Looking for BTB2220 - BTC2000 - BTF2000 - Corporations law - S1 2025 test answers and solutions? Browse our comprehensive collection of verified answers for BTB2220 - BTC2000 - BTF2000 - Corporations law - S1 2025 at learning.monash.edu.
Get instant access to accurate answers and detailed explanations for your course questions. Our community-driven platform helps students succeed!
T-Beverages Ltd has just wrapped up its financial year, and the board is feeling generous. Even though the company’s profits are lower than expected, Hunk (the CEO) suggests paying a dividend to keep shareholders happy — especially with the next AGM coming up.
However, when you check the financial records, you noticed something odd:
If the proposed dividend of $50,000 is paid,
liabilities will exceed assets.
You raise your concerns with Claire (the Chairperson), who shrugs and says, " worry — it’s only $50k, and the shareholders deserve it. We had a good run last year.”
You’re not convinced.
Required:
What
are the legal requirements that must be met before a company can pay a
dividend?
Based
on your answer above, should the company pay dividends to the
shareholders?
What
are the potential legal consequences of paying dividends in this instance?
(1 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 4 marks)
Your friend Barry owns shares in . He recently decided to sell some of his shares to another friend and says: “I’ll just let the company know I’ve transferred them—should be a done deal, right?”
You're unsure whether T-Beverages Ltd has provisions in its constitution that place certain restrictions on share transfers. To help clarify things for Barry, answer the following:
Are shareholders always permitted to freely
transfer shares?
impose
restrictions on the transfer of its shares through its constitution?
(1.5 + 1.5 = 3 marks)
Around the same time, X-Mining issued a prospectus to raise
capital for a new lithium project in Western Australia. The prospectus claimed
that the company had already secured all necessary environmental approvals,
suggesting the project was ready to proceed. In reality, the approvals were
still pending and subject to significant delays due to ongoing environmental
assessments and community objections—facts that were not disclosed to potential
investors.
Revengers Ltd. (a mid-sized superannuation fund) relying on this information, invested $10 million. When the truth emerged and project delays were confirmed, X-Mining’s share price fell sharply, resulting in significant investor losses directly linked to the misleading statement.
Required:Advise whether X-Mining is “defective” under the Corporations Act in relation to the prospectus.
(3 marks)
REQUIREMENT: To get full marks (out of 3), you need to cite ONE relevant case law from the following:
Jean is the CFO of X-Mining Ltd, a company listed on the ASX. On Tuesday morning, while scrolling through a private Discord server that only has 5 members (comprised of finance professionals and enthusiasts) Jean comes across a post by a user named “The Fiscal Alchemist.”. The post shares a blurry image of what appears to be a whiteboard from an industry event, accompanied by the caption:
“Rumour mill says X-Mining's booth at the Lithium Expo had something spicy scribbled on a corner whiteboard. Something about ‘strategic positioning’ in WA... Are we looking at the next lithium whisperer? #notadvice #justvibes #XMining4Mars”
The post is deliberately vague and satirical, with hashtags like #YOLOinvesting and #notinsiderinfo, and it’s only shared within the closed Discord group. The information is not part of any official company communication and is speculative at best.
Nonetheless, Jean, amused and slightly intrigued, decides to purchase a significant number of X-Mining shares. Later that week, an unrelated and surprising announcement by a major EV manufacturer drives up lithium demand, causing X-Mining’s share price to rise. Jean makes a substantial profit. ASIC is now investigating whether Jean has engaged in any misconduct.
Required:Advise whether Jean is likely to have breached the Corporations Act.
(5 marks)
REQUIREMENT: To get full marks (out of 5), you need to cite at least TWO relevant case law from the following:
James, a 16-year-old high school student, is interested in investing in a small start-up and decides to become a member of Bright Future Pty Ltd by purchasing shares in the company. The company’s legal team informs him that he cannot become a member because he is under 18 years old.
(3 marks)
GreenTech Ltd is an ASX-listed technology company that has recently expanded its operations globally. The board believes that the replaceable rules in the 2001 (Cth) are sufficient for the company’s needs and decides not to adopt a formal constitution, relying entirely on the replaceable rules for its governance.
(3 marks)
Jac, Keisha and Sunny are the only directors and shareholders of a company called BigBrand Pty Ltd. BigBrand buys and sells a variety of consumer goods in Australia. Jac is currently travelling overseas negotiating a deal with a supplier. Keisha calls a shareholders’ meeting. Jac can participate in the meeting by using Microsoft Teams.
(3 marks)
The constitution of Maverick Enterprises Ltd states that the board of directors may remove any director by passing a directors’ resolution. Barry, a director of the company, is removed from the board after the other directors pass such a resolution. This means Barry has been validly removed from office under the Corporations Act.
(3 marks)
GreenEnergy Ltd, an ASX-listed company, plans to release market-sensitive information about a new solar technology. The CEO shares this information privately with a select group of institutional investors. The periodic disclosure requirements under the ASX Listing Rules are designed to prevent this kind of disclosure.
(3 marks)
Which of the following is true about a contract between members of GraceTech Industries?
Get Unlimited Answers To Exam Questions - Install Crowdly Extension Now!