Commercial and Corporation Law for GIO Group - MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theCommercial and Corporation Law for GIO Group. Answer: Critical Analysis of Decision Given by Tribunal and Reasons Provided by them In the GIO group, Mr Vines was Chief Financial Officer, but he is not the director of the company. However, the definition of the director as per corporation law of Australia covers the individuals having authorities of directors with whatever name (Klettner, Clarke Boersma, 2014). Under the Corporation Law, it was held by the court that Mr Vines had breached four separate provision as he failed to disclose relevant and related information to GIO. In accordance with the company law of Australia, the officer of the company is required to ensure the information contains the decision of investments which is given to the shareholders and the information must be complete and accurate in all the respective objects. If the officer is having the doubt that the information is not complete or it will not contain the proper content, in such case the duties of directors are: The officer should investigate the information. This is the duty of the officer to ensure that the information is proper and the accuracy is maintained (Langford, Ramsay Welsh, 2015). The officer will not give the assurance about the completeness and accuracy of the information without proper analysis. In the case of Mr Vines, it is held by the court that the diligence and standard of care are applicable on Mr Vines as he contravened his duties on following three occasions: Signing on management sign-off on a due diligence report without reviewing the analysis of due diligence committee and merely relying on the assumption of profit of $80 million Provided confirmation to the diligence committee regarding the integrity of forecasting of GIO profit. Failed to give attention to forecasting made by GIO after the issuance of part B statement and prior to completion of takeover process. It clearly shows that Mr Vines had not exercised his given powers with the standard of care in the concerned situation. Mr Vines attempted to give his justification for honesty as per the section 1317S, but even if the court found that the Mr Vines acted honestly, they will not allow him for release due to the significance of contravened legal provisions by him. It was detained that Mr Vines have to be careful while disclosing the material information. In this case, the loss was occurred to shareholders because of the carelessness of Mr Vines as he failed to provide disclosure of material information (Low Low, 2014). Mr Vines is also answerable for depending on the other higher-ranking executive who wrongly reported him for the serious financial matter. The executive is having an operational responsibility of the reports regarding the matter of concerned subjects. The case is particularly provided for the explanation of the responsibility of executive officers at the time of preparing the documents of profit forecasts (Mire, 2016). By considering this fact, it is to be ensured by the executive officer and directors that any information was given to them is complete and accurate which will affect the decision of investment by shareholders in respect of materiality. References Klettner, A., Clarke, T., Boersma, M. (2014). The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 145-165. Langford, R. T., Ramsay, I., Welsh, M. A. (2015). The origins of company directors' statutory duty of care. Low, C. K., Low, T. Y. (2014). When is the Board Accountable for Delegation and Reliance? A Case Study of the MTR Corporation. Mire, S. L. (2016). Independent directors: partnering expertise with independence. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 16(1), 1-37.