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. To first understand the scope of the situation, below is a summary of key events for your reference. Timeline of Key Events 2/13/03 – Solo entered into a 15 year Equipment Lease Agreement and a 20 year Energy Services Agreement with Trigen Energy Services to construct a co-generation facility. 11/01/04 – Trigen issued a Letter of Substantial Completion to Solo and paid out $820,000, which represented the first year’s energy savings prepaid by Trigen. January 2005 – Solo notified Trigen of disputes after being dissatisfied that savings were not being realized.
It would be my advice for Mr. Jones to not buy the stock because of the liability of current and future tax obligations which Mr. Jones would incur from the purchase of the stock. Since the tax identity of Smithon corporation would have not ceased, it is not a favorable purchase for Mr. Jones. Ina a case where the tax identity of a firm does not cease not to exist, the tax aspects will remain the same and so will the existing tax schedule. So in this case it would mean that Mr. Jones would not be allowed to change the financial year to end on December 31. The buyer in cases where he can’t change the legal entity is in a non -benefice situation, the buyer is limited to follow the current tax basis on the company’s assets even if the buyer paid more for the
The following are the questions asked by the case and my understanding of applicable GAAP. I will present my finds and an alternate for each to the questions with a conclusion to follow. 1. For the year-end December 31, 2007, financial statements, what amount should M record as a liability? 450-20-25-2 states that we must recognize a liability when it is probable and estimable.
Explain. [Bannister v. Bemis Co. , 556 F.3d 882 (8th Cir.2009)] Case brief: Bemis Co, breached the covenant not to compete, the breach was material. Bannister could not accept employment with a Bemis competitor, but Bemis was to pay Bannister his salary. There was no term for a partial release. Bemis “released” Bannister to seek employment with one exception—Mondi Packaging.
M International (“M”) and W Inc. (“W,” a competitor of M) have been engaged in long- standing litigation over a specific patent infringement matter. Below is a summary timeline of specific events that have taken place related to this matter: • In May 2007, W filed a claim against M for patent infringement. • For the year ended December 31, 2007, management of M determined that a loss for this matter was probable and represented that the estimate of loss was in the range of $15 million to $20 million, with $17 million being the most likely amount of loss within the range. • A jury trial took place in September 2009. • 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.
Facts: Client suffered serious injuries at work when she fell thirty feet off a conveyor designed to carry employees from one work level to another. She was injured when the conveyor malfunctioned and failed to stop when she reached the top of the lift. The conveyor had been in use for twenty-five years, and her employer replaced it the day after the accident. The employer dismantled the conveyor and disposed of many of the important parts. It appears that the employer intentionally disposed of the parts.
Here, it would be affirming that there was a binding contract, but insisting that the obligation of Proudfoot had not been performed. This would make Proudfoot liable for damages. If the nonperformance were deemed to “erase” the element of consideration, Proudfoot could say that there never was a contract because of the failure, and therefore, no damages could be recovered for the breach of a contract that did not
The collapse of the housing market and unemployment caused the most damage. Between 1991 to 1992 unemployment had gone back up to 2.6 million. Negative equity meant home owner were paying mortgages far higher than their homes were worth. Many people could simply not keep up with the increased prices and resulted in them losing their homes due to the bank repossessing them. The recession hit close to home for the Tories, effecting the middle class not just the working class of the industrial north.
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected