This short paper is about the court decision between a financial advisor, a cohort of the financial advisor, and the investor. This decision deals with what is known as holder in due course or HDC. By being able to understand the court’s decision and how HDC works, we are able to decide whether or not it is fair. I am also able to give my thoughts on HDC, which are based both on this court’s decision and readings from the text.
The first thing to look at in this paper are the facts about the court’s decision, which deal with John Doe, a “financial advisor” and Pedro Urdemales, a cohort of John Doe, and the investor Secundino Piedra. The original investment was done in the 1990’s and involved Piedra investing $75,000 with John Doe and Urdemales, which resulted in no return. However, in early 2000 John Doe called Piedra and convinced him to send a check for $10,000, which was to be made out to Urdemales. This money was to be used for travel expenses, in order to work towards getting a return for Piedra on the original investment (SNHU BB, 2009, p. 370). Piedra sent an additional check for $5,700 and it was unclear who that was made out to, or what the use would be. Both checks were cashed at a Stuart Any Kind store by a woman named Michael and Joanne Kochakian (SNHU BB, 2009, p. 371).
The problem with the above events comes when Michael contacted the maker, Piedra to obtain approval before the check for $5,700 was cashed. However, the check for $10,000 was never mentioned, even though it had previously been cashed by Michael. Shortly after both checks had been cashed by Urdemales, John Doe called Piedra to earn him that Urdemales was a cheat and a thief (SNHU BB, 2009, p. 371). This resulted in Piedra called his bank and stoppin...
... middle of paper ...
... a necessity as we live our everyday lives.
This court decision, shows how in regards to checks, going to the maker to ensure that the check is credible can help to protect the holder or the HDC of such an item. This can help them in the future if the payee is found to be a thief, in terms of recovering lost money from either the payee or the maker. Finally, we are also able to gain our own individual opinions about how HDC works and how fair we may or may not see it, based on cases like this one or simply everyday life.
Works Cited
SNHU BB (2009). Negotiable Instruments. (pp. 370-371). Cengage Learning.
Twomey, D. P., & Jennings, M. M. (2013). Transfers of Negotiable Instruments and Warranties of Parties. In Business Law: Principles for Today's Commercial Environment: Southern New Hampshire University (4th ed., pp. 556-577). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Boghossian and his associates did indeed commit both fraud and knowingly possessing a stolen item (R. v. Boghossian, 2015a). Mr. Boghossian and his defense counsel upon hearing this judgment decided to appeal the decision made by Justice Alfred O'Marra on the ground that his rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedom were violated. Specially his right to a trail within a reasonable amount of time guaranteed under section 11(b) as the court took over 22 months and within this time, Mr. Boghossian argued that it was unreasonably lengthy and he lost plenty of business because of it (R. v. Boghossian, 2015b). The appeal though was dismissed as they decided that section 11(b) was not infringed as 22 months was deemed as reasonable due to the complex nature of the case (R. v. Boghossian,
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement.
In recent years, it seems as if there is a new financial fraud being reported any given day. One could even say that fraud has become almost a much a surety as taxes. Given the opportunities and pressures, many will businesses will fall victim to human natures and suffer losses through fraudulent activities. This case study will follow one such fraud, following the crimes of Terry Scott Welch in his pursuit for happiness by indulging his passion of landscaping.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the article called “Can We Keep Our Promises?” by Robert D. Arnott, and to help better understand the three key risks facing each investor.
