Question:
Chief executives with multi-million-dollar pay packets are not necessarily working in the best interests of shareholders and there may be a case to cap their pay. New research explores whether limits on executive pay hurt or benefit shareholders and suggests that providing CEOs with $10 million bonuses encourages them to make short-term decisions rather than work closely with the board and in the best interest of shareholders. The research proposes that limiting executive compensation might be more beneficial for shareholders. Over the past 30 years, CEO compensation has been increasing on the basis of a theoretical argument that it creates shareholder value. However, the current system encourages companies to be 'transactional focused' rather than building capacity and innovating; CEOs are likely to pursue strategies with outcomes that are easy to measure in financial terms. It has been proposed that the current corporate governance structure and guidelines in Australia encourage director independence. But this often means that directors do not have a deep understanding of the business. Relying on financial performance measures means directors do not need to really understand whether CEOs are good leaders, insightful, pursuing the right strategies and communicating well. Source: Adapted from Nassim Khadem, '$10m CEO bonuses encourage short-term decisions', The Sydney Morning Herald.146 in Rankin M. et al: Contemporary Issues in Accounting (2e) Case Study 5.2, p.168-169
The article highlights the excessive use of bonuses to encourage shore-term decisions. From an agency perspective, why would managers prefer short-term cash bonuses instead of long-term equity bonuses? What problems does this approach lead to for the board of directors and shareholders? In presenting your answer you should refer to relevant information in the above article to support your view.
According to China's Company law, who of the following persons could be eligible for appointment as a director, supervisor or senior manager of a company? A. A person who has been convicted crime of corruption B. A physical disabled person who has full civil capacity C. A former director of a company which has been declared bankrupt where he was personally responsible for the bankruptcy D. A person who has significant unpaid debts. pen Snarllo ads agist of H 8. Which of the following FIE forms is not a legal person? A. CJV B.EJV may face C. Branch office D.IHC how of villion ed meet viewing aved of bermilos ed or carolina witt 9. According to China's company law, a company may not purchase its own shares in which of the following circumstances. A. to reduce the registered capital B. to merge with another company that holds its shares C. to reward the staff of the company with shares D. to escape some tax Page 2 7 pages in totalW WordCounter - Count Ward : G henn ofhitions - Googles : |0 Assignment db Paper C) Chopp The Lom of Fenkho X creader.chegg conW/bockw/978156783879Vcf /3/241/4/21402/3405:0 The pistons aproc the techalgod employed by defendant was proper, The sole basis for spending the export testimony would support a finding of sprite negligence is that the berve was injured during nitraction, Where an if orp may over dople the car. s finding of negligent onrol be pinlasted only on the fact it dil sits. Phin ill also maimains there is evidence of repligence from the fact this is beast of injury to a partof the bady not involved in the brcomment. However, that is not in. The surgical procedure did include foraction of the sissend column. It was very much in the surgical field. Third overt did are er in dingding a verdict for defendant on the issue of spotify mepigend. IL. Hes is loquite. Pontiff also alleges the appliability of the doctrine of res ipsi kopisir. Our mail recent adelmel of the doctrine appear in [a 1973eve]: Linder the destring of res ipso inquiter, where (10) injury or damage is cured by an instrumentality under the reclusive control of defendant and (2) the occurrence is rach in is to ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been med, the happening of the injury pormia, but does not compel, in inference deferalant was negligent. A The coaltest in this case consens presence of the second foundation fan [ from the quoted paragnight. Belowfart argues the wound fondation fact for pes ipss kqubar is shunt because i does not Sic in the common growledge of bymen to may injury to be larynged fever does not opour if du care is cursived in antomar appris thcervical fusion surgery. We must initially decide what his previously been an open question in this jurisdiction may the common expatend in establish the soold boundation fact for its por loqolfor be shown by expert testimony? In the qual cast the basis of pad experience from which this conclusion may be drewn is common to the community, and ba matter of general know badge, which he court neonizes on much the some bash as well likes judicial notice of But which everyone knows. It may, however, be supplied by the evidence of the parties; find expert testimony that much in event mally does not occur without negligence may send a sollicien. heis for the internet In thi cos, how it, even oumakering the expert testimony. the record at best only suppens an inference | that plaintiff suffered an extremely sure injury in anterior approach corsied fusion surgery which They ofour even when due care in exercised Kirity of the commence is not a sufficical predicte for application of new ipsi loqutor.... There is in his in the prestill case, in expert testimony or otherwise, for airing plaintill's injury is more White the result of regligence then you guy for which the defendant is roof meyersible We do not belief there was ary basis in this one for submission of reps