Forrest v ASIC (2014) Recognise the laws relating to companies in Australia; and Examine the duties, rights and responsibilities of company officers Document Preview: Company law – BBAL401 Term 2,...

Taxation issues, case study.
Taxation issues,
case study.
Report
1 | P a g e

Contents
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 1
2. Sections that were
oken in the case…………………………………………………4
3. Examination of court and tribunal decision………………………………………………….6
4. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………8
2 | P a g e
I. Introduction
We will discuss the background of the case
In March 2006, Australian securities and investments commission (ASIC) prompted
proceeding in the Centralized law court of Australia conflicting to Fortes cue metal group Ltd.
and Andrew forest who was serving as chairman, CEO and vital stockholder of Fortes cue:
Fo
est. Thought-provoking Fortescue’s announcements to the goggle-box and the complete
marketplace on the topic of a series of contract preparations between Fortescue and three state
possessed Chinese companies. In 2004 Fortescue metal group Ltd has contracted or rather
agreements with many Chinese Companies which were actually owned by the administration in
espect of building of basis for a mining development in Western Australia.
Agreements which were finished has enclosed the terms in very wide-ranging manner, like
what part of work should be completed and how much payments needs to be delivered.
Agreement or the contract had the following points:-
The contract will actually be obligatory after the board agrees with the same and it should be
given before the date stated
The parties recognised that an occupied, extra all-inclusive contract not altered in intent from
outline a
angement would be recognised in future.
3 | P a g e

When the Agenda contract was established after the agreement and the consent of board from
oth the businesses then Fortescue metal group Ltd publicized to the Stock exchange of
Australia that the corporation has actually contracted with the Chinese Corporation to construct
the Pilbara Iron Ore Infrastructure Development to fund the railway element.
After that particular accusation were completed on Fortescue metal group which conditions that
covenants which actually was not made by the agreements which was obligatory Australian
securities and investments commission (ASIC)
ings accounts against Fortescue metallic
group and Mr. Forest claiming that Fortescue metal group and Mr. Forest ruptured many laws
of Corporation Act 2001.
The Probationary court proclaim its verdict in e
and of Fortescue metal group and Mr. Forest,
ut this judgment was upturned by full centralized court on the following estates:-
It has been seen that the infringement of constant revelation responsibility:
Mr. Forest has not gratified his legislative responsibility of care as a director while giving his
sanction or creating or making announcements.
Businesses should take into version and should deliver surety that any declarations concerning
authorized papers such as skulls of terms, text of empathetic and the like properly repeat the
nature of folder or text.
This case actually tells how messages or declarations related to a
angements of companies
were touched by dissimilar magistrates
We will discuss other related matters in the next headings.
Sections that were
oken in the case:
4 | P a g e

In the case of Fo
est v Australian...