Barking Mad Case Summary

976 Words4 Pages
Question 1 Matter 1 Authority to issue shares The board of directors of Barking Mad has the authority to issue the shares as long as they are authorised by the MOI of the company. This decision is to be exercised by means of a board resolution. Authorised shares available for issue The authorised share capital of Barking Mad consists of 100 000 shares, of which 80 000 have already been issued. Thus the available authorised ordinary shares is only 20 000. But the board of directors would like to approve a decision to issue 30 000 shares. If the board of directors is not specifically prohibited by the MOI to increase the number of authorised shares, they may increase the number of authorised shares available for issue through a board resolution.…show more content…
Secondly a subsidiary of a company cannot hold more than 10% of all of the shares issued. Here if Multivet has to take 30 000 shares, it will essentially be taking almost 38 % of the shares of the company. This is illegal as the act has stated the subsidiary of a company may hold “not more than 10%” of all of the company’s issued shares. Matter 3 Requirements concerning pre-incorporation contracts The pre-incorporation contract must be in writing in the name of an entity which does not yet exist at the time. Once incorporation has occurred, the directors have three months to either ratify or reject the contract. The contract automatically becomes ratified automatically once three months have lapsed since its incorporation. If the company is not incorporated, the person entering into the contract will be liable. If the contract is rejected the person who entered into the contract will be liable, but may also claim any benefits already received from the company. If a company does reject the agreement before the incorporation of the company, any person who bears any liability for that rejected agreement may assert claim against the
Open Document