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.
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.
This means that the hospital wouldn’t have to worry about a depreciable value for at least 20 years and then the hospital could claim the depreciation value. The biggest disadvantage of this would be the cost. By choosing this option the hospital would be risking using up any extra reserve which might not be the best as the CFO stated that the hospital needs to
Medical expenses are shared between TRICARE and the beneficiary under TRICARE Standard. Annual deductibles must be paid by enrollees, and families of active-duty members are responsible for 20 percent of outpatient charges. A 25 percent cost-share for outpatient services is paid by retirees and their families, former spouses, and families of deceased personnel. A beneficiary is responsible for a provider’s additional charges of up to 115 percent of the allowable charge are the provider treats them and doesn’t accept assignment. There is a catastrophic cap in which patient cost-share payments are subject to.
Employees will be investing time and resources on the lawsuit instead of focusing on the daily operations of Pathmark. The lawsuit could potentially make Pathmark look negative to the public too. Going to trial should be avoided to prevent the waste of time, money and resources. (Cheeseman,
The victim will have to go through the court process, which in many ways can cause the person to be victimized again. When a plea bargain is done just so it can get off the “docks” it can but a negative perception from the community of the justice system. Plea bargaining is a win/win situation neither of the counsel’s lose. The judge’s caseload is lessened because there is no need for a trial. With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge.
5. The confidentiality agreement did limit the scope of the audit performed on ZZZZ Best. It is the job of the auditor to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence. When Ernst & Whinney were not allowed to follow-up with anyone involved in the restoration process that limited their ability to gather evidence. The company should have been able to follow up with all venders and customers to attest to the validity of the financial statements and they were not able to do this and not able to gather the “appropriate and sufficient evidence” needed.
o A tendency to avoid reversing changes even if it was not the best choice o In reality, past expenditures are sunk costs and the organization should use a clean slate to look at new choices, but to the manager, this will come at great personal loss. • This relates to strategy because it is important to understand the effect management has on it. o If a manager will suffer personal embarrassment or a loss by adopting a new (although better) strategy, they are more likely to simply stick with the current course of action. o This can be avoided by assessing and addressing the problems of an organization prior to major investments being made o Implication on strategic choice, as they can act for the betterment or detriment of the organization. o Differences in manager’s preferences are specific to their individual personalities, experiences and situations.
Secondly, answering either one would create separation and it’s not her position to do so. I would think that the paralegal would recommend that the couple seek council elsewhere so as to not lose the friendship of either party. Thirdly, and most Running Head: UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW 3 importantly, if the paralegal were to choose to answer the question for either party, she would be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. You would think that if the paralegal answered the questions for either party, that’s exactly what she would be doing…answering questions, not practicing law. But, knowing what constitutes the unauthorized practice of law is very important because we as paralegals have to perform many legal task that were originally performed by lawyers.