美国essay代写：公司董事的职责是否适用于TPCL?
在BLPL已发行的1000股股本中，约有700股为Pool Company Ltd (TPCL)所有。现在TPCL的董事Michael Bronte要求Alan向董事会提议，TPCL的全资子公司Brisbane Concrete必须作为BLPL水泥的唯一供应商。Alan和董事们讨论了关于布里斯班混凝土的问题，最终选择了布里斯班混凝土作为唯一的供应商，Alan现在知道，在他未来的董事会职位上，TPCL会支持他。在此背景下，有必要了解第1个问题:《2001年公司法》(Cth)第181-183条中的职责是否适用于TPCL?
其次，Peter利用了他在会议中获得的信息，去了YG公司，想为他安排购买有价证券和打折信息。现在，即使BLPL没有继续进行收购，也有必要分析Peter是否违反了董事职责，问题2:Peter是否违反了董事职责
第三，关于业务，值得注意的是，弗雷达没有阅读关于反对美化环境的报告。她投票赞成将业务扩展到园林绿化领域，这对公司来说是一场重大的财务灾难。问题3:对于违反应有注意、技能和勤勉义务的抗辩事由是什么?
美国essay代写：公司董事的职责是否适用于TPCL?
在这种情况下，注意到第1号问题中的人确实是一名主任。这个人利用信息来说服公司的另一位董事处理对他们公司有利的情况。然而，如果TPCL与艾伦的协议曝光，它可能会失去自己的名字和声誉。作为公司董事，职责适用于TPCL。
彼得利用他作为公司董事所获得的信息，违反了董事的职责。因此，确保这些信息受到保护是至关重要的，但他却利用这些信息为个人利益服务，因此违反了自己的职责。
最后，在问题3的情况下，董事不能要求辩护，因为她没有行使应有的努力。她没有把责任委派给任何人。她无法表明她在决定继续进行园林绿化方面有合理的信心。
美国essay代写：公司董事的职责是否适用于TPCL?
In the 1000 share capital that has been issued by BLPL about 700 shares are owned by The Pool Company Ltd (TPCL). Now TPCL’s director Michael Bronte has asked Alan to propose to the board that TPCL’s wholly owned subsidiary Brisbane Concrete must be used as the sole supplier of cement for BLPL. Alan’s arguments with respect to Brisbane concrete with the directors led to a discussion and ultimately Brisbane concrete was selected as sole supplier, Alan now knows he would be supported by TPCL when it comes to his future board position. Given this background context, it is necessary to understand if,Issue 1: the duties in sections 181-183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) apply to TPCL?
Secondly, Peter has made use of information that he acquired during the meeting, and went to the firm YG and wanted to arrange for him to buy securities and also with discounted information. Now even if BLPL did not go ahead with the acquisition, it is necessary to analyze for whether Peter has breached any director duties, Issue 2: Has Peter breached any director duties
Thirdly, with respect to operations, it is noted that Freda did not read the report which advised against landscaping. She voted for expanding into landscaping which turned into a major financial disaster for the company. Issue 3: What are the defenses for the breach of duty of due care skill and diligence?
美国essay代写：公司董事的职责是否适用于TPCL?
Now in this situation, it is noted that the person in question in Issue 1 is indeed a director. The person has made use of information to convince another director of the company to work on a situation that would be beneficial to their company. However, TPCL could lose its name and reputation if this agreement with Alan came to light. As director of company, duties apply to TPCL.
Peter has breached his director duties as he has made use of information that he got in his capacity as the director of the company. Information that he would not have gotten otherwise, so it is critical that he ensure that the information is protected, but he has instead made use of it for personal interest and hence has breached his duties.
Finally, in the case of Issue 3, the director cannot claim defense as she has not exercised due diligence. She has not delegated duty to anybody else. She cannot show she had exercised reasonable faith in deciding to go ahead with landscaping.
