Mr.

James McDermott 2 BCL and B&L Company Law One 2009 TUTORIAL CYCLE 4 Corporate Crime and Tort and Regulation of Directors and Directors Duties. Read Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass [1972] AC 153 Meridian Global Funds Management Ltd v. Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500 Law Reform Commission Report on Corporate Killing (2005) Re Tralee Beef & Lamb (In Liquidation) [2004] IEHC 139 (HC); [2008] IESC 1 (SC) Regal (Hastings) v. Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134 Industrial Development Consultants v. Cooley [1972] 1 WLR 443 Re Brazilian Rubber Plantations & Estates Ltd [1911] 1 Ch 425 Questions
1. What are the traditional problems involved in prosecuting a company

for the commission of a crime? Do you find the outcomes in cases such as Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass unsatisfactory? What do you think is the difference in approach to corporate crime taken in a case like Meridian Global Funds Management Ltd v. Securities Commission? 2. What changes to the law in this area has the Law Reform Commission recommended in its 2005 Report? What is your own view in respect of the requirement for law reform in the field of corporate crime?
3. The Supreme Court judgment of Mr. Justice Hardiman in Tralee Beef

& Lamb is clearly of major significance for the law in the area of restriction orders. Do you regard the Section 150 regime as being too

harsh, too lenient or more or less appropriate as a method of cautioning directors of failed corporate enterprises?
4. What is the rule that emerges Regal (Hastings) v. Gulliver? What

ought the respondent directors have done differently to avoid the outcome of the case?
5. Do you have any sympathy at all for the Defendant in Industrial

Development Consultants v. Cooley? What, precisely, did the Court Order in this case, and is the order logical in light of the legal findings?
6. What do you think of the decision in Re Brazilian Rubber

Plantations? In what respect is the law different today as compared to a century ago? Would you be in favour of training or qualifications of some sort as a condition precedent to the holding of office as a company director? What sort of requirement might be workable?