Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lawz" data-source="post: 18475" data-attributes="member: 4605">Basically I made a mistake on the solution of my legal interview.The scenario was that the client was setting up a company with two friends.He and his two friends were setting up a company and wanted advice on this.After questioning him, I advised that he should set up a shelf company, and while he asked whether there was an alternative, I explained the alternative (regular method of incorporation, memorandum of associate , articles of association.. slower) and suggested the advantages of the shelf company which he seemed happy with. I also matched this up with the fact that he wanted to set the company up as quickly as possible.However, when it came to providing a solution on whether he wanted more power/control over the company to reflect his investment (it was more than the two friends combined), this was where my solution went wrong. I suggested that he should ask if he can be a chairman first with a casting vote, and if the two friends disagree then he can ask to be appointed an executive director.Yes , a chairman's casting vote is still relevant in a company of three directors. For example, 1 of the 3 directors can abstain from voting at a board meeting which could mean there is potential for deadlock. If either of the other two directors is the chairperson with casting vote then deadlock would be avoidedHowever, I didn’t explain this.I had also mentioned that he can be a chairman and an executive director (and the articles can be amended accordingly) However, the problem is, that when it came to the follow up tasks, i asked him to ask his friends first if they can approve of him being a chairman, and if they are unhappy with that, ask if he can become an executive director.My suggested next steps contradicted my earlier position ,whereby I suggested he can be both chairman and given executive director powers as the articles can be amended. I panicked.Where I also really ****ed up was not explaining the scenario where being a chairman will help him , all I said was he would have a casting vote in case of deadlock.Lastly in parting , I got the supervisors name wrong as alternative contact.Assuming the rest of my interview was okay, are these mistakes enough to fail?How much weight they attribute to errors is unclear. I guess I did provide a solution but the problem is it was not really a good one.</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread