According the legal dictionary an incorporated company is formed with the approval from the state in which the corporation is being formed. This corporation is an artificial person, that is someone who does not exist. The organization can sue and be sued, that is unless it is non-profit. A corporation can sell shares of stock if needed. An corporations liability is limited to its assects, so the owner or the shareholders are protected from personal claims unless they commit fraud.
The courts ruled against Mack as by backdating his payment for the fertilizer, he was trying to reduce his tax liability. Tax evasion is breaking a civil statute and falls under statutory illegality. Hence, the courts deemed the agreements to be unenforceable (Weir, D. Jan, Pg 147). There are two impacts of this case on a certified general accountant (CGA). The first impact is skills development.
Pregent engaged in a scheme to defraud TechFab’s creditors, bankruptcy trustee and the bankruptcy court by transferring certain TechFab assets, including equipment and ongoing business, to a newly formed company. Pregent arranged for that new company to pay compensation for TechFab’s assets directly to himself, then filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for TechFab to discharge its debts all while concealing the pre-bankruptcy transfer of assets and the agreement to pay compensation for those assets to Pregent. Furthermore, Pregent failed to disclose the transfers and compensation agreement in TechFab’s bankruptcy pleadings and during his testimony before a meeting of
Hence, suppressing the "speech" of "people” is unconstitutional. The decision allows corporations to influence the outcome of federal elections directly. Corporations no longer have to support candidate using Political Action Committee funds, but simply from their general treasury. Prior to Citizens United, a corporation that wish to support or oppose a federal candidate must use PAC funds. PAC funds are the employees of the corporation who wish to support candidate to voluntary contribute to the election.
Under the Securities Act of 1933, the MIFT does not automatically fall into the category of exempt securities, so the company must still file a offering statement with the SEC to avoid penalties. Next, we developed an analytical Matrix that assisted us in deciphering between security law exemptions the company could leverage, and how they would realistically apply to Viscotech’s situation (see Exhibit 2). After analyzing the security laws pertaining to the issuance of securities, we decided their best option was the Regulation A offering to exempt the transaction from registration. It would have allowed the company to “test the waters” through a provision of Regulation A offering which allows companies to publish or deliver a written offering circular, radio broadcast, or television broadcast to prospective investors to gauge their interest before filing an offering statement with the SEC and taking on the fees necessary to do so. However, an offering statement would have needed to be submitted to the SEC and cleared before actually raising money through the Regulation A offering.
TO: CEO FROM: Stacy Raudman DATE: July 20, 2014 SUBJECT: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constructive discharge issue I have been asked by the CEO to research a claim made by a former employee related to the above Equal Employment Opportunity Act law and provide a recommendation on how the company should respond to this claim. First, it is important to understand what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is, what a constructive discharge is, and how, if at all, it relates to the allegations made by the former employee. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. Title VII also applies to private and public colleges and universities, employment agencies, and labor organizations.
1. Corporations Madison Foods is a close corporation--shares are held by members of a family or few persons, and likely an "S" corporation, bound by the Subchapter S Revision Act of 1982. Kato's use of company funds is not covered by the business judgement rule since his decision did not comply with his fiduciary duties. He is in violation of his duty of care--to act in good faith and use prudent business judgement, and his duty of loyalty-- to subordinate his own interests to those of the corporation. Claims can be made against him by other officers of the corporation as officers to redress the wrongs,.
Legal Encounter One The biggest liability issue that NewCorp will face with Pat is over a claim of wrongful discharge. This will be based on NewCorp’s personnel manual that states that employees will be placed on a corrective action plan to improve performance before termination. No correction plan was given to Pat by his boss before being discharged. Pat will also be able to argue that in receiving the NewCorp personnel manual, an implied contract of employment was agreed upon based on the policies contained in the manual. The fact that he was discharged shortly after the school board meeting in which he shared views contrary to those held by some of our senior management should have no basis on any legal proceedings.
Of course, she did not wish for war. Her own husband was a United States Army Captain. Her second husband was a railroad executive; he built railroads which destroyed the Indian’s habitats. She believed that the government should fix the treaties between the Indian and U.S they so often ignored for their belief in Manifestation, and settle the dispute in a peaceful way. 4.
Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that courts cannot prohibit peaceful distribution of pamphlets, unless a heavy burden is met to justify prior restraint. Background: Keefe, a real estate broker in Illinois, worked in Austin, Illinois. Some residents of Austin, including the Organization for a Better Austin (OBA), were disturbed by his business practices, which they considered to be inflammatory and controversial. They asserted that he attempted to generate sales by panicking white homeowners into selling, by suggesting that African Americans would soon be living nearby. The OBA attempted to coerce Keefe to change his tactics by distributing flyers in the neighborhood where Keefe resided.