爱尔兰国立高威大学代写：公司证券
爱尔兰国立高威大学代写：公司证券
在NRMA V帕克法院了解（1986）6 nswlr 517提供了一个了解的目的和成员会议无效。根据法院的规定，只有在会议召开的会议的对象是通过大会进行“实质影响”的会议时，才认为申请会议是有效的.。必须有决议，通过会议创建，将解决这个对象。另一方面，法院也指出，董事可以无视要求，不能提供有效的会议空间分辨率。所有这些会议必须遵循公司的章程或如果没有，那么他们应该遵循公司（新南威尔士）的代码。无效的第二保持来自特纳V Berner [ 1978 ] 1 nswlr 66 72董事可以省略对象会议申请如果不能解决会议范围内。同样，导演也能减少代理申请会议而不是下降对对象。
在现代上市公司的股东参与，使他们必要的会议。在这个问题上的一些现有的辩论是在门槛，允许成员必要的会议。他们一般是根据本公司已发行股本。可以看出，根据《公司法》，这是建立约百分之5的股份，成员必须投一票。英国和法国也保持同样的门槛。然而，在这种情况下，澳大利亚不同，必要的会议的先决条件是有权与100名股东出席，而不是基于他们持有的集体资本。是否应该有一种方便的数值试验来确定谁可以要求征用是一个正在进行的辩论。这一数值阈值的要求是“要求企业在少数股东召开特别大会的方向可能带来的不必要的费用和分散管理进行公司事务的主要任务是必要的，可能的不良后果，股东和客户的信任”
爱尔兰国立高威大学代写：公司证券
The court understanding in NRMA v Parker (1986) 6 NSWLR 517 provides a way to understand the purpose and invalidity of member meetings. As per the court holding, it is held that a requisition for a meeting will be valid only if the object of the meeting which is stated for calling the meeting is one that can be “substantially effected” through the general meeting. There must be resolutions created through the meeting that will address this object. On the other hand, the court also noted that Directors can disregard the requisitions that cannot have resolutions provided effectively within the meeting space. All these meetings should necessarily follow the company’s articles of association or if there is not one, then they should follow the Companies (New South Wales) Code. The second holding of invalidity is derived from the Turner v Berner [1978] 1 NSWLR 66 at 72 where the Director can omit an object from the meeting requisition if it cannot be resolved within the meeting scope. Similarly, the Director will also be able to decline to act for requisitions on meeting instead of declining on object.
Shareholder participation in the Modern Listed Public Company allows them to requisite for a meeting. Some of the existing debates on this issue are on the threshold that is allowed for members to requisite the meeting. They are generally based on the company’s issued share capital. It is seen that under the Corporations Act, this is established to be about 5 percent of the shares that the members have to cast a vote. United Kingdom and France also maintain this same threshold. However, Australia differs in this context, where the prerequisite to requisite a meeting is for the right to be present with 100 shareholders and is not based on the collective capital they hold. whether there should be a form of convenient numerical test to determine who can call for a requisition is an ongoing debate. This numerical threshold requirement is necessary for “Requiring companies to hold extraordinary general meetings at the direction of a small number of shareholders could entail undue costs and distract management from its principal task of conducting the company’s affairs, with possible adverse consequences for shareholders generally and customer confidence”