For Tenth National Bank, we have reason to believe that the client intercepted the paper confirmation. After we sent the paper confirmation to the bank, we received an email from Lou Jennings stating that the bank forwarded the confirmation directly to their office instead of sending it to the audit team. In addition, Mr. Jennings provided login credentials and a link to the bank’s website, which did not appear to be reliable. As per the video, “How to Fight Confirmation Fraud”, presented by the founder of confirmation.com, Brian Fox, a fictitious website can be created easily. Our skepticism toward the reliability of the website is based on the unresponsiveness of most of the links on the site; the only link that works is the login button. In addition the website appeared dated and rudimentary. Another factor we found quite strange is that the website only offers paper statement deliveries, which we find highly unusual since paper statements are easier to modify. Furthermore, based on the tracking provided by USPS, the letter is still in the shipping process with no indication that Tenth National Bank has officially received the request for confirmation. This further supports our theory that Lou Jennings intercepted the Tenth National Bank confirmation letter. In our o...
In conclusion, finding out the truth, the facts, and the goal of justice should be the main purpose of any civil case. Sadly, the judicial process gets in the way. The legal system becomes unjust and in some cases, justice is never served. Seeing the story unfold and reading about the struggle between wealth and power and justice is exciting, yet saddening. The book matters and should be read by all, from people who are studying the legal system to people who are not. It is an emotional and engaging book. It can’t be forgotten. One man can make the biggest difference and finding the truth is much more fulfilling than any riches.
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
A “Negotiable Instrument” is a commercial paper, which facilitates issue and receipt of consideration, but is not legal tender itself. A Negotiable Instrument is easily transferable from one person to another. These instruments are called ‘negotiable’ due to this easy transferability from one individual to another. Article 3.0 and 4.0 of the United Commercial Code (UCC) governs the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the United States.
Judge Flud wrote the majority decision in the case, and found that Carlton was not personally liable for the damages to Walkovszky. Flud also found that in his reasoning, Walkovsky has ?failed to state a valid cause of action against defendant Carlton?. Flud states that if the corporation ...
Jordan Belfort is the notorious 1990’s stockbroker who saw himself earning fifty million dollars a year operating a penny stock boiler room from his Stratton Oakmont, Inc. brokerage firm. Corrupted by drugs, money, and sex he went from being an innocent twenty – two year old on the fringe of a new life to manipulating the system in his infamous “pump and dump” scheme. As a stock swindler, he would motivate his young brokers through insane presentations to rile them up as they defrauded investors with duplicitous stock sales. Toward the end of this debauchery tale he was convicted for securities fraud and money laundering for which he was sentenced to twenty – two months in prison as well as recompensing two – hundred million in restitution to any swindled stock buyers of his brokerage firm (A&E Networks Television). Though his lavish spending and berserk party lifestyle was consumed by excessive greed, he displayed both positive and negative aspects of business communications.
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
This case illustrated that there were real consequences to white collar crime. In addition to paying the fifty million dollar fine, he relinquished another fifty million dollars of his illegal trading profits. (He still had millions remaining, however, from his illegal gains.) His actual prison sentence was three years, yet he served only twenty-two months in the federal prison at Lompoc, California, which was known to have a “country-club” atmosphere.
E.G. Lorenzen, Causa and Consideration in the Law of Contracts (1919). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 4560.
Jordan Belfort is the notorious 1990’s stockbroker who saw himself earning fifty million dollars a year operating a penny stock boiler room from his Stratton Oakmont, Inc. brokerage firm. Corrupted by drugs, money, and sex, he went from being an innocent twenty – two year old on the fringe of a new life to manipulating the system in his infamous “pump and dump” scheme. As a stock swindler, he would motivate his young brokers through insane presentations to rile them up as they defrauded investors with duplicitous stock sales. Toward the end of this debauchery tale he was convicted for securities fraud and money laundering for which he was sentenced to twenty – two months in prison as well as recompensing two – hundred million in restitution to any swindled stock buyers of his brokerage firm. Though his lavish spending and berserk party lifestyle was consumed by excessive greed, he displayed both positive and negative aspects of business communications.
This paper will define and discuss five financial theories and how they impact business decisions made by financial managers. The theories will be the Modern Portfolio Theory, Tobin Separation Theorem, Equilibrium Theory, Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT), and the Efficient Markets Hypothesis.