The judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case awarded the plaintiff damages for surveillance and investigation; this is similar to what is being sought in the Northland Corp v. Brat Simpson, Arty Dodger case, the action against the defendants is for the amount of $750.00 for the “cost of security, prorated between offenders caught shoplifting within the store and the amount owing remains a just debt improperly withheld by the Defendants.” The only reason the judge in the Hudson’s Bay Company case gave for awarding the damages was that, "…the case cries out for an award of punitive damages”. The cost of shoplifting is very high, it cuts into the profit margin of the retailer and is paid for by the consumer. It requires stores to invest in more complex means of security. This could be the reason why the judge in this case felt
Introduction The article titled “SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading” was the press release from the SEC on June 4, 2003 and presents the SEC’s position on the case. Background on the SEC The United States federal government that holds the primary responsibility for enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the securities industry, the nation’s stock and options exchanges, and other activities and organizations, including the electronic securities market in the United States is call the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 created the SEC that enforces the Securities Act of 1933 and several other statutes. The Securities Act was created in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929 and during the ensuing Great Depression. The primary purpose of the Act was to ensure that buyers of securities receive complete and accurate information before they invest.
Horton accuses the governing body of frequently exploiting its power in having the Justice Department instigate repression among voters. Furthermore, the lawyers who were inspecting the unlawful actions of these political criminals were quietly discharged of their duty and the incriminating evidence was concealed. The Bush administration was also spying regularly on religious and political groups in the country, while it covertly introduced a tremendously illegal surveillance program that caused conflict among senior officials in the Justice Department. Horton attributes this illicit monitoring device as the reason behind the “War on Terror” because it misleadingly revealed all of intelligence’s information on Iraq to both
According to Clement (2006) unethical behavior in business is a growing concern. “In recent years, the business news in the United States has been rife with reports of misconduct by American corporations. The most widely publicized of these cases may be the accounting fraud at Enron and what was then MCI WorldCom; however, less trumpeted incidents of misconduct are troubling, as well. Examples of such lesser known events include consumer fraud at Prudential Financial, discriminatory practices at Morgan Stanley, and antitrust activity at DuPont. Given the recent misbehavior in the U.S. business world, a reasonable person might wonder just how unethical American business really is.
The purpose of the SOX Act in response to the fraudulent and misleading activities of large corporations such as Enron, Health South, Xerox, Global Crossing, and almost one thousand publicly traded companies. Fraud is defined as “a dishonest act by an employee that results in personal benefit to the employee at a cost to the employer” (Kimmel, Weygandt, & Kieso, 2011). The afore mentioned companies and many others committed fraud when they willingly published false and/or deceptive financial statements making their companies look like they were making huge profits, therefore causing their stock prices to soar and enticing the public to by more and more shares of their companies. Unfortunately, when the truth came out, the fraudulent actions of a few resulted in the loss of almost $5 trillion of stock market value and an undetermined amount for stockholders. Because of this fraudulent action, Congress had no choice but to intervene and pass legislation that would curtail this illegal
The owner of Glen Defense was arrested in September 2013, charged with conspiracy to bribe Navy officials with cash, trips, and prostitutes. The article (2013) states, “in exchange for the bribes, the officials helped divert ships to certain ports where Glenn Defense submitted inflated bills” (para. 5). A total of seven Navy officials were charged, two of which were
The reason, a background screening firm called ChoicePoint, which is the largest screening firm in the United States for corporate employers, had reported to Walgreens that Mr. Pendergrass had a record of “cash register fraud and theft of merchandise” totaling over $7,000. These accusations were from his previous job at Rite Aid in 2005, where his employer accused him of theft and underpaying for DVDs. Mr. Pendergrass denied the allegations and wrote
In the retrial, the prosecution was allowed to show that the defendants, in surrendering their licenses last year, admitted they had violated ethics rules by failing to tell their clients the total amount of the settlement, the number of other clients, and the fact that they were taking more than 49 percent of the settlement as fees, well above the amounts set in their contract (Wolfson, 2009). Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion were convicted on April 3, 2009 after a jury found the disbarred lawyers guilty of conspiracy and wire fraud charges in relation to a $200 million 2001 Fen-Phen settlement that should have gone to 440 former clients they represented in the 2001 Boone Circuit Court case. The jury's guilty verdict came after two days of deliberations and after hearing more than five weeks of testimony in the trial (Musgrave, 2009). A federal jury ruled on April 7, 2009 that Cunningham and Gallion must forfeit $30 million, and they must also turn over an unspecified amount held in separate accounts, this could be as much as $20 million more. The separate accounts the jury referenced had comprised the Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living Charity account, which the former lawyers set up using money collected in the scheme (Biesk, 2009).