Posts

7.2 Is Apple Cooked?

In practical terms, we know that shareholder dissatisfaction with management in a publicly traded company is most often registered through withdrawal, at least where there is a market to sell shares.  On a practical level, Cook isn’t suggesting anything unusual when he tells dissenting shareholders to sell their stock if they don’t like what he’s […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 28, 2016 @5:41 pm.

If a corporation is a person, then can it break its collarbone?

Something I was thinking about while I was doing the assignment: how does the rule from Stilk v Myrick play into directors transferring their powers to officers? Take, for example, the scenario from assignment #2. A sole director transferring his powers to a sole officer. Officers derive their powers from directors–essentially, any powers they possess […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 28, 2016 @12:49 pm.

7.5 Duty Free? Fat chance

The decision in Regal is quite annoying, given that the entire situation could have been avoided in a simple way. According to Lord Russell in Regal, the directors could have, had they wished, have “protected themselves by a resolution (either antecedent or subsequent) of the Regal share-holders in general meeting”. Given that these directors were […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 28, 2016 @12:26 pm.

Discussion Activity 7.1

To briefly share my views on the discussion presented re: Peoples v Wise, I will turn to the three questions presented in the discussion activity. Consider the impact of board meetings by telephone. Soper v Canada tells us that although a director is not obliged to give his continuous attention to the company and therefore […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 28, 2016 @11:54 am.

Discussion Activity 7.2

CBCA s. 122(1)(a) is a fiduciary duty owed only to the corporation. Section 122(1)(b) requires directors and officers of a corporation to “exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances”. This duty of care is not owed only to the corporation (BCE v. 1976 Debentureholders). It is […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 27, 2016 @6:10 pm.

Professionalism Requirements

On The Dut of Care and Directors’ Liabilities While mindlessly on a treadmill and flipping the channels, I came across a 2010 documentary named Inside Job. It was about the 2008 financial crisis and how the “Insiders” of the financial world such as investment bankers, officials (former investment bankers), and ECONOMISTS were the ones who […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 26, 2016 @3:15 pm.

Cinematic Regal-izations

Discussion 7.5 The case of Regal (Hastings) Ltd. V. Gulliver [1942] UKHL 1 raises a number of interesting issues: The whole mess could have been avoided; Oxford & Berkshire Cinemas Ltd. ended up getting a sweet deal; and It involves Lord Denning before he was Lord Denning. I find it interesting that with a number […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 25, 2016 @7:04 pm.

ICBC and Corporate Law

Of the provinces, BC has the second highest average cost for mandatory car insurance (second to Ontario, as of 2014). And the rates continue to rise. They are projected to increase by as much as 40% over the next three years. Despite this, ICBC’s mandatory car insurance program operates at a loss, sustained in large […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 25, 2016 @11:42 am.

7.1(3) – Re: Professionalism

7.1(3): Discussion Question: Is requiring that a report come from a “professional” before it can be relied on in good faith by directors without potential liability as set out in People’s Department Stores Inc v Wise going too far? What are the core justifications for such a requirement of “professionalism”? Very Brief Answer: Simply speaking, […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 24, 2016 @11:06 pm.

“Material” interest under s 147 of the BCBCA: a case study

What constitutes a “material” interest in a contract or transaction? And would a “non-material” interest be subject to the strict rule in Aberdeen Railway Co. v. Blaikie Bros.? “Material” is not defined in the BCBCA, and recent jurisprudence reveals that this area is still unsettled. In the case of Jaguar Financial Corp. v. Alternative Earth Resources Inc. […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 24, 2016 @5:44 pm.

Corporate Persons, Minds, and Bodies

In my last semester of undergrad I took a philosophy course called “Persons, Minds, and Bodies”. It was about the idea of identity persisting over time. Essentially, we looked at the question: what makes you “now” the same person as you “later”? In simple terms, there are two camps: those who think the answer lies […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 24, 2016 @12:12 pm.

An attempt to rationalize Teck Corp’s departure from Hogg

In Teck Corp v. Millar Justice Berger set aside the Hogg decision, which held that directors may not allot shares to frustrate an attempt to obtain control of the company, even if they believe that it is in the best interests of the company to do so. In Justice Berger’s opinion, Hogg was wrongly decided […]
This entry was posted in News Feed on November 24, 2016 @2:45 am.