Company Law in Context
Instructions: Complete the task(s) set out below.
Word Limit: Maximum 3000 words, excluding footnotes, bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the Academic Regulations:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
Further details: This assignment must be completed individually. For further guidance see Academic Honesty Policy: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/academic/files/Academic%20Honesty%20Policy.pdf
Referencing: Work must be properly referenced (see Academic Honesty Policy above) and MUST use the OSCOLA system and include a bibliography. For further guidance on OSCOLA see: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/oscola.html
You can also use bibliographic referencing software
(e.g. RefWorks, Zotero).
ASSESSMENT TASK
Imagine you are working in a law firm as a trainee solicitor. The firm’s Senior Partner is preparing for an important litigation. She assigns you the task to write a case note on one out of the three cases listed below:
Maidment v Attwood & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 998
Access via Westlaw or https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/998.html
When advising the Senior Partner, you are required to highlight the following aspects of this case that are directly relevant to the litigation:
- a) How courts determine what constitutes directors’ excessive remuneration and how a claim by shareholders could be made to recoup such excessive remuneration during creditors’ voluntary liquidation;
- b) The unfair prejudice remedy: how courts assess it, and how it differs from the derivative action remedy.
Smithton Ltd v Naggar [2014] EWCA Civ 939
Access via Westlaw or https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/939.html
When advising the Senior Partner, you are required to highlight the following aspects of this case that are directly relevant to the litigation:
- a) The definition of de facto and shadow director
- b) The role of corporate directors in corporate governance structures.
McAskill v Fulton [2014] 10 WLUK 950
Access via Westlaw
When advising the Senior Partner, you are required to highlight the following aspects of this case that are directly relevant to the litigation:
- a) The procedural requirements that courts must assess in order to bring a derivative claim against a director who appropriates company property;
- b) The remedies that are available for minority shareholders, in addition to derivative action.
To complete this task, you should:
- Use the case note template (available on Canvas) ñ it will help you structure your work in the required format.
- Start with the essential and recommended reading listed on the ReadingLists@Anglia. You will find further information on legal research via http://anglia.libguides.com/s-law
- For a fully written case note example, please see pp 22-25 in Imogen Moore, Company Law Revision Pack (OUP 2016) https://cam-casarray.anglia.ac.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=VaC_YQtkoMSYcNTJZpgxKtAIC47n3gE0AkEynVxiKyYxN9eigZ3WCA..&URL=https%3a%2f%2fcontent.talisaspire.com%2fanglia%2fbundles%2f5c6d3c0a540a26454002ee14 and
case notes that are available on reputable law blogs, such as
CorporateLawAndGovernance.blogspot.com or
TalkingBusinessBlog.gateleyplc.com
Your submitted work will be marked according to LEVEL 5 LAW (SPECIAL) MARKING GRID (see next page). For detailed explanation on ARU marking process, please see Canvas.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
