翻訳と辞書 |
Lipschitz v Wolpert and Abrahams : ウィキペディア英語版 | Lipschitz v Wolpert and Abrahams In ''Lipschitz and Another NNO v Wolpert and Abrahams'' an important case in South African law, the auditors of a company in liquidation were sued under section 184 of the Companies Act〔Act 61 of 1973.〕 to contribute an amount in excess of R3 million to the company's assets as compensation. An exception was successfully filed to the particulars of claim on the basis that an auditor, appointed under section 98 (1) of the 1926 Companies Act,〔Act 46 of 1926〕 was not an "officer of the company" within the meaning of the phrase in section 184 (1). Holmes JA quoted〔739E-G.〕 section 184(1) to the following effect:
Where in the course of winding-up a company it appears that any person who has taken part in the formation or promotion of the company, or any past or present director, manager or liquidator, or ''any officer of the company'', has misapplied or retained or become liable or accountable for any money or property of the company, or been ''guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust'' in relation to the company, the Court may, on the application of the Master or of the liquidator or of any creditor or contributory, examine into the conduct of the promoter, director, manager, liquidator, or officer, and compel him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof, respectively with interest at such rate as the Court thinks just, or to ''contribute such sum to the assets of the company by way of compensation'' in respect of the ''misapplication, retention, misfeasance or breach of trust'' as the Court thinks just.〔Holmes JA's italics.〕 == References == ''Lipschitz and Another NNO v Wolpert and Abrahams'' 1977 (2) SA 732 (A).
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「Lipschitz v Wolpert and Abrahams」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.
|
|