Hello, I have attached my assignment please help me as soon as possible it due tomorrow.

Workshop 10 Submission This is the fourth and last of four workshop questions which students are required to answer and submit online for assessment purposes. Ensure you have read the instructions for completing and submitting your answer to the workshop question which can be found under ASSESSMENT on Learning@ Griffith. There is an opportunity for students to ask questions about their workshop submission answer but only where students have drafted an answer to the question and only at the workshop. Anna, Lisa and Jenny are directors of Diva Fashions Ltd (Diva). Jenny is managing director and chief executive officer of Diva, which is a company incorporated in Queensland whose core business is the manufacture of boutique clothing. Diva owns land and a factory in Molendinar. The land and factory were purchased over thirty years ago and until recently was where the company's clothing line was manufactured. However, manufacturing of Diva's product line now takes place overseas, so that the factory has not been used for the last 18 months. After reading several articles in the Gold Coast Bulletin Property Section, Jenny is aware of the land's current value for residential purposes. Jenny sets up a company, Blue Sky Pty Ltd (Blue Sky). The shareholders of Blue Sky are Jenny's family, namely herself (51%), her husband Alan (25%), her daughter, Mary (12%) and son, Rod (12%). Jenny and Alan are directors of Blue Sky. Jenny approaches Diva, recommending the Board sell the land to Blue Sky. The Board is unaware of Jenny or her family's interest in Blue Sky. As part of her presentation, Jenny produces a report that values the land (unimproved value) at $4 million. Jenny had her sister Lyn, a real estate agent, prepare the valuation report. Jenny emphasises to the Board that the directors lack the necessary skills to develop the land themselves and so that it would be in the best interests of Diva to sell the land and use the proceeds from sale to expand their marketing of the company's clothing line overseas. Without obtaining any further valuations, and convinced by Jenny's comments and recommendation, the Board of Diva (including Jenny) unanimously approves the sale of the land to Blue Sky for $4 million. In reality, Lyn's valuation is substantially understated: the true unimproved value of the land is $18 million. Having purchased the land, Blue Sky then mortgages the land with Z Bank for $10 million to fund the land's development. While visiting the land development site, Jenny meets Kevin, the site supervisor. They fall madly in love, and leave Australia for the Bahamas. Before leaving, Jenny arranges for $8 million to be transferred from Blue Sky's bank account into her own personal bank account. Blue Sky's bank account is reduced to $2 million. The creditors of Blue Sky, including Z Bank are now seeking repayment. Alan is understandably upset as he at no stage has taken part in the management of Blue Sky, as he has always followed Jenny's instructions. Alan has never seen any financial records, including any balance sheet or profit and loss statement for Blue Sky. Kevin dies in a diving accident in the Bahamas and Jenny returns to Australia. Advise ASIC whether Alan has breached s180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Include in your answer any possible defences that Alan may rely upon as well as any possible remedies which may be awarded by the court if ASIC were to successfully prosecute a case against Alan. In answering the above question please use the ILAC method, making reference to case law and relevant sections of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Word Count: 1000 words maximum Running head: ALLANS ORDEAL Allan's Ordeal Student Name Institution affiliation Date ALLAN ORDEAL 2 This case takes precedence from the famous case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd 1897 AC22. This case clearly establishes the concept of separate legal personality of a company as Solomon was clearly isolated from the case that concerned the company. According to the company's act 2001, the law clearly illustrates that the affairs of the business should be carried away as a separate entity from the personal affiliation of the business. This comes in hand with the proof of Jenny who was the director of Blue sky limited with the responsibilities clearly not defined. As Under Companies Act 2006, Chapter 47, Part 2, Section 7 (1), Separate legal personality and limited liability are not the same thing. Corporate personality refers to the fact that, as far as the law is concerned, a company really exists. This is clearly seen since Jenny seems to sideline Allan with the responsibilities of handling the core businesses of Blue sky limited by deliberately refusing to involve Allan in the transactions of the business. This is done so as we see Jenny taking to his own hands the obligation to draw the company's money without any other signatory involved. This makes Allan a plastic CEO with no obligation towards the transactions of the company. This is dangerous for Blue sky limited which seems to be run as a personal entity with Jenny taking over all the responsibilities of the business. With the presence of the two directors, the business is bound to be the partnership which should be solely guided by the partnership deed. According to me, I do not think that Allan has breached any law through the companies act. This is because he seems not to have any defined role in the company as he is not aware of Jenny who is one of the directors withdrawing some of the cash for his own personal gains with ALLAN ORDEAL 3 him learning later of the transactions taking part in the company as this proves to the fact he is only there to be seen according to (Coffee et al, 2015). Blue sky limited is in itself free illegally. This is because of the mere fact that the company acquires its working capital illegally through fraudulent acts of the Diva company in which Jenny was both a director and a CEO thus hey had the responsibility of carrying himself with dignity and truthfully because the cash owed to the bank for mortgages can be easily contested by the directors of Diva company. This is because of the fact that Jenny took an advantage of the vulnerability of Diva company as again he seems to be again bearing all the responsibilities in regards to the finances of the company irrespective of whether or not there are other directors in charge and also seems to make the most crucial decisions of the company and thus misleading the other directors to making the wrong decision. Allan should not be bowed to take responsibility towards the money that Jenny takes away from the business judging the fact that they are family. This is because the business should at all cases be treated as a separate entity from any personal business. This, however, does make Jenny liable for all the financial obligations that Blue sky limited owes its creditors. According to the companies act it states clearly that all directors of the company should operate under defined roles and obligations to ensure that all the directors of a particular company are held responsible for all the actions towards other entities that carry out business transactions to ensure that everything is guided by the memorandum of understanding which basically defines the lengths of operation between the business and the stakeholders at large. ALLAN ORDEAL 4 This helps to reduce and control nasty incidences of the breach of the companies act which there is a dilemma for who should take a responsibility for the liability especially in financial transactions which is a very crucial yet delicate venture that most companies are struggling to avoid through the various provisions as provided in the law in the companies act which governs the distinction of different roles that the directors do take and also the limits associated with the financial transactions according to (Cavey & Kelly ,2015). It is also important to understand the role of Allan in this case as it helps to give a clear understanding of who is in charge. Judging from the fact that Jenny the lead director seems to be taking most crucial decisions without necessarily consulting is a key failure and hence action should be taken to salvage the Blue sky limited. It is also important in this case to recognize that the fact that by the mere fact that Jenny carries out the financial transactions without necessarily consulting his fellow directors is in /itself a breach of the companies act and hence he bears all the responsibilities that come with the liability. ALLAN ORDEAL 5 References Cavey, N., & Kelly, C. E. (2015). Corporate Criminal Liability and the Companies Act 2014: A Covert Step towards Re-conceptualisation and Reform. King's Inns L. Rev., 5, 49. Coffee Jr, J. C., Sale, H., & Henderson, M. T. (2015). Securities regulation: Cases and materials. Myburgh, J. L. (2016). A critical analysis of the effect of business rescue on the liability of sureties (Doctoral dissertation). Running head: ALLANS ORDEAL Allan's Ordeal Student Name Institution affiliation Date ALLAN ORDEAL 2 According to the company's act 2001, the law clearly illustrates that the affairs of the business should be carried away as a separate entity from the personal affiliation of the business. This comes in hand with the proof of Jenny who was the director of Blue sky limited with the responsibilities clearly not defined. This is clearly seen since Jenny seems to sideline Allan with the responsibilities of handling the core businesses of Blue sky limited by deliberately refusing to involve Allan in the transactions of the business. This is done so as we see Jenny taking to his own hands the obligation to draw the company's money without any other signatory involved. This makes Allan a plastic CEO with no obligation towards the transactions of the company. This is dangerous for Blue sky limited which seems to be run as a personal entity with Jenny taking over all the responsibilities of the business. With the presence of the two directors, the business is bound to be the partnership which should be solely guided by the partnership deed. According to me, I do not think that Allan has breached any law through the companies act. This is because he seems not to have any defined role in the company as he is not aware of Jenny who is one of the directors withdrawing some of the cash for his own personal gains with him learning later of the transactions taking part in the company as this proves to the fact he is only there to be seen according to (Coffee et al, 2015). Blue sky limited is in itself free illegally. This is because of the mere fact that the company acquires its working capital illegally through fraudulent acts of the Diva company in which Jenny was both a director and a CEO thus hey had the responsibility of carrying himself ALLAN ORDEAL 3 with dignity and truthfully because the cash owed to the bank for mortgages can be easily contested by the directors of Diva company. This is because of the fact that Jenny took an advantage of the vulnerability of Diva company as again he seems to be again bearing all the responsibilities in regards to the finances of the company irrespective of whether or not there are other directors in charge and also seems to make the most crucial decisions of the company and thus misleading the other directors to making the wrong decision. Allan should not be bowed to take responsibility towards the money that Jenny takes away from the business judging the fact that they are family. This is because the business should at all cases be treated as a separate entity from any personal business. This, however, does make Jenny liable for all the financial obligations that Blue sky limited owes its creditors. According to the companies act it states clearly that all directors of the company should operate under defined roles and obligations to ensure that all the directors of a particular company are held responsible for all the actions towards other entities that carry out business transactions to ensure that everything is guided by the memorandum of understanding which basically defines the lengths of operation between the business and the stakeholders at large. This helps to reduce and control nasty incidences of the breach of the companies act which there is a dilemma for who should take a responsibility for the liability especially in financial transactions which is a very crucial yet delicate venture that most companies are struggling to avoid through the various provisions as provided in the law in the companies act which governs the distinction of different roles that the directors do take and also the limits associated with the financial transactions according to (Cavey & Kelly ,2015). ALLAN ORDEAL 4 It is also important to understand the role of Allan in this case as it helps to give a clear understanding of who is in charge. Judging from the fact that Jenny the lead director seems to be taking most crucial decisions without necessarily consulting is a key failure and hence action should be taken to salvage the Blue sky limited. It is also important in this case to recognize that the fact that by the mere fact that Jenny carries out the financial transactions without necessarily consulting his fellow directors is in /itself a breach of the companies act and hence he bears all the responsibilities that come with the liability. ALLAN ORDEAL 5 References Cavey, N., & Kelly, C. E. (2015). Corporate Criminal Liability and the Companies Act 2014: A Covert Step towards Re-conceptualisation and Reform. King's Inns L. Rev., 5, 49. Coffee Jr, J. C., Sale, H., & Henderson, M. T. (2015). Securities regulation: Cases and materials. Myburgh, J. L. (2016). A critical analysis of the effect of business rescue on the liability of sureties (Doctoral dissertation). Running head: ALLANS ORDEAL Allan's Ordeal Student Name Institution affiliation Date ALLAN ORDEAL 2 This case takes precedence from the famous case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd 1897 AC22. This case clearly establishes the concept of separate legal personality of a company as Solomon was clearly isolated from the case that concerned the company. According to the company's act 2001, the law clearly illustrates that the affairs of the business should be carried away as a separate entity from the personal affiliation of the business. This comes in hand with the proof of Jenny who was the director of Blue sky limited with the responsibilities clearly not defined. As Under Companies Act 2006, Chapter 47, Part 2, Section 7 (1), Separate legal personality and limited liability are not the same thing. Corporate personality refers to the fact that, as far as the law is concerned, a company really exists. This is clearly seen since Jenny seems to sideline Allan with the responsibilities of handling the core businesses of Blue sky limited by deliberately refusing to involve Allan in the transactions of the business. This is done so as we see Jenny taking to his own hands the obligation to draw the company's money without any other signatory involved. This makes Allan a plastic CEO with no obligation towards the transactions of the company. This is dangerous for Blue sky limited which seems to be run as a personal entity with Jenny taking over all the responsibilities of the business. With the presence of the two directors, the business is bound to be the partnership which should be solely guided by the partnership deed. According to me, I do not think that Allan has breached any law through the companies act. This is because he seems not to have any defined role in the company as he is not aware of Jenny who is one of the directors withdrawing some of the cash for his own personal gains with ALLAN ORDEAL 3 him learning later of the transactions taking part in the company as this proves to the fact he is only there to be seen according to (Coffee et al, 2015). Blue sky limited is in itself free illegally. This is because of the mere fact that the company acquires its working capital illegally through fraudulent acts of the Diva company in which Jenny was both a director and a CEO thus hey had the responsibility of carrying himself with dignity and truthfully because the cash owed to the bank for mortgages can be easily contested by the directors of Diva company. This is because of the fact that Jenny took an advantage of the vulnerability of Diva company as again he seems to be again bearing all the responsibilities in regards to the finances of the company irrespective of whether or not there are other directors in charge and also seems to make the most crucial decisions of the company and thus misleading the other directors to making the wrong decision. Allan should not be bowed to take responsibility towards the money that Jenny takes away from the business judging the fact that they are family. This is because the business should at all cases be treated as a separate entity from any personal business. This, however, does make Jenny liable for all the financial obligations that Blue sky limited owes its creditors. According to the companies act it states clearly that all directors of the company should operate under defined roles and obligations to ensure that all the directors of a particular company are held responsible for all the actions towards other entities that carry out business transactions to ensure that everything is guided by the memorandum of understanding which basically defines the lengths of operation between the business and the stakeholders at large. ALLAN ORDEAL 4 This helps to reduce and control nasty incidences of the breach of the companies act which there is a dilemma for who should take a responsibility for the liability especially in financial transactions which is a very crucial yet delicate venture that most companies are struggling to avoid through the various provisions as provided in the law in the companies act which governs the distinction of different roles that the directors do take and also the limits associated with the financial transactions according to (Cavey & Kelly ,2015). It is also important to understand the role of Allan in this case as it helps to give a clear understanding of who is in charge. Judging from the fact that Jenny the lead director seems to be taking most crucial decisions without necessarily consulting is a key failure and hence action should be taken to salvage the Blue sky limited. It is also important in this case to recognize that the fact that by the mere fact that Jenny carries out the financial transactions without necessarily consulting his fellow directors is in /itself a breach of the companies act and hence he bears all the responsibilities that come with the liability. ALLAN ORDEAL 5 References Cavey, N., & Kelly, C. E. (2015). Corporate Criminal Liability and the Companies Act 2014: A Covert Step towards Re-conceptualisation and Reform. King's Inns L. Rev., 5, 49. Coffee Jr, J. C., Sale, H., & Henderson, M. T. (2015). Securities regulation: Cases and materials. Myburgh, J. L. (2016). A critical analysis of the effect of business rescue on the liability of sureties (Doctoral dissertation)