ASSIGNMENT 2 – CASE STUDY
There are three (3) questions worth 10 marks each.
NT Gold Resources Ltd (“company”) was incorporated on 1 January 2018 and was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in March 2018, having raised $20 million from public investors.
The company was primarily involved in mining exploration activities in the Northern Territory. The company has three directors, Vincent, Steve and Paul. Vincent is the company’s chief executive officer. Steve is the chairman of the company. Paul is the director and company secretary. The management team also includes Jack who is the company’s chief financial officer.
The company began exploration activities in April 2018. After drilling a number of potential mining sites, a geological survey was commissioned, and the samples of the mineral extracts were tested. The results from the test indicated that the mining sites had extremely low levels of gold deposits that were considered to be uncommercial. The company had by then already spent $5 million.
At a board meeting in January 2019, the directors considered whether to abandon its mining activities and return the company’s remaining capital back to its shareholders. Vincent is optimistic and over-confident and wants to pursue the exploration project in the Northern Territory. He argued that the company could be on the verge of a major discovery and should continue with its exploration activities. Steve and Jack were less optimistic and suggested they cease exploration given the test results and return all the remaining capital to the company shareholders. To avoid another confrontation with Vincent, they agreed with him that the company would continue with its drilling program.
At the end of 2019, the drilling activities were completed and all of the company’s capital has been exhausted without any material mineral discoveries. The shareholders are annoyed and upset amount losing all their investments.
Required:
1. Have Vincent, Jack and Steve breached any directors’ duties? (10 marks)
2. Do they have an arguable defence? (10 marks)
3. Advise whether the same standard will be applied to Jack, as the company’s chief financial officer? (10 marks)
AssessmentRubric
LAW205 – Commercial and Corporate Law for Accountants
Assessment 2: Case study (Problem-solving task)
The aim of this assignment is for the student to identify the legal issues arising from the scenario given. Whereas Assignment No. 1 had a strong
focus on your ability to conduct legal research, the focus of this assignment is to conduct some basic legal research but, more importantly, to
articulate the issues, apply the law and express a conclusion as to the possible outcomes in clear, plain English. Therefore, higher weighting will
be given to analysis and application components.
Criteria (total mark is
out of 30)
High Distinction
85 – 100%
Distinction
75 – 84%
Credit
65 – 74%
Pass
50 – 65%
Fail
<50%
Identification of legal
issues and relevant
law, including
accessing and
summarising
resources and legal
sources ( /12)
Identification of all
relevant issues and
law.
Demonstrates skilful
use of high quality,
credible, relevant
sources. Selection of
sources goes well
beyond the
prescribed
textbook.
An excellent
summary of
relevant
information.
Identification of
most issues and
relevant law.
Demonstrates
selection of
credible, relevant
sources from
relevant, quality
literature/sources.
Accurate
summary of
relevant
information
Identification of key
issues and questions
of law.
Demonstrates an
attempt to use
credible and/or
relevant sources.
Information is
gathered from good
range of electronic
and non-electronic
sources but could
have been extended.
Summary of
information could
be improved.
Identification of
few or basic
issues and
relevant law.
Attempt to use
credible and/or
relevant sources.
Information is
gathered from a
limited range of
electronic and
non-electronic
sources.
Some capacity to
summarise
information.
Failure to
identify basic or
fundamental
issues and
relevant law.
Very limited
range of sources
utilised.
Unable to
demonstrate
ability to
summarise
information.
Analysis and
Application
( /12)
Excellent ability to
appraise
evidence,
evaluate
arguments and to
formulate and
express very
sound
conclusions.
Extensive analysis
of options available
and their relevance to
the case in point.
An excellent
application of
interpretation rules
and steps of
procedural analysis
and clearly articulated
arguments which
provided a strong
framework.
Good
demonstration of
the capacity to
critically
analyse
information,
formulate own
conclusions
and express
own ideas.
A good analysis of
options available
and their relevance
to the case in point.
Very good
application of the
appropriate
interpretation
rules and steps of
procedural
analysis.
Reasonable analysis
of information.
Demonstrated
ability to draw
warranted
conclusions and
generalisations and
demonstrates some
original thought.
A reasonable attempt
to analyse options
available and their
relevance to the case
in point but analysis
requires more depth.
Appropriate
interpretation rules
and steps of
procedural analysis
identified and a
reasonable attempt
to apply to case
study.
Limited ability
to interpret
data,
appraise evidence or
evaluate arguments.
Conclusions need
improvement and
need to express own
ideas.
Some attempt at
analysis of options
available and their
relevance to the
case in point.
Explores a few
dimensions but
lacks depth.
Some reference to
interpretation rules
and procedural
analysis steps
required but not
adequately applied
to the task.
Little or no
critical analysis or
interpretation of
information,
poor
conclusions
and no original
thought.
Limited analysis of
options available
and their
relevance to the
case in point.
Mainly
descriptive
report.
Limited or no
reference to
interpretation rules
and procedural
analysis steps
required.
Synthesis
( / 6)
• Structure
• Logic
• Presentation
Well-constructed
assignment:
appropriate, clear,
and smooth
transitions;
arrangement of
organisational
elements is
particularly apt;
uses sophisticated
legal wording in
sentences effectively;
usually chooses words
aptly; observes
professional
conventions of written
English and report
format; free of
spelling, grammatical,
punctuation and
typing errors.
Well written
and
presented
assignment:
distinct units of
thought in
paragraphs; clear
transitions
between
developed,
coherent, and
logically arranged
paragraphs; a few
mechanical
difficulties or
stylistic problems;
may make
occasional
problematic word
choices or syntax
errors; a few
spelling or
punctuation
errors or a cliché;
uses
appropriate formal
report format
Reasonably written
and presented;
some
awkward
transitions; some
brief, weakly unified
or undeveloped
paragraphs;
arrangement may
not appear entirely
natural; contains
extraneous
information, more
frequent wordiness;
unclear or awkward
sentences;
imprecise use of
words or over-
reliance on passive
voice; some
distracting
grammatical errors;
some spelling,
punctuation and
typing errors.
Not consistently or
logically structured:
Narrates/
digresses from one
topic to another;
awkward use of
words, numerous
errors in style &
presentation
including spelling
punctuation and
grammar. Not
comfortable with a
formal style of
written
communication.
Simplistic,
tends to
narrate or
merely
summarise.
Illogical
arrangement of
ideas & some major
grammatical or
proofreading
errors.
Language
frequently
weakened by
clichés,
colloquialisms, and
repeated inexact
word choices.
Unaware of how
to present formal
written
communication.