more from a payment and delivery situation (P,D), as well as benefiting more from a payment and non-delivery situation and a non-payment, non-delivery situation (NP, K). The only situation where Player one benefits more is where they don’t pay but the item is still delivered (NP,