Introduction This case analyzes the legal and ethical aspects of the Kelo Vs. City of New London case of 2005. There are three questions at the center of this case: 1) Does the city of New London violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the anticipation the development will improve the city's poor economy? 2) Does the city of New London fulfill the public use stipulation from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause? 3) Does public purpose equal public use? Legal Analysis Model Statement of Facts In 2005, the US Supreme Court decided the case of Kelo Vs. City of New London.
The CERCLA Windfall Lien: A Liability Trap for Unwary Purchasers of Contaminated Sites By Larry Schnapf The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (the “2002 Brownfield Amendments”) added a Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser (“BFPP”) defense to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) . The BFPP defense allows purchaser to knowingly take title to contaminated property provided they satisfy certain criteria but comes with an important hitch. Namely, EPA may perfect a “windfall lien” on property owned by a BFPP in certain circumstances to recover cleanup costs. This article will discuss the scope of this lien, the recent EPA guidance that discusses when the
Overtime the Constitution has been amended and thus the amendments have been established to further protect citizens from unlawful or repressive acts of government (Bill of Rights are included in the first ten amendments and were established in 1791). Inasmuch, the limited powers have been granted to the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) known as enumerated powers. Primary powers of government have been given to Congress; Congress has enumerated powers in 18 different clauses. The powers that generally impact business owners and managers include (1) the power to regulate commerce ( Commerce Clause ); (2) taxing the citizenry and commercial entities and spending government funds
Abstract For this assignment I was asked to search out 3 publicly held businesses and review their Code of Ethics. I am to explain whether or not the code is equal to what was requested by the Sarbanes Oxley Act and then explain why I chose this answer. To further the investigation of the 3 companies, I am to tell what cultural or business challenges would be best handled by the companies own personal codes and then find what could be absent in the codes which could be used to help the company, should the do business globally. Sarbanes-Oxley Code of Ethics Part 1. Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 that states in Sec.
Kelo vs. New London Simply put, eminent domain is the power of the state to take private property for the use in a public project in return for reasonable compensation. Reasonable compensation is defined in terms of fair market value of the property. Traditionally the power of eminent domain has been exercised for the construction of large public projects, but its use is beginning to be broadened to projects involving not ‘public use’ but ‘public benefit.’ The decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, a case that came before the US Supreme Court in 2004, set a precedent for property to be transferred to a private owner for the purpose of economic development. The court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed or blighted urban area it qualifies as a public use, and therefore the land can be seized, because it is viewed as a benefit to the public. The case of Kelo vs. New London involved an economic development plan for the City of New London, Connecticut, and the people who had owned land with in the fort Trumbell area.
Taxpayer requested a letter ruling on whether or not the discounts received constitute as constructive dividends received. The IRS indeed ruled the discounts received by the taxpayer constituted as constructive dividends under section 316 and the distribution applied to section 301. A constructive dividend is a form of payment made by a corporation to its shareholders that resulted in any measurable economic benefits to the shareholder. It can either be a direct or an indirect form of payment and mostly occurs in closely held corporations. These payments can also be distributed both advertently and inadvertently.
Plaintiff, Andrew Hall, individually and on behalf of a class consisting of persons other than the defendants who purchased common stock of Medicis for the time period 30 October 2003 through 24 September 2008 filed a class action complaint against Defendants, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Jonah Shacknai, Richard D. Peterson, and Mark A. Prygocki, Sr. The complaint was filed to recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Medicis, is a Delaware corporation that develops and markets products in the United States for the treatment of dermatological, aesthetic, and podiatric conditions. During the relevant times in the case, Medicis’ common stock was trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under ticker MRX. In addition to Medicis, three executives were also defendants in this class action complaint.
I. Introduction Campaign Finance Reform is the political effort in the United States declared to change money involvement in political campaigns in order to provide fairness of elections. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (also known as “McCain-Feingold” or “Shays-Meehan”, after its sponsors), the recent federal law on campaign finance, revised some of the limitations set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions and spending by independent organizations in favor of candidates (“soft money”) and put limitations on political advertising. While declared goal of the Campaign Finance Reform appears to be upright, its norms in fact conceal threat to constitutional freedoms, gives benefits to certain groups and has number of unintended harmful consequences. II.
Justice Rehnquist opined that, “Jurisdiction over petitioners in California is proper because of their intentional conduct in Florida allegedly calculated to cause injury to respondent in California”. Question B B) What is a business's obligation to build an ethical culture and balance its desire for profit with ethical responsibilities to employees, customers, society and the environment? Explain your answer fully. According to chapter 1 of The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce, “Businesses that are organized in the United States are subject to its laws. They are also subject to the laws of other countries in which they operate.
It would need to be reviewed and signed off on by all responsible officers. A step that should be included is periodic internal audits of the financial data. An audit of that nature would review the accounting records and supporting documentation to verify accuracy of the financial records. You could do this by employing an Internal Auditor or my having McGladrey, LLC. complete an audit of all the financial data on a yearly basis.