ethical considerations怎么写？_ 伦理学代写_ 法律学代写

Florid Flicks Pty Ltd Case

Florid Flicks Pty Ltd 案例

法定义务  Being a private ownership firm, all business dealings and key decisions at Florid Flicks Pty Ltd seek approval of the three shareholders.

Executive Summary

Question # 01 – Statutory Duties

Issue

Being a private ownership firm, all business dealings and key decisions at Florid Flicks Pty Ltd seek approval of the three shareholders. According to the case, Mick, Kim and Muldoon are the three shareholders and the main parties involved; Mick and Muldoon assume the roles and responsibilities of directors while Kim acts as the Gallery Manager and a full time employee at Florida Flicks.

Their relationship can be determined by the equal number of voting shares that empowers them with the equivalent right to raise voice on a particular business concern. Case assessment suggests that the key business transactions pertain to the printing of drawings and artworks; at the moment, Florida Flicks faces cash issues with a troubled record keeping system. On one hand,

Mick shows high optimism that the things will eventually sort out; hence, continues to incur ongoing expenses. On the other hand, Muldoon depicts a no concern attitude by taking no necessary initiatives to improve the business situation. On a simple note, case evaluation reflects Mick as an active partner and Muldoon as a sleeping partner with little or no awareness about the company matters.

In the light of given facts, issues at Florida Flicks seem to be caused by the lack of ownership and accountability among the business directors.

译文：执行摘要  法定义务

问题 #01 – 法定义务

问题

作为一家私有公司，Florid Flicks Pty Ltd 的所有业务交易和关键决策都需要获得三位股东的批准。根据案情，米克、金姆和穆尔登为三名股东和主要涉案方； Mick 和Muldoon 承担董事的角色和职责，而Kim 则担任画廊经理和Florida Flicks 的全职员工。

他们的关系可以由同等数量的有表决权的股份决定，这些股份赋予他们同等的权利，就特定的业务问题发表意见。案例评估表明，关键业务交易涉及图纸和艺术品的印刷；目前，Florida Flicks 面临现金问题，其记录保存系统存在问题。一方面，

米克对事情最终会解决表示高度乐观；因此，继续产生持续费用。另一方面，Muldoon 没有采取任何必要的措施来改善业务状况，从而表现出一种不关心的态度。简而言之，案例评估反映了 Mick 是一个积极的合作伙伴，而 Muldoon 则是一个沉睡的合作伙伴，对公司事务知之甚少或根本不了解。

根据既定事实，Florida Flicks 的问题似乎是由于业务主管缺乏所有权和责任感造成的。

Rule of Law

In Australian context, statutory duties and responsibilities of directors and owners are governed under the statue law i.e. the 2001 Corporations Act (Australia) while the general law duties are administered under the constitution of a company and the common law or the law made by the judge. According to the Common Law,

Directors have a duty to make decisions in the best interest of the business and to restrain from impeding their discretions (See figure below). This rule of law is relevant to facts about the responsibilities of Mick and Muldoon towards the business. Similar example can be taken from s 181 of the Corp Act (Australia) that imposes honesty as a statutory duty onto the directors.

CCA. Corporations Act 2001. 2015. Commonwealth Consolidated Acts.

GTLaw. Corporate regulation. 2015. Gilbert Tobin Lawyers.

Tomasic, R., Bottomley, S. and McQueen, R. Corporations Law in Australia. Federation Press, 2002, p 367-375.

译文：法律规则  法定义务

在澳大利亚，董事和所有者的法定职责和责任受成文法管辖，即 2001 年公司法（澳大利亚），而普通法职责受公司章程和普通法或法官制定的法律管辖 . 根据普通法，

董事有责任根据企业的最佳利益做出决定，并避免妨碍他们的自由裁量权（见下图）。 这条法律规则与 Mick 和 Muldoon 对企业的责任有关。 类似的例子可以从《公司法》（澳大利亚）第 181 条中获取，该条将诚实作为法定义务强加给董事。

CCA。 2001 年公司法。2015 年。联邦联合法案。

法律。 企业监管。 2015. 吉尔伯特托宾律师事务所。

Tomasic, R.、Bottomley, S. 和 McQueen, R. 澳大利亚的公司法。 联邦出版社，2002 年，第 367-375 页。

Figure 1: Directors' Duties under Australian Laws

(Source: GTLaw, 2015)

Previously known as s 232(2), s 181 of the Corp Act (Australia) creates judicial duties of directors to act honestly and responsibly in accord with s 181(1) that inflicts civil obligation on directors to act bona fides or in good faith.

