Company Law, Business Law - Essay Example

Adam does have several options that he can choose should he decide. Adam can decide to accept the decisions of the board of directors and understand that they do not need the approval of shareholders for certain high-value transactions. The magnitude of special resolutions will determine whether the board of directors would have needed the approval of the shareholders. Further, Adam has the option as a stockholder and a member of the general public to trade his shares publicly, or he also has the option of selling his shares of the company to the majority of the shareholders who agree with the special resolutions that were implemented by the board of directors.

In the case of First American Bank v. Shivers, Robert W. Shivers, a shareholder, voted against a merger agreement with FABM Acquisition Bank. He and his fellow shareholders comprised less than the number of bank shareholders needed to defeat the proposal. Adam also has the right to propose questions to the board of directors regarding the two recent special resolutions. . Further, Anton does enter into a contract with a local computing company that is operated by one of his friends. During the business transactions, Anton receives a laptop computer and gives it to his son as a birthday present.

Samantha is very satisfied with the quality of her new IT system; however, she does discover that Anton has received a laptop computer, and has given it to his son as a birthday present. Samantha should confront Anton about the situation with the laptop computer, and instruct him that he cannot personally give merchandise to his family and friends that have been acquired within the business. Samantha should also instruct Anton to retrieve the laptop computer that he has given to his son. Anton should return the laptop computer of the local computing business if it was given to him as a favor because the company is operated by one of his friends.

If the laptop computer was given to Anton for company use, then he still needs to retrieve the laptop computer, and it needs to be used by Samantha's company for business use. In the case of IBG Insurance Services Corp v. Superior Court - No. 3153400 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), Robert Zieminski, a senior executive for IBG Insurance Services Corporation, violated the "electronic and telephone equipment" policy statement of the company when he accessed certain explicit websites from his computer at work.

He used two computers, one computer at home and one computer at work. When he was caught accessing certain websites from his computer at work, IBG demanded that the computer that Zieminski was utilizing at home be returned. However, Zieminski explained that his wife and children were utilizing the computer at home for personal