Mcsparran v. Larson
United States District Court, Illinois, 2006
2006 WL 250698
Anderson, J.
First understanding why, the shareholders claims of the board of directors and its officers’ actions amounted harm to the corporation was because The board of directors artificially inflated the Career Education Corporation (CEC) stock price by enrolling students without complete financial aid, enrolling students who did not actual attend classes, and claiming inflated job-placement rates for CEC graduates. This should have alerted the board of directors that something was amiss. It wasn’t that that any of this information was not available to them because it was public knowledge. The Shareholders knew that this school was a private school and a for-profit post-secondary education institution.
The suit was brought on because of lack of fiduciary duty (a legal obligation for one party to act in the best interest of another) which is the shareholders entrusted the board of directors and officers to act in the best interest of them and the organization. Being a for – profit institution the shareholders felt that the board of directors let this go on knowingly and with intent to better themselves
…show more content…
The suit was ref the board of directors and key officers, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross management, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. The plaintiffs had met their rule 23.1 burden to plead with particularity their claims of demand futility. (Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page 2.) The conclusion of this case is the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s verified shareholders amended derivative compliant (122) with prejudice is granted. The case was hereby terminated. Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
Facts: The P (Kendra Knight) was participating in a coed touch football game, while playing the D (Michael Jewett) broke the plaintiff's finger by knocking her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. Where Knight had to get a number of four surgeries and she lost her finger. According to the D claim he was only trying intercept a pass and when he came down he stepped on her hand. He did not mean to hurt or injured Knight. The P says otherwise she says Jewett came behind and knocked her down. She put her arms out to break the fall and Jewett ran over her, stepping on her hand. The P is suing the D for negligence and assault and battery. Knight appealed the ruling of the decision.
INTRODUCTION/ASSIGNMENT:Denise Morgan has requested that our office represent her in a family court matter addressing the modification of a child support order. The supervising attorney asked that I review the facts of the case and the legal authority provided to determine strengths and weaknesses of Ms. Morgan’s case and if the Motion to Vacate requested by Mr. Morgan will be granted by the court, applying only the law provided, not to include any outside research.
Judicial History: Trial court returned verdict for the defendant (McIntosh). Johnson appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the Matal v. Tam court case, the court settled certain aspects of the First Amendment law while it opened up new issues in trademark law. It is a challenge for the uninitiated to follow a coherent path through the court’s First Amendment. Tam and his band, The Slants, sought to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office. The Office denied the application because it found that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.” The office cited the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs,
The court case Graham v. Connor took place in 1989 when a man named Dethorne Graham was working from home when he suddenly had an insulin reaction due to his diabetes. He had one of his friends drive him to the nearest convenience store to purchase orange juice to counter the reactions. Once they arrived, Graham got out of the vehicle and ran quickly inside. Once he walked inside the store, he noticed the checkout line was abnormally long. Seeing this and wanting to counter the reaction as soon as possible, he left the store and ran quickly out of the store and into his friend’s vehicle to go somewhere else.
The board 's actions did not bring the most pleasure to the greatest number of people, and at no time did the company think of any other parties and the consequences of their actions. Tyco’s actions help to endorse the views of economist Milton Friedman, who is an advocate of the narrow view. The narrow view states that corporations only think of profit and care less for the stakeholders within the corporation. Possibly it is a mistake to see a corporation as being morally responsible or to expect it to display such moral characteristics as honesty, considerateness, and sympathy (Shaw, 2014, p. 155). The victims in this case were clearly the employees, shareholders, stakeholders, and the company
Ferguson v Skrupa decided in 1963 was about a Kansas ruling that made it a minor offense for any person to involve in debt adjusting. William Ferguson argued the issue was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Debt altering was explained as making a contract with a borrower when he pays a certain amount of money to the person involved in the modifying and then that person dispenses the currency to creditors in agreement with a plan (FindLaw, 2017). The plaintiff alleged that his business was a useful and desirable one and a prohibition of the business by the State of Kansas would violate his rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. An injunction on the statute was granted by a three-judge
Naturalization refers to the transition of a person becoming a U.S citizen. Essentially, this implies the adoption of a new status as well as the inalienable rights that come with it. To fully understand the concept of naturalization through the scope of this class it is important to understand the discriminatory history that accompanies it. Naturalization is an important concept in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 because, this case decided that slaves could not be citizens and therefore could not be naturalized (Dred Scott v Sanford 1857). This idea of being naturalized thus, did not apply to black people regardless of where they were born “Blacks, on the other hand, were not included and were not intended to be included under the
Issue: Whether the male officer who scored 91% (the highest score), stand a chance at overturning the female officer’s promotion (who had the lowest score, and first female ever to be promoted as sergeant), under the present judicial views on affirmative action.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
The company allegedly falsely increased the depreciation time length for their assets on the balance sheet. Waste Management was aided in the fraud by the company’s long-time auditor, Arthur Andersen. For five-year their auditors issued unqualified audit reports on the company’s annual statements. From the beginning of it all, the company allowed Arthur Andersen to earn additional fees by performing “special work”. When they discovered the irregularities with their accounting practices it was proposed to management that they correct them. Naturally, Waste Management refused the adjustments and instead entered into arrangements to write off the collected errors over a period of 10 years. This signed agreement was known as the Summary of Action Steps, which laid out the wrongful actions of the two parties and a plan to cover future frauds.
Sollars, G. C. 2001. An appraisal of shareholder proportional liability. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(4), 329-345.
Over the years many companies have decided abandon ethical practices is lieu of higher profits. Because of the high value placed on profits in America, many companies have taken extreme measures to increase profits and increase payouts for shareholders. Arthur Andersen LLP is a prime example of how business executives have been willing to make unethical business decisions in order to please clients and gain an edge on competition. In the short run, these unethical decisions may have seemed beneficial, but in the long run, the extensive consequences of this behavior was not worth any anticipated gain. Arthur Andersen made many unethical business decisions in lieu of higher profits that had drastic consequences that extended father than any executive
...the agents to be the gatekeepers for keeping the corporation alive. While some of Dr. Friedman’s opinions came across bold and harsh, ultimately I feel that he presents a strong case for developing a profit-motivated company that does not treat its stockholders inappropriately.