Topic: Irish Criminal Law (Common Law) Essay paper

Home » Topic: Irish Criminal Law (Common Law)

Description

Question: Knowledge is the key component of possession offences. Discuss this proposition with reference to relevant case law. Do you agree Husak’s assertion that “…many possession statutes serve as excellent illustrations of the phenomenon of overcriminalization.”?

Type of service-Academic paper writing
Type of assignment-Essay
Subject-Law
Pages / words-2 / 550
Number of sources-4
Academic level-Sophomore (College 2nd year)
Paper format-MLA
Line spacing-Double
Language style-US English

……………………………………………………….


SECTION A – Companies Act 2006 Answer one question only

  1. ‘The shareholder value maximisation norm, dominant as it may have been in the last three decades, has no future in the face of both business and academic disenchantment.’
    Critically discuss with reference to current policy initiatives.

  1. ‘If the shareholder seeks in essence corporate relief for misconduct by a director or directors (and it will be for the court to look closely at the pleadings to determine whether this is the case), the petition [under Companies Act 2006, section 994] is an abuse of process and should be struck out.’
    Brenda Hannigan (2009)
    Critically discuss the statement with reference to the policy behind the different procedural requirements for derivative claims and unfair prejudice petitions.

  1. ‘The common law approach is not only clear, it reflects the nature of the directorial and managerial roles within a company, and it supports the effective functioning of those roles. […] Given that the Companies Act 2006 insists that section 175 must be interpreted in light of the common law position, it is the position which the courts should follow. But to follow it the courts must explore the rules in their historical context and push against the interpretative missteps which commenced with Lord Upjohn’s powerful dissent in Boardman. The Act on its face supports these missteps. It will, therefore, require a brave Supreme Court decision to set the path of UK corporate connected assets law straight.’
    David Kershaw (2018)
    Do you agree with (a) Kershaw’s doctrinal analysis of the divergence between the common law and apparent statutory formulation of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest; and (b) Kershaw’s claim that, as a matter of policy, the common law position is superior? Give full reasons for your answers.
    ______________________________________________________________ Continued
    4

SECTION A – ANSWER ONE QUESTION ONLY

  1. ‘Corporate governance should ensure that directors and managers prioritise shareholder value’.
    Critically discuss.

  1. ‘The UK’s system of takeover regulation gives too much power to shareholders and undermines managerial discretion.’
    Critically discuss. _______________________________________________________________
    Critically discuss. _______________________________________________________________
    Continued
  2. ‘Provisions in a company’s articles provide little protection for minority shareholders. Such provisions are rarely enforceable, and too vulnerable to alteration by the majority.’
    4

SECTION B – ANSWER ONE QUESTION ONLY

  1. To what extent does company law protect the interests of stakeholders other than the shareholders, and particularly of employees, and is the level of protection adequate? In answering, please take into account the Companies Act 2006, the UK Corporate Governance Code and case law.

  1. “It can be argued that the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, on the one hand, and the duty of care, on the other, have followed opposite trajectories over the last 30 years. The former has been somewhat relaxed, whereas the latter has become more stringent.”
    Do you agree, and how can the evolving nature of the two duties be explained? Your answer must be supported by relevant case law.

  1. “A more profitable line of pursuit might be to view bankruptcy as a system designed to mirror the agreement one would expect the creditors to form among themselves were they able to negotiate such an agreement from an ex ante position.”
    T.H. Jackson (1982)
    To what extent does UK insolvency law comply with the vision put forward by Jackson? Can any deviations be justified? Your answer must be supported by reference to relevant statutory law and case law.

Related Post