boquot Trial can doif not er in Raining in summit it. IV. Billkey or trespass Plaintiff onlends there was also bulletcil evidence to submit the are to the jury on the theory of ballery or trespass. In effect, she illeges the comened to minion of two serieless timeusal of mahone protraded dark thinking that would by a separate opention skitional vertebrae had to be fined. Boy sens for fact four worthen wort lined combined with defendant's assurances and follows to won her of specific Defendant teaified plaintiff win fully advised is in the nature of her problem and the scope of corrective surgery. He acknowledges he did not advice her of the band of vocal chord fairy paralysis. He believed the posibility of wich onmince was puligible and cerweighed by the danger of man apprehension if waming of the risk was chan Aa 40 OW WordCounter - Count Ward : | G hogs sofritome - Coughs : |0 Assignment db Paper @ Tools Augment 19 --.. K ) Chopp: The Low of Healthon & C ereader.chegg.comW/bockw/978156783879Vcf/3/241/4/21400,2/6/2/2/20 0:0 A The Court Decides E Perin r. Hams 210 .W.2d 609 (Towa 1975) a Mccormick, J. This w s appeal froms directed umlief for doctor in a malpractice action: We affirm. The claim ance from an interior approach corsical fusion performed on plaintiff Done Peria by Aciculaat Robert A. Hayne.. The fusion was socereal in claninting pain, wridages and numbness in plaintiff's back. reck, riptiam and had caused by two protruded cervical dia. but plaintiff alleged she suffered paralysis of a vocal chord Tokey because of bjorg to the right recomend baranged serve during surgery.... The injury redial A her vous: be a heart whimper. She sought damage on four throring ypsife negligence, me loan loquner, breach of capress warranty and befury of tresoon After both parties had rested, the ind sport swished defendants motion for directed wordet. holling to my drive imulliient to support jury mudending of the cake in any of to packed tories Plaintiff enigma thinning is one. We must moore nitch of the pleaded homes for romary in the light of appleinhis law and he evidence. I. Specife negligence. Plaintiff allers there was willicient evidence to support jury submission of her charge [hil defenden maligently caler injured the munch leyaged nave Plain That preinled does it the level of the lith and sap cervical inimport, The purpose of surgery was to reinget the provided disco pad foot the ertybest with bone douche bom hot hip. Memoved of 1 do much the pinching of the serve inthe spinal endumn which choice he patient's pin. The for sapplanis the dis The procedure involves an lacksion in the front of the most of one side of the midlineof a level siplily below the "Adam's apple." Four crime ne high the pick The vendore and spinil gard are in the axial of bone andumm il the rear. In enter to get to the mial column the porchm must meet the vikx il colonn which lies in front of it. The visceral color, like the vecube columns on each tale of il, is control with a protective filers The maroon does not euler the vacend column during the cervical fusion procedure, The same plung which cicbles the mack or be tuned cashiers the visceral column bu be writacted in one side to permit access to the asial odunn The reinstion is accomplished by ing a gauze prided ncurator specifically designed for retraction of the vissend columns during the surgery. The mol shows he defendmined this pointhire in the present cost. Plaintiff was under general inewhelic. The inesthesia record is mind, and there is to evilone of my innand resume during simpry. Defendant denied any possibility the fargogoal nerve was proved He sold i could not be sevend inka the visual ficio was mianed, and i was not, He aloe beligerd it would be Impossi to over the corey during with Defeatant peuified he did and love the cause of the injury hat presumed it resulted from cmission of the nerve locklent to mination of the viascend camp. He thought plaintiff's faryspeed weave may have been peculiarly wisepillly to wich injury. lie inasiand tim surgery was done and as it always was and if le were doing it again to would do at the some way ihe said one maly how shemen the surgery will result in paralysis of a vocal chord foie two or three-mika of ine portent of cies in which it used. He ike and there is moe win to prided is piremil such insurers. In omailering the propriety of the menlis directed for defmaland we phe the evidence sipponting phistiff's claim the mod bromide cieraction it said morally bear We mogais done powible memm to evablich pivinc negligence of s physician. Com in fromgo espal testimony, the specal finnish coltonge showing [hail the physician's lack of can nowobvious as to by within Comprehension of the syrian, and the third factualy in communion of the soomill evidence that the physician injured a part off the body not involved in the localment. The find meant in the nile and the ochen inc exceptions to Plaintiff alleges the largeped nine was oil gintly out of injured. The ned is devoid of any evidence its fame was spunal during meparty... in injury may off dapie dur oates finding of me liponot onrot be prodvated misty on the fret B did coeur. 171 AaQuestion Completion Status: Moving to the next question prevents changes to this answer. Question 38 A third-party beneficiary is one which does not have privity of contract, but is known to the contracting parties and intended to benefit under the contract. has failed to establish legal standing before the court. may establish legal standing before the court after a contract has been consummated. O does not have privity of contract and is unknown to the contracting parties. Moving to the next question prevents changes to this answer. 20 888 F1 F2 20 FS FT A # % & LA 2 3 4 5 6 8 Q W E R T Y U A S D F G H
