You decide week 6 The stock should not be purchase by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acquiring the assets, liabilities and also would inherit the contractual obligations of the selling corporation, would, be the results of the purchase. In lay terms, he has bought the existing Smithon Corporation and he is responsible of ensuring daily operations run efficiently but the tax aspect of acquisition he is responsible for existing and any future tax liabilities that the selling corporation had. 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
Article Analysis University of Phoenix ACC291 Taking a look at whether or not companies are acting ethical because they have integrity or because they have to follow the laws set forth by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is something all investors should do before they invest. Companies do not always act ethically because they want to be open and honest with their customers, employees, or investors, some do it simply because they have to in order to abide by the laws, rules, and regulations, and then just barely. While reading “Eight Years After The Fact Is SOX Working? A Look At The Brooke Corporation” one can notice several things wrong and ways that could lead to unethical practices and behaviors in accounting. For instance the company founder Robert Orr held several roles in management for the parent company as well as finance officer and other key positions that could open the door to unethical behaviors (Hazels, 2010).
The PDA states that woman cannot be banned from certain jobs due to she might have issued with pregnancy; this is Paula’s choice to make. Paula has a very strong case against NewCorp because of Sam’s action; this is a very big offense and can really harm NewCorps reputation. Legal Encounter 3 NewCorp needs to be very careful in this situation with Paul as if they try to fire or demote him after he issued a complaint with OSHA it can cause several legal actions against NewCorp to arise. Congress passed an Occupational Safety and Health act of 1970 that requires all employers to provide a safe workplace for employees and OSHA is the federal agency that regulates this. Since Paul has already issued a complaint with OSHA NewCorp can’t take any action against Paul right now because he can file a complaint with the department of labor and that can open up a whole new can of worms for
I believe that this concern should be left to the company owners as individuals. Personally, I don’t agree with the fact that the way America gets other countries to bend over backwards is by threatening to cut off financial business ties. I feel that America is trying to gain control of the world by doing so. However, I do agree that any sort of discrimination is unethical and should not be tolerated. That is something that each countries governments should have control over, not a foreign country that threatens to cut off business associations.
If someone asks you "who are you?" the answer that you give is your first and last name. For me, my name is who I am. Quindlen was careful to say that her decision about keeping her own name is not necessarily the best answer to this complex question. However, keeping your name is ensuring your identity and being respectful to your parents; not keeping your name cannot show love between two people changing.
However UPMC has argued they have provided $887 million last year in charity care, donations for scholarships, and subsidies to its medical school. Also claiming the corporate jet is largely used to fly teams of executives and doctors to Italy, Kazakhstan, and other countries to for-profit operations that provided $400 million in profit to bolster the nonprofit activities. UPMC has claimed to accuse the union of telling pro-union employees to underperform at work so they will get disciplined, allowing the union to claim these employees were punished for pro-union activities. UPMC is surprised they have not fallen for more of the union’s “traps” like these. However the union seems to have a lot of UPMC’s employees on their side, some like Julie A. Decker believe unionization was not needed, and that the union was not gaining traction.
It could also work the other way too that the service user may come to harm at the hands of my partner while I’m not there. Everybody has the right to be safe and if anything happened to either one of them i could be prosecuted for neglect. Another example could be If i was writing up the medical records or notes of a patient/service user and i was called away to do something i should always make sure i lock them safely away or lock the door behind me then nobody can get into that room and see the files. If i didn’t and that was to happen id of broken the laws that fall under the Data Protection Act 1998 as nobody but relevant people should be able to see this information. The patient’s confidentiality would be breached and the "Access to Personal Files Act 1987" & the "Confidentiality of Personal Information Act 1998" would also have been
Sterilizing a child is conflicting with autonomy of the patient even though the family’s interest is considered. (ashleytreatment.org)utilitarian theory is applied to this case because I am to make decisions that is in each persons individuals liberty, the parents or care givers. counter-arguing this, I would rather chose to plead in the court of law that in this particular case, my patient isn't mentally capable of making such a major decision and that her family is the next in line consent for
It could have been unethical to go after hours the finding would have been the same if they were within business hours, there just would have been witnesses. So for Sampson to to file suit stating violation of her rights she wold have to prove that there was no probable cause for the search and seizer of those files. Sampson can not possible do that because the argument would arise that the probable cause would be the former superintendent and the current (Sampson) were being investigated also Sampson was filing lawsuit and those files could have helped her win her case. If Sampson would have been new to the position and the previous one had done nothing wrong, and maybe no investigations were happening then it could have been looked at as her Fourth Amendment right would have been violated. Her case for the 14th Amendment would be upheld but the Fourth Amendment would be dismissed as well with all the others.
This act was carried out in October 2009, as the government is presently monitoring the proposal programme for other areas of the Act, such as establishments wanting the employees to become as an ISA registered. Even though the act is thoroughly complex, its main ethics are direct. These ethics involve: * Inappropriate individuals must be barred or streaked from working with vulnerable adults. * Individuals who are employing should have an upfront of examining that an individual is not streaked from working with vulnerable adults. * Being suitable for the job role should not be done just once as they should a process of a prolong evaluation to catch those individuals who have made mistakes after the suitability check- ups.