Person G, director of company K, opened her own company SA and used the employees, premises, customer relationships, credits of K to the advantage of S. In return K paid merely 1 percent of SA’ total sales to K. To find: Breach of fiduciary duties by G in the given case.

Question

homas Persson and Jon Nokes founded Smart Inventions, Inc., to market household consumer products. The success of their first product, the Smart Mop, continued with later products, which were sold through infomercials and other means. Persson and Nokes were the firm’s officers and equal shareholders. Persson was responsible for product development, and Nokes was in charge of day-to-day operations. In time, they became dissatisfied with each other’s efforts. Nokes represented the firm as financially “dying,” “in a grim state, . . . worse than ever,” and offered to buy all of Persson’s shares for $1.6 million. Persson accepted.On the day that they signed the agreement to transfer the shares, Smart Inventions began marketing a new product—the Tap Light. It was an instant success, generating millions of dollars in revenues. In negotiating with Persson, Nokes had intentionally kept the Tap Light a secret. Persson sued Smart Inventions, asserting fraud and other claims. Under what principle…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 18, Problem 4BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Person G, director of company K, opened her own company SA and used the employees, premises, customer relationships, credits of K to the advantage of S. In return K paid merely 1 percent of SA’ total sales to K.

To find: Breach of fiduciary duties by G in the given case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

homas Persson and Jon Nokes founded Smart Inventions, Inc., to market household consumer products. The success of their first product, the Smart Mop, continued with later products, which were sold through infomercials and other means. Persson and Nokes were the firm’s officers and equal shareholders. Persson was responsible for product development, and Nokes was in charge of day-to-day operations. In time, they became dissatisfied with each other’s efforts. Nokes represented the firm as financially “dying,” “in a grim state, . . . worse than ever,” and offered to buy all of Persson’s shares for $1.6 million. Persson accepted.On the day that they signed the agreement to transfer the shares, Smart Inventions began marketing a new product—the Tap Light. It was an instant success, generating millions of dollars in revenues. In negotiating with Persson, Nokes had intentionally kept the Tap Light a secret. Persson sued Smart Inventions, asserting fraud and other claims. Under what principle…

Widget Corporation is the manufacturer of many popular children’s toys but have seen a great decrease in sales and the board of directors is worried that the business may no longer be viable. The board decides to aggressively sue other toy manufacturers that have likely been infringing on Widget’s intellectual property, enter into a joint venture with a another company to build a new factory to reduce costs, and make large and notable donations to children hospitals as part of a PR campaign to raise the corporation's image. Additionally, the board decides to start manufacturing medical equipment to make up for the projected shortfalls in budget, even though the corporation was formed to make toys. Some shareholders are upset and sue the board of directors. (a) Which of the board’s actions fall into their express power and which are their implied power? Please explain why the actions would be categorized that way. (b) Would the ultra vires doctrine play a role in the shareholders suit…

Bill was with his boss Mr. Big of Computer World Limited at the popular night club SHAG. His boss had alot to drink and was totally out of it. Mr. Big met Ms. Sandra a former model and introduced her to Bill. He told Sandra that Bill has the authority to act for him in any of the companies transactions. Bill in reality has never done so before. In fact Ms Sandra was quite aware of Bill’s status at the company as just a CSR and Mr Big rantings when he is drunk. Ms Sandra however colluded with Bill and entered into a contract for Computer World to purchase $1 million in printers from her. Can this contract with Ms Sandra be enforced based on an agency relationship between Bill and his Boss Mr Big? Discuss with supporting case law. using the IRAC method