Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
That did not go well...
I sat the company paper in the last sitting before the Act changed. Was reasonably well prepared but on the exam day I had the biggest brain freeze. I could see the cases in my head but they just wouldn't go on paper. I didn't even have the Acts with me to bulk up my answers. I scribbled down 5 pathetic attempts at answers with minimal to no case law to back up anything I was saying and left 45 mins early. I was so annoyed with myself that I would have to redo the paper and completely re-learn the new Acts.. I even started studying for the repeat before the results came out! Ended up getting 50 on the button so it just goes to show even though you might think the exam was a sinking ship the Examiner is obviously generous with marks so don't worry
0 -
Not sure I passed that at all.
Did the reforms question and the directors duties problem, but one of my reforms was on the codification of directors duties - only found out afterwards that the question said not to talk something you've already mentioned in the other questions
Was looking at the front of the paper if it mentioned some sort of qualification like that, but somehow missed it in the actual question. So one out of my 5 reforms won't count.
And my restrictions question was SO vague. Just threw down all the law and cases but didn't really apply it properly at all and had no idea about the executive director. So don't know how that'll go.
Does anyone know if the focus of question 5 was purely on Foss and the Derivative action, or would you also needed information on the s. 212 action? I found it hard to know exactly what was being looked for.
The only question I think I did ok in was the separate corporate personality one tbh.0 -
Depends what argument you took with the foss v harbottle question I'm guessing. I said derivative actions aren't very applicable any more so I mostly focused on S 212 and how it compares favourably to a derivative action.FreeFallin94 wrote: »Not sure I passed that at all.
Did the reforms question and the directors duties problem, but one of my reforms was on the codification of directors duties - only found out afterwards that the question said not to talk something you've already mentioned in the other questions Was looking at the front of the paper if it mentioned some sort of qualification like that, but somehow missed it in the actual question. So one out of my 5 reforms won't count.
And my restrictions question was SO vague. Just threw down all the law and cases but didn't really apply it properly at all and had no idea about the executive director. So don't know how that'll go.
Does anyone know if the focus of question 5 was purely on Foss and the Derivative action, or would you also needed information on the s. 212 action? I found it hard to know exactly what was being looked for.
The only question I think I did ok in was the separate corporate personality one tbh.
What Section did you mention for the question on SLP. It said to mention case law and the statute but I couldn't find any sections on it! 0 -
Advertisement
-
FreeFallin94 wrote: »Not sure I passed that at all.
Did the reforms question and the directors duties problem, but one of my reforms was on the codification of directors duties - only found out afterwards that the question said not to talk something you've already mentioned in the other questions Was looking at the front of the paper if it mentioned some sort of qualification like that, but somehow missed it in the actual question. So one out of my 5 reforms won't count.
And my restrictions question was SO vague. Just threw down all the law and cases but didn't really apply it properly at all and had no idea about the executive director. So don't know how that'll go.
Does anyone know if the focus of question 5 was purely on Foss and the Derivative action, or would you also needed information on the s. 212 action? I found it hard to know exactly what was being looked for.
The only question I think I did ok in was the separate corporate personality one tbh.
I didn't notice that at all I mentioned directors duties and ultra vires in other questions so I'm the same boat as you if u wrote all the restriction law down then that should be ok.it did not involve 212 just foss0 -
Depends what argument you took with the foss v harbottle question I'm guessing. I said derivative actions aren't very applicable any more so I mostly focused on S 212 and how it compares favourably to a derivative action.
What Section did you mention for the question on SLP. It said to mention case law and the statute but I couldn't find any sections on it!
Damn, I very much focused on Foss and the exceptions. Said they weren't really relevant but didn't focus on the s. 212 at all
I feel like it was worded poorly because I couldn't tell if it was meant to be a compare and contrast style question or if it was meant to look at one or the other. Hopefully I get some marks!
I mentioned the provisions on fraudulent and reckless trading, just some tax acts that pierce the veil, and I said health and safety legislation can sometimes be used to impose individual liability on directors. No idea if it's right but my manual had those as one of the exceptions to separate legal personality.0 -
I sat the company paper in the last sitting before the Act changed. Was reasonably well prepared but on the exam day I had the biggest brain freeze. I could see the cases in my head but they just wouldn't go on paper. I didn't even have the Acts with me to bulk up my answers. I scribbled down 5 pathetic attempts at answers with minimal to no case law to back up anything I was saying and left 45 mins early. I was so annoyed with myself that I would have to redo the paper and completely re-learn the new Acts.. I even started studying for the repeat before the results came out! Ended up getting 50 on the button so it just goes to show even though you might think the exam was a sinking ship the Examiner is obviously generous with marks so don't worry
That is very encouraging thank you 😊0 -
-
FreeFallin94 wrote: »Damn, I very much focused on Foss and the exceptions. Said they weren't really relevant but didn't focus on the s. 212 at all I feel like it was worded poorly because I couldn't tell if it was meant to be a compare and contrast style question or if it was meant to look at one or the other. Hopefully I get some marks!
I mentioned the provisions on fraudulent and reckless trading, just some tax acts that pierce the veil, and I said health and safety legislation can sometimes be used to impose individual liability on directors. No idea if it's right but my manual had those as one of the exceptions to separate legal personality.
Ah ya I never thought of DPP v Roseberry! Hopefully I mentioned enough cases to get the pass on that questions. Worried about the Foss v Harbottle question now if people were mostly focusing on derivative actions. I figured we are supposed to disagree with the statement and if we are then you should focus on why (ie S 212 is more effective).0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
FreeFallin94 wrote: »Not sure I passed that at all.
Did the reforms question and the directors duties problem, but one of my reforms was on the codification of directors duties - only found out afterwards that the question said not to talk something you've already mentioned in the other questions Was looking at the front of the paper if it mentioned some sort of qualification like that, but somehow missed it in the actual question. So one out of my 5 reforms won't count.
And my restrictions question was SO vague. Just threw down all the law and cases but didn't really apply it properly at all and had no idea about the executive director. So don't know how that'll go.
Does anyone know if the focus of question 5 was purely on Foss and the Derivative action, or would you also needed information on the s. 212 action? I found it hard to know exactly what was being looked for.
The only question I think I did ok in was the separate corporate personality one tbh.
In hindsight that is literally 4 marks, don't worry at all.0 -
-
-
I know everyone is just finished company but any chance anyone could help me? I am doing EU and I thought I would be covered but now I don't know if I'm covered and I'm really really panicking. I am covering
Fmw
Citizenship
Sources
Direct effect and supremacy
Fmg
Competition law, mergers and state aid
Prelim ref
General principles
Judicial review
Please help!!
I'm doing EU tomorrow also and starting to panic as so much to condense. I am covering the same except I didn't include comp law... and doing infringement procedure. I should have done state aid but I don't think I have time to now start a full new topic. 0 -
MeganC1554 wrote: »I'm doing EU tomorrow also and starting to panic as so much to condense. I am covering the same except I didn't include comp law... and doing infringement procedure. I should have done state aid but I don't think I have time to now start a full new topic.
Mod deletionThank God hopefully it'll just be a nice paper!! Or I'll be able to at least half attempt 5!0 -
God hopefully it'll just be a nice paper!! Or I'll be able to at least half attempt 5!MeganC1554 wrote: »I'm doing EU tomorrow also and starting to panic as so much to condense. I am covering the same except I didn't include comp law... and doing infringement procedure. I should have done state aid but I don't think I have time to now start a full new topic.
Fingers crossed we get a good paper. He might thow in a few answer a or b questions. That would be ideal. I have a feeling it's going to be a long night of cramming.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement