翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Cook Rock ・ Cook School for Christian Leadership ・ Cook Shire Hall ・ Cook Station, Missouri ・ Cook Statue, Christchurch ・ Cook stove ・ Cook Strait ・ Cook Strait News ・ Cook Summit ・ Cook Terrace ・ Cook the Books (New Zealand) ・ Cook Township ・ Cook Township, Decatur County, Kansas ・ Cook Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania ・ Cook Trading ・ Cook v Deeks ・ Cook v. Gates ・ Cook v. Gralike ・ Cook's Bay ・ Cook's Corner ・ Cook's Country ・ Cook's distance ・ Cook's Ferry Indian Band ・ Cook's Ham ・ Cook's Harbour ・ Cook's Head Rock ・ Cook's hocicudo ・ Cook's Illustrated ・ Cook's Lake Cattle Mound ・ Cook's Mill Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Cook v Deeks ： ウィキペディア英語版 Cook v Deeks ''Cook v Deeks'' is a Canadian company law case, relevant also for UK company law, concerning the illegitimate diversion of a corporate opportunity. It was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort within the British Empire, on appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario, Canada. Because decisions of the Judicial Committee have persuasive value in the United Kingdom, even when decided under the law of another member of the Commonwealth, this decision has been followed in the United Kingdom courts. In UK company law the case would now be seen as falling within the Companies Act 2006 section 175, with a failure to have ratification of breach by independent shareholders under section 239. ==Facts== The Toronto Construction Co. had four directors, Mr GM Deeks, Mr GS Deeks, Mr Hinds and Mr Cook. It helped in construction of railways in Canada. The first three directors wanted to exclude Mr Cook from the business. Each held a quarter of the company's shares. GM Deeks, GS Deeks, and Hinds took a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (for building a line at the Guelph Junction and Hamilton branch) in their own names. They then passed a shareholder resolution declaring that the company had no interest in the contract. Mr Cook claimed that the contract did belong to the Toronto Construction Co and the shareholder resolution ratifying their actions should not be valid because the three directors used their votes to carry it. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Cook v Deeks」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.