company regulation assignment

п»їUNITED INTERCONTINENTAL COLLEGE

FIRM LAW

2014 WEEKLY PROJECT 5

RESPONSE

Introduction

The moment case concerns meetings and resolutions. The central concerns are: 1 ) Was the table meeting of December 23, 2013 validly held?

installment payments on your Was the quality passed too meeting a legitimate one?

3. What will need to Bud carry out to call together, get together, gather, assemble an extraordinary general meeting?

Board Meeting of December 31, 2013

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the validity of a getting together with hinges on several factors: 1 ) whether sufficient notice was handed;

2 . perhaps the relevant detect was correctly served;

a few. whether the material of the notice satisfied certain requirements of Limit. 622 and the articles in the company. Susceptible to the exclusions provided in Cap. 622, non-compliance while using above guidelines may render the getting together with, if placed, invalid.

Length of Notice

On the details given, the notice of this meeting was purportedly dished up by Clarence on Bud on 12 , 26, 2013 by cellular phone text message. Two questions came about from this proposed service. Initially, there are rigid rules in Cap. 622 governing the convening of board conferences and the required notice thereof. S. 571(2) stipulates that the requisite duration of a meeting aside from AGM can be 14 days. Noticed in this light, the see of the Plank meeting of December 23, 2013 knorke facie did not comply with the statutory requirement and was therefore invalid.

With that in mind, two points must be raised. S. 579(1) of Cap. 622 does give that random omission of service of notice shall not render a meeting invalid. That issue does not arise here because Clarence did provide a detect on Bud.

Second, it must be highlighted that for common regulation it is well established that short notice would not itself actually render the relevant meeting incorrect. It was saved in Browne v. La Trinidad that a recognize served simply 4 mins before a gathering was not unacceptable. The the courtroom explained that if the person aggrieved by short detect neither lamented nor...