Essays on Fundamental Principle for the Beginning of Australian Civil Penalty Regime Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Fundamental Principle for the Beginning of Australian Civil Penalty Regime " is a perfect example of a finance and accounting case study. Scholars have been paying attention to the structural implications and differences of a dispersed shareholding system of governance and an insider system that has more concentrated ownership structures. International organizations have also been occupied in the dissection and categorization of related corporate governance laws. In as much as outsider systems are specifically associated with a shareholder centered pattern of corporate governance, insider systems are associated with a stakeholder model.

An important debate, therefore, emerges as to whether interests of shareholders and stakeholders other than shareholders paramount to be considered by directors and if these duties need to be changed to facilitate socially responsible behaviors. This paper identifies and explains the nature and extent of this tension in the Australian market particularly as it applies to the plight of stakeholders. Employee interests In recent years the fallout of companies likes HIH Company, one. Tel and Ansett and the James Hardie episode explain the susceptibility of workers in the present corporate law of structure in Australia that resulted in the shareholders-directors tension.

Employees’ interests have been overlooked in many other cases of restructures and corporate failures. Changes to corporate legislations have since been made as a result of these events, and the embracing of planning like the General Employee redundancy scheme and Entitlements (DeMoH, 2000). Imposing personal accountability on directors for behavior that may undermine the interest of stakeholders, dealing with the ethical hazard occasioned through the separate legal entity principle and this helps the directors as the employees of the firm to protect themselves against all the avoidable liabilities that thwart them from their work.

These actions though do not go far enough. Employees are still regarded as not existing by law even though their massive investment of human capital contributes much to the company.


Company Act 1985 section-317, 2357c (New York Suprime court September 5th, 1985).

DeMoH, D. A. (2000). Shareholder challenges to execative remuneration. Melbourne: FT Pitman Publishing.

Graigs, P. (2010). Company and its environment. New York Times , 40-55.

H., M. (2000). Corporate Governance and Workplace Partnership. Industrial Relations Journal , 200-207.

Herald, S. (2006). Maintainig Harmoniours industrial Relations in the company. News limited journal , 26-45.

I., F. (1997 ). The power of the competative board. FT Pitman Publishing: Melbourne.

M.Fordharizon. (1998). Introduction to company law. Carlifonia: Coles Myer Publishers.

Mcmark, B. K. (2008). How to minimise the shareholders funds. Free Management Library journal , 120-150.

R., K. S. (2001). Partnership and control:The impact of corporate Governance on Employement relations. Carmridge: Carmbridge university press.

R.K, M. (1999). An investigation of stakeholder Altributes and silence. Academy of management journal , 507-513.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us