• The jury reached a verdict on September 24, 2009, and a judgment was ordered in favor of W. The judgment required M to pay W $18.5 million. • In November 2009, M filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. • In December 2010, the Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of M’s appeal and reversed the lower court’s ruling on the matter. This meant that the Court of Appeals overturned the jury verdict and the $18.5 million judgment against M. • On January 6, 2011, W filed a petition for a re-hearing before the same panel of appellate judges against the reversal of ruling by Court of Appeals. • On February 10, 2011, the appellate judges declined the petition for a re-hearing.
10-7 breach of contract: Roger Bannister was the director of technical and product development for Bemis Co. He signed a covenant not to compete that prohibited him from working for a “conflicting organization” for eighteen months following his termination, but required Bemis to pay his salary if he was unable to fi nd a job “consistent with his abilities and education.” Bemis terminated Bannister. Mondi Packaging, a Bemis competitor, told him that it would like to offer him a job but could not do so because of the noncompete agreement. Bemis released Bannister from the agreement with respect to “all other companies than Mondi” and refused to pay his salary. released Bannister from the agreement with respect to “all other companies than Mondi” and refused to pay his salary Inc., another Bemis competitor.
Overview The lawsuit between Solo Cup Company (“Solo”) and Trigen-Cinergy Solutions (“Trigen”) arose out of an Energy Services Agreement and Equipment Lease that Solo entered into with Trigen to construct an 11.2-megawatt electricity co-generation plant at the Owings Mills facility. Solo was under the impression that by entering into this agreement, they would save at least $820,000 in energy costs annually, which was to be prepaid by Trigen and eventually paid back by Solo over 20 years. After Solo did analyses on the project, they discovered they would actually be losing money in the first year of the contract, and took action to sever the contract. Arbitration then took place to award damages to the rightful party. After extensive review of the relevant facts in this dispute, it has come to my attention that the loss contingency is incorrectly booked for Solo Cup Company.
On March 3, 1995 Dr. Vernon Robertshaw leased a Fluoroscan imaging machine from Fluoroscan Imaging Systems Inc. of Northbrook, Illinois. Dr. Vernon Robertshaw paid a deposit of $1,579.52 U.S and was to pay monthly rental of $686.75 U.S for 60 months. The said machine was unique and it was designed to produce continuous images. Unfortunately machine did not work and plaintiff returned it to defendant for repair three times during the first year. Defendant was unable to correct the defects of that machine and he assigned the lease to Trans Leasing International that company bought out by General Electrical Capital Corporation.
LEG 110 Final Exam Answers https://hwguiders.com/downloads/leg-110-final-exam-answers LEG 110 Final Exam Answers Part # 1 Question 1 Carl contracts to sell his house and lot to Winifred for $30,000. The terms of the contract call for Winifred to pay 5 percent of the purchase price as a deposit toward the purchase price, or a down payment. The terms further stipulate that should the buyer breach the contract, Carl will retain the money as damages. What type of damages does this agreement exemplify? Question 2 Two neighboring families, the As and the Bs, wish to enlarge their garages.
Toy Company | To: | CEO | From: | Stacy Kuhn | CC: | | Date: | 9/12/2011 | Re: | RJDT Task 1 | Task A:Task B:Task C 1:Task C 2:Task C 3: | Employee A is filing a claim against our company under constructive discharge as related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The instigating factor of the case is the new work schedule policy that is mandated for all production staff. The associate believes their claim fits constructive discharge guidelines because the new policy requires him/her to work on a particular religious holiday, thus feeling that he/she is being discriminated against and that it was necessary for him/her to quit his/her position.Title VII deems it unlawful employment practice “to limit, segregate, or classify
Facts: Joshua got injured due to the fact that Zev was negligent. He consulted with Jack, an attorney, to explore bringing a lawsuit. Jack accepted the case on a standard contingency basis, which called for him to receive one-third of any recovery. Zev’s insurance company agreed to pay Joshua $900,000 for his medical expenses and his pain and suffering. As per the agreement between Jack and Joshua, the $900,000 was paid to Jack as Joshua’s attorney.
Executive Summary Kenneth Jones, the president of Viscotech, has a handful of regulatory issues to resolve before moving any further with operations. Ideally, the company would have considered SEC regulations before raising the $976,000 in December 1997 from 34 investors through the MIFT pool. Most importantly, Viscotech was desperate for money, so they did not notify the SEC, and accepted money for securities offered under Regulation A, which had not been finalized by the SEC staff. Viscotech advertised the MIFT as a trust, when it appears to be a contract to buy securities at a future date, but we argue that the security vehicle is exempt under Regulation A (see Exhibit 1) for the following reasons. 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.
Hence, the SEC asked Kodiak Energy to perform a restatement under item 4.02 of the 8k disclosure rules. This item covers non-reliance on a previously filed financial statement and the related audit report. In accordance with the SEC’s request, Kodiak Energy put in a notification of late filing for their 2008 fiscal report and corrected for the transaction errors in March 2009. After the error adjustments, the restated financial reports showed an overall increase of 3.5 million dollars in the reported acquisition cost and related issuance of common shares. After the fiasco surrounding the acquisition of the Thunder River assets, shareholders lost faith in Kodiak Energy.
Professor …, You asked me to research whether Jettison Manufacturing can reclassify the short-term debt into long-term debt before preparing year 2’s financial statements. Given my understanding of Jettison Manufacturing financial situation, I assume that the National Bank let the company not to repay the debt within six months. As the company has been able to correct the debt agreement violation and restore the current ratio to 2:2:1, which is acceptable to National, it can not to repay the debt yearly. The company has already reclassified the long-term debt into a short one, and now it wants to reclassify the debt again from the current liability to a long-term one. The key words of the search are “liabilities” and “debt”.