You're biased and simply seeking reasons to justify your stance....

First 173 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
aes411

1,634 Posts.

783

27/09/21

18:12

Post #: 56383299
Share

Originally posted by naomhan: ↑

Vastly disagree that there was benefit to the business. So do ASIC.

Thankfully for everyone involved, the Corporations Act provides some guidance for what proof is required:

From S180:
The director's or officer's belief that the judgment is in the best interests of the corporation is a rational one unless the belief is one that no reasonable person in their position would hold.

So you look at reasonable persons in their position. That is, you look at CEOs in ASX listed companies. You look at business advisors and professionals. You look at business scholars and mentors. You run the scenario past them, and ask them if it's rational. Hell, you ask anyone who's worked in this sort of business and present them information, and ask if it's logical.

I worked in finance departments. I've never had a CEO walk up to me and dictate timings on an invoice, and change invoice information. That's just not how it works. It's bizarre. I've done financial consulting. I can't imagine a consultant suggesting this sort of deal. It actively harms to company. It isn't "growth", it's "wasting a whole lot of our time for no reason". I cannot imagine this sort of decision being made in any business I've worked in. And the reason is, it isn't a reasonable business decision.

Expand

You're biased and simply seeking reasons to justify your stance.

There's nothing legally wrong with the CEO walking up to someone in Finance and giving them instructions. Those arguments refer to corporate governance and internal policy matters - they are all internal in scope. Do you seriously believe the court is going to rule that by giving instructions to someone in Finance, the CEO breached ss 180-182?

This matter is very simple: entering into the 4 integration agreements benefitted JK and shareholders. You are complaining because he got a lot of shares and you feel cheated but the cause of your grief is the performance agreement that tied his reward to revenue and not profit - and seemingly gave him so much reward for what seems such a trivial achievement.

I think it will be difficult for the court to rule that by directing and supervising works (the integrations) that were enablers for future revenue, he's committed an offence. ISX didn't lose money executing them and they in fact provided income.

Last edited by aes411: 27/09/21

ISX Price at posting: $1.07 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
13 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

HVN

Harvey Norman clocks subdued gains as Echo Law's junk warranty class action kicks off

PAR

FDA hands Paradigm Biopharma guidance to re-jig phase 3 osteo trial – or is it a delay?

BPM

BPM Minerals hits high-grade gold at the Claw Project WA; shares jump 86%

88E

HotCopper users smell capital raising as 88 Energy says "significant update" at Phoenix

Essential Energy conference: Streamlining approvals key to the green energy transition

There are more pages in this discussion • 69 more messages in this thread...

First 173 Last

Add SP1 (ASX) to my watchlist

You're biased and simply seeking reasons to justify your stance....

Top Stories

Harvey Norman clocks subdued gains as Echo Law's junk warranty class action kicks off

FDA hands Paradigm Biopharma guidance to re-jig phase 3 osteo trial – or is it a delay?

BPM Minerals hits high-grade gold at the Claw Project WA; shares jump 86%

HotCopper users smell capital raising as 88 Energy says "significant update" at Phoenix

Essential Energy conference: Streamlining approvals key to the green energy transition

Featured News