Moreover, s 184 separates the civil and criminal aspects of the duty of bona fides; this section is relevant to the given case as it requires directors to act responsibly and avoid reckless or intentional offense. In line with the figure above, Common Law imposes a duty on directors to address a particular business situation under ample consideration.

The law is relevant to the case of Florida Flicks as it draws a thin line of ethical and moral considerations between the right and wrong. Review of statutory duties also indicates that directors’ responsibilities circle around the financial disclosure and reporting.

The case facts reflect poor record keeping and cash flow as the key business issues, which mean that the directors i.e. Mick and Muldoon are not fulfilling their statutory duties.

译文：图 1：澳大利亚法律规定的董事职责  法定义务

（来源：GTLaw，2015）

以前称为 232(2) 条，《公司法》（澳大利亚）第 181 条规定了董事的司法义务，根据 181(1) 条诚实和负责任地行事，这对董事施加民事义务，以善意或善意行事.

此外，第 184 条将善意义务的民事和刑事方面分开；本节与特定案例相关，因为它要求董事负责任地行事并避免鲁莽或故意犯罪。与上图一致，普通法规定董事有责任在充分考虑的情况下处理特定的业务情况。

该法律与佛罗里达电影公司的案例有关，因为它在是非之间划出了一条伦理和道德考量的细线。对法定职责的审查还表明，董事的职责围绕财务披露和报告展开。

案件事实反映了不良记录保存和现金流作为关键业务问题，这意味着董事，即 Mick 和 Muldoon 没有履行其法定职责。

Application to the Facts

In accord with the Common Law principles, facts from the case indicate that Muldoon fails in satisfying his duties as a director because he pays no regard to the current business position; hence, it can be stated that Muldoon fails to act in good faith. Application of this legal principle to the case can be supported by the relevant case of CAC v Papoulias [1990] 8

Ibid 3

Ibid 3

Ibid 2

Ibid 2

ACLC 849;

it states that a director is responsible to act honestly. Additionally, the relevant case law of Commonwealth Bank of Australia v. Friedrich and Ors [1991] provides a fine example of directors’ duty to care; in accord with ss 181 and 184, Muldoon fails to fulfil his duty to care by showing no concern to the steps taken by Mick in paying expenses.

In contrast, Mick’s actions as the director of Florida Flicks are found to contravene with s 184 of the Corp Act (Australia). For example, Feil v Commissioner of Corporate Affairs [1991] 9 ACLC 811 depict that a director’s failure to act honestly is the breach of statutory duties.

Facts presented in the case recognize that Mick’s optimism that things will turn out to be right is a mere excuse to deny his duties towards the business performance. Hence, in support of Marchesi v Barnes [1970] VR 434 case; Mick fails to act bona fides and honestly in the best interest of the business.

译文：适用于事实  法定义务

根据普通法原则，本案事实表明，马尔登未能履行董事职责是因为他不考虑当前的业务职位；因此，可以说马尔登没有善意地行事。 CAC v Papoulias [1990] 8 的相关案例支持了这一法律原则在本案中的应用。

同上 3

同上 3

同上 2

同上 2

ACLC 849；

它规定董事有责任诚实行事。此外，澳大利亚联邦银行诉弗里德里希和奥尔斯 [1991] 的相关判例法提供了董事注意义务的一个很好的例子；根据 ss 181 和 184，Muldoon 没有履行他的照顾义务，对 Mick 在支付费用方面采取的步骤毫不关心。

相比之下，米克作为佛罗里达电影公司董事的行为被认定违反了《公司法》（澳大利亚）第 184 条。例如，Feil 诉公司事务专员 [1991] 9 ACLC 811 描述董事未能诚实行事是违反法定职责。

案件中提出的事实表明，米克对事情会变得正确的乐观态度仅仅是否认他对业务绩效的职责的借口。因此，支持 Marchesi v Barnes [1970] VR 434 案；米克没有为企业的最大利益真诚和诚实地行事。

Despite knowing that the business is facing cash flow problems,

Mick’s actions to commission new products for sale can be recognized as a deliberate and intentional offence. Thus, Mick’s actions seem to contravene with the statutory duties imposed by s 184 of the Corp Act (Australia). The relevant case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey [2011] FCA 717 provides a clear illustration of directors’ duties for financial reporting and record keeping in terms of financial statements.

