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.
| | | | | * Question 5 2 out of 2 points | | | Money markets are markets forAnswer | | | | | | | Correct Answer: | Short-term debt securities. | | | | | * Question 6 2 out of 2 points | | | You recently sold 200 shares of Apple stock to your brother. The transfer was made through a broker, and the trade occurred on the NYSE. This is an example of:Answer | | | | | | | Correct Answer: | A secondary market transaction. | | | | | * Question 7 2 out
Executive Summary Kenneth Jones, the president of Viscotech, has a handful of regulatory issues to resolve before moving any further with operations. Ideally, the company would have considered SEC regulations before raising the $976,000 in December 1997 from 34 investors through the MIFT pool. Most importantly, Viscotech was desperate for money, so they did not notify the SEC, and accepted money for securities offered under Regulation A, which had not been finalized by the SEC staff. Viscotech advertised the MIFT as a trust, when it appears to be a contract to buy securities at a future date, but we argue that the security vehicle is exempt under Regulation A (see Exhibit 1) for the following reasons. Under the Securities Act of 1933, the MIFT does not automatically fall into the category of exempt securities, so the company must still file a offering statement with the SEC to avoid penalties.
However, if businesses believe they have been a victim of deceptive advertising they can bring an action under s.43(a) of the Lanham Act. The Federal Trade Commission has developed a framework for regulating deceptive commercial speech, in which one must prove the advertisement was a “material representation, omission or practice” that was “likely to mislead a customer”, and that “no one acting reasonably under the circumstances” would believe the claims. Deceptive commercial speech in the UK is regulated by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) as well as national advertising codes. The UCPD seeks the protect the economic interests of consumers from deceptive commercial practices but does not seek to protect businesses. The UK also regulates political campaign spending for the 365 days up to the vote and four months after the vote but does this only for relevant elections and does not regulate outside these campaign periods.
Stein should sue. Alternately, if Stein wants to sue Gortino for fraud to cancel the sale or come up with a different settlement, she can do that. Discussion 2: How does this doctrine act as an exception to the elements and requirements of a contract? This doctrine can act as an exception because, according to Reinstatement Section 90, the promise doesn't have to be "so comprehensive in scope as to meet the requirements of an offer that would create a binding contract if accepted by the promisee" ("Hoffman v. Red," 1967). Also, the promissor has to expect that, upon the promise, it will induce action by the promisee.
United States” were juror prejudice and the honest-services statute. The first legal issue was the defendant’s claim of a fair-trial argument that it relied on the premise that the trial should have never taken place in Houston. Mr. Skilling claimed that local outrage and media coverage of him made a fair trial impossible. Further pushing the claim that even if it were possibly to obtain an impartial jury from the Houston area, a shortened “voir dire” did nothing to try and find any potential prejudice among possible jurors. Voir Dire generally “refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a
The liabilities BUGusa, Inc. may have with Walter’s actions are intentional tort of employee and negligence of employee. Walter is responsible for his actions, but because he is working within the scope of this employment, WIRETIME, Inc will be held liable for his actions. Keeping Steven for six hours can be considered false imprisonment and that he was threatened with bodily harm only made the case for Walter and WIRETIME, Inc worse. Walter could have received the same information by contacting a supervisor and notifying them of Steve’s actions. The first tort to discuss is intentional tort.
Restatement of Financial Results ACC/537 This paper reviews the restatement of financial results of Kodiak Energy, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 and the year ended December 1, 2007. The company was forced to issue a restatement because of financial accounting errors in measurement and in the application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the September 2007 acquisition of the Thunder River assets. On the original financial statement, Kodiak Energy reported issuing seven million common stocks of its company in order to acquire assets owned by Thunder River Energy. In their 10-k and 10-Q statements, Kodiak Energy reported a value of $2 per share at the time of the transaction. However, an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed
Statement of Facts Bob (“plaintiff”), who lives in Los Angeles, CA, generously loaned three different individuals three different amounts of money. Twenty-four months ago plaintiff loaned Dan (“defendant 1”) $55,000.00. Dan signed a promissory note stating he would repay the loan in 18 months. Dan has not paid anything, defaulting on his loan. Fourteen months ago, Bob loaned Cathy (“defendant 2”) $7,000.00.
For a monopoly to be considered to breach antitrust laws found within the Sherman Act a set of criteria need to be met. First, the individual must be in control of a monopoly and not a perceived monopoly.The next stepping stone to breaking the antitrust laws found within Section 2 of the Sherman Act directly concerns intent. ( Antitrust,488) If it is Ashwin Selvarajan the intent of an individual to gain monopolistic control and then unleash the forces of their monopolistic control on the market, erasing many levels of competition within their business sector, then this would be considered a breach of the Sherman Act. Saul can argue Murray, by trying to break the past business practice and also by acquiring other competition is showing intent to gain monopolistic attitude. There are a few theories which support Murray Firstly, A monopoly can develop from the sale of a superior product with respect to the company’s competitors.