On February 10, 2011 the appellate judges denied the petition for W Inc. to have a re-hearing. Therefore on February 28, 2011 the management of M International determined this matter to be closed following discussions with their in-house legal counsel. For the year-end December 31, 2007, M International must recognize a liability for the probable loss from the litigation suit and so now they must consider the correct method for recognizing the liability. M
January 2005 – Solo notified Trigen of disputes after being dissatisfied that savings were not being realized. 3/21/05 – Solo filed a demand for arbitration seeking recission of the Energy Services Agreement and compensatory damages plus attorney’s fees, costs and interest. The claims were based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. March 2005 – Solo offered to settle for $3,106,972. 4/11/05 – Trigen filed an answer and counterclaim seeking an
Walmart administrative assistant Chalace Eply Lowry was hired by the company in January 2007 soon after she filed a complaint against a vice-president of corporate communications, Mona Williams for the possibility of an ethics issue. Lowry was asked by Williams to copy papers that she thought were related to stocks, and a few days later it was announced that Walmart was planning a $15 billion stock buyback, and she was concerned that Williams may have used insider information to exercise her stock options and make money off of the buyback. Walmart responded that Lowry was simply confused and that she mistook a deferred compensation form for an options exercise request and that there was no wrong-doing by Williams. Soon after she filed for the complaint, her identity was disclosed to Williams, something Walmart claimed Lowry agreed to. Lowry, however, stated that she was never given a choice, and subsequently requested a transfer to another department.
3. St. Louis testified that while he had told his manager “there ha [d] been unreasonable delays on Mr. Hallee's part” in responding to the audit, he had refused to sign a letter formally accusing Hallee of the same. St. Pierre, claiming that this left the jury with the mistaken belief that St. Louis felt positively toward Hallee, wanted to cross-examine St. Louis regarding evidence that St. Louis, when asked by IRS personnel for names of tax preparers that they might investigate for misconduct, had recommended Hallee's firm to them as a possible
After three days of negotiation, Porter presented a settlement offer of $250,000 to Schultz over the telephone and subsequently mailed a check of that amount to Schultz based off of an agreement between the two. This agreement was ambiguous as Porter stated in his deposition that Schultz did not accept the offer over the telephone but agreed that having the check in his hands would help him make a decision. Schultz’s reception of the settlement check of $250,000 was verified by Porter via telephone on 4/28/10. Schultz retained the settlement check without cashing it over the next eight months. During this time period Porter attempted to make contact with Schultz in order to obtain a definitive acceptance; he called eleven times, leaving eleven voicemail messages and sent seven written letters; the letters stated that the FLCI has assumed acceptance and that the check should be returned immediately if Schultz
The reason behind of this was because IRS at Mil-Spec informed Mr. Barnes before he signed the form that he could claim more funds than what government proposed in the modification. Even though Mil-Spec did not sign the modification form which government issued, the government issued a check for $6,367 to Mil-Spec because of a previously filed tax lien. Mil-Spec then filed claim for additional costs.
When the newly appointed audit partner at DTR, Will Borden, upon reviewing the audit of North Face Inc.’s 1997 financial statements, questioned why the adjustment shown and required by the work papers had not been adjusted in the financial statements, Fiedelman realized his error. Rather than correcting the error, he wanted to cover his tracks and found a way to cover up the error by altering the audit documentation without appropriate rationale, explanation or justification. The original 1997 audit papers therefore were replaced by
Questions would be phoned in, and they were answered on the spot by Joe. Joe received one particularly phone call from high school senior asking: “what the chances were of getting 15 days of rain in the next month (30 days)?” Joe’s answer was wrong: he said a 35% of change. After been lectured by various mathematicians, professors, and scientist about his miscalculation, Joe needs to redeem his mistake by recalculating the probability, and give the correct results in the future weather forecast. After analyzing the question, the probability asked can be answer using the following method: the binomial theorem. The probability of obtaining specific outcomes in a Bernoulli process is described by the binomial probability distribution.
Krogstad asked Nora to convince Torvald not to fire him, emphasizing that he had a contract that contained signature of Nora’s father which Nora forged (838). When Torvald returned, Nora asked him not to fire Krogstad, but it did not work out. Next day, on Christmas, Torvald finally sent Krogstad’s letter of dismissal. Shortly, Krogstad arrived and complained about his dismissal (854). He now insisted to Nora that he be rehired in a higher position.
Learning Team Reflection Week Six Business ethics ought to be apparent throughout all areas of a business (Miller, 2013). Coulter and Robbins (2012) discuss an incident that occurred on September 14, 2008, when the financial firm Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. Stephens, Vance and Pettegrew (2012) "submit that the underlying explanation for these accounting failures was a moral and ethical problem and that to ignore this underlying issue is to seriously miss the point." This research team discusses three questions that arise from the case application presented by Coulter and Robbins. The first question pertains to the culture at Lehman Brothers and how it contributed to the downfall.