加拿大代写report：股东周年大会
加拿大代写report：股东周年大会
根据“2001年公司法”现行立法，公开上市公司在公历年度至少举行一次年度股东大会，并在宣布其年度财务业绩后的五个月内举行一次。公众公司也必须在注册18个月后举行股东大会。不遵守这些立法可能会对公司及其董事采取严格的刑事行动。如果该公司适用于澳大利亚证券和投资委员会（ASIC），该法律还延长了举行股东周年大会的时间。这项规定对需要更多时间召开股东周年大会的公司是有利的，但是可能会出于股东之间的种种原因提出质疑。除年内举行的任何其他会议外，股东周年大会必须每年永久举行。但是，如果上市公司只有一个成员，则不需要举行股东大会。
南英保险有限公司寻求由法院认真及时的干预，由于某些少数股东的不当行为而导致股东大会的业务进行意见，最终导致大股东的投票权被剥夺。法院承认，股东周年大会的举行是一个重要的事件，每年一次的全体股东有权会见董事，质疑公司的行为或未来的投资决定，董事的提名以及公司活动的所有相关事宜。法院接受认罪，承认这是一件严重的事情，紧急情况很明显，之后下令公司两天后以适当有序的方式举行股东周年大会。法院还通过阐述股东与董事会议的重要性，并超越公司法定要求举行股东周年大会，认为股东大会的重要性。然而，支持法庭干预的证据也必须足够强大。
加拿大代写report：股东周年大会
According to the current legislation under Corporations Act 2001, a public listed company is to hold an AGM at least once in a calendar year and once in 5 months after declaring its annual financial results. A public company must also hold an AGM after 18 months of registration. Non-adherence to these legislations may follow a strict criminal action towards the company and its directors. The legislation also offers an extension of time for holding the AGM if the company applies to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). This provision is good for companies requiring more time to hold AGM, but it may raise a question for various reasons among shareholders. The AGM must be held permanently every year in addition to any other meeting held during the year. However, if a public listed company has only one member, it is not required to hold an AGM.
The South British Insurance Company Ltd sought a serious and immediate intervention from the court to advice on the conduct of the business of AGM, due to misconduct of certain minority shareholders which eventually deprived the majority shareholders of their right to vote. The court admitted that the conduct of the AGM is an important event, in which once a year all shareholders have the right to meet the Directors and question the companies conduct or future investment decisions, Directors nomination and all related matters of the company’s activity. The court accepted the plea and admitted that it was a serious matter and urgency was apparent, following which it ordered the company to hold the AGM two days later in a properly and orderly manner. The court also held the importance of the AGM by stating the importance of shareholders meeting with the Directors over and above the statutory requirements of the company to hold the AGM. However, it is also important that the evidence to support intervention from the court must be strong enough.