In accord with ss 180(1), 344(1) and 601FD(3) of the Corp Act (Australia) hold directors responsible for record keeping and financial statements. This means that Mick and Muldoon are legally responsible for the current cash flow problems as they act in an irresponsible manner to monitor and mitigate the current business situation.

Section 182 of the Corp Act (Australia) requires directors not to misuse their position and access to sensitive information; this section is applicable to the position of Kim as his actions contravene his general duties towards the business.

Corresponding to the case law of Mills v Mills [1938] 60 CLR 150, application of statutory laws to the case indicate that Kim contravenes with his statutory duties by making improper use of sensitive information for personal gains and violating the rule of purpose.

Ibid 3

BWI. Those Inescapable Directors' Duties. 2015. Board Works International.

Ibid 3

Fisse, B. Fraud and the Liability of Company Directors. Proceedings of a Conference on Complex Commercial Fraud, 1991, p 1-13.

Jacobson, D. Centro (ASIC v Healey) case note: directors’ duties for financial statements. 2015. The Bright Law.

Ibid 12

Ibid 1

Jade. [1938] HCA 4; 60 CLR 150. 2015. Bar Network.

Conclusion

In the light of above application of relevant rule of law and case laws, Mick and Muldoon contravene their statutory duties to act in good faith and in a responsible manner. They also breach their statutory duties imposed by the Corp Act (Australia) and the corresponding general laws. At the same time, Kim is observed to disobey his one the basic statutory duties i.e. to avoid misuse of information, position and power.

译文：尽管知道企业正面临现金流问题，  法定义务

米克委托销售新产品的行为可以被视为蓄意和故意的冒犯。因此，米克的行为似乎违反了《公司法》（澳大利亚）第 184 条规定的法定职责。 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey [2011] FCA 717 的相关案例清楚地说明了董事在财务报表方面的财务报告和记录保存职责。

根据《公司法》（澳大利亚）的 ss 180(1)、344(1) 和 601FD(3)，董事负责记录保存和财务报表。这意味着 Mick 和 Muldoon 对当前的现金流问题负有法律责任，因为他们以不负责任的方式监控和缓解当前的业务状况。

《公司法》（澳大利亚）第 182 条要求董事不得滥用职权和获取敏感信息；本节适用于 Kim 的职位，因为他的行为违反了他对业务的一般职责。

与 Mills v Mills [1938] 60 CLR 150 的判例法相对应，成文法对该案的适用表明，Kim 为个人利益不当使用敏感信息并违反了目的规则，违反了其法定职责。

同上 3

体重指数。那些不可避免的董事职责。 2015. Board Works International。

同上 3

Fisse, B. 欺诈和公司董事的责任。复杂商业欺诈会议论文集，1991 年，第 1-13 页。

Jacobson, D. Centro (ASIC v Healey) 案例说明：董事对财务报表的职责。 2015.光明法则。

同上 12

同上 1

玉。 [1938] HCA 4； 60 CLR 150。2015 年。酒吧网络。

结论

鉴于上述相关法律法规和判例法的适用，Mick 和Muldoon 违反了其本着诚信和负责任的方式行事的法定义务。他们还违反了《公司法》（澳大利亚）和相​​应的一般法律规定的法定职责。与此同时，金正恩违反了他的一项基本法定职责，即避免滥用信息、职位和权力。

Question # 02 – Resolution Ratifying and General Law Duties500

Issue100

The point in focus originates from the potential event of liquidation; in the case, Mick contemplates that Florida Flicks’ inability to sustain and survive its position is likely to provoke liquidators to take Sarah’s drawings into possession for the settlement of affairs. As a suggestible solution to the issue at hand, Mick and Muldoon with the directors’ resolution and Kim oppose this initiative.

Rule of Law100

Application to the Facts200

Conclusion100

Question # 03 – Options under the Corporation Act1000

Issue200

Rule of Law350

Application to the Facts300

Conclusion150

译文：问题 #02 – 决议批准和一般法律义务 500  法定义务

第100期

关注点源于潜在的清算事件； 在这种情况下，Mick 认为，Florida Flicks 无法维持其地位并生存下去，很可能会激起清算人将 Sarah 的图纸拿走以解决事务。 作为对手头问题的建议性解决方案，Mick 和 Muldoon 与董事决议和 Kim 反对这一倡议。

法治100

对 Facts200 的应用

结论100

问题 #03 – 公司法 1000 项下的期权

第200期

法治350

对 Facts300 的应用

结论150

保险学代写   时尚设计代写   电影代写电子商务代写论文代写费用项目管理代写