Mcsparran v. Larson
United States District Court, Illinois, 2006
2006 WL 250698
Anderson, J.
First understanding why, the shareholders claims of the board of directors and its officers’ actions amounted harm to the corporation was because The board of directors artificially inflated the Career Education Corporation (CEC) stock price by enrolling students without complete financial aid, enrolling students who did not actual attend classes, and claiming inflated job-placement rates for CEC graduates. This should have alerted the board of directors that something was amiss. It wasn’t that that any of this information was not available to them because it was public knowledge. The Shareholders knew that this school was a private school and a for-profit post-secondary education institution.
The suit was brought on because of lack of fiduciary duty (a legal obligation for one party to act in the best interest of another) which is the shareholders entrusted the board of directors and officers to act in the best interest of them and the organization. Being a for – profit institution the shareholders felt that the board of directors let this go on knowingly and with intent to better themselves
…show more content…
financially without regard to the shareholders. In this case the shareholders felt that board members knowingly were part of the problem and benefited from it. The other complaint was the general social and business ties and mentions of fees paid to the directors for their services. Another claim was the board of directors is dominated and controlled by CECs CEO and chairman of the board; and that a majority of the board of directors are interested in the outcome of this litigation because the face a substantial likelihood of liability for claims predicated on the fact their decisions were not protected by the business judgement rule. The business judgement rule is a presumption that in making a business decision, the directors of the corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith, in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interest of the corporation or company. In this case after reading the case of Mcsparran v. Larson (United States District Court, Illinois, 2006 ANDERSEN, J page 23 to 25 2006 WL 250698) this was clearly not the case. There was documented information from news articles, court papers, stock analyst reports that was readily available to the board of directors as well as the public. Negligence of performing due process on the board of director’s behalf. The suit by the plaintiff (shareholders) was proven with the when, where, how, who, and what caused harm to the reputation of the school as well as well as cost the school high legal fees as well as false reporting to the federal government could cost them millions of dollars. There were several amendments to this suit, the suit was first filed in 2004 and ended in 2007.
The suit was ref the board of directors and key officers, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross management, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. The plaintiffs had met their rule 23.1 burden to plead with particularity their claims of demand futility. (Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page 2.) The conclusion of this case is the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s verified shareholders amended derivative compliant (122) with prejudice is granted. The case was hereby terminated. Case: 1:04-cv-00041 Document #: 142 Filed: 02/28/07 Page
11.) In my opinion, This case a breach of fiduciary duties to purposely line their pockets by false reporting records for their financial benefit. By not using good business judgment rule on purpose because if the good business judgement rule was implemented they would not be able to sell the stock at a high price therefore, limiting the amount of monies that the board could bring in for themselves. This caused the school or corporation to suffer diminished trust from the public which could ultimately end with the school being shut down and the school owing the federal government millions of dollars.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Facts: The P (Kendra Knight) was participating in a coed touch football game, while playing the D (Michael Jewett) broke the plaintiff's finger by knocking her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. Where Knight had to get a number of four surgeries and she lost her finger. According to the D claim he was only trying intercept a pass and when he came down he stepped on her hand. He did not mean to hurt or injured Knight. The P says otherwise she says Jewett came behind and knocked her down. She put her arms out to break the fall and Jewett ran over her, stepping on her hand. The P is suing the D for negligence and assault and battery. Knight appealed the ruling of the decision.
Judicial History: Trial court returned verdict for the defendant (McIntosh). Johnson appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
INTRODUCTION/ASSIGNMENT:Denise Morgan has requested that our office represent her in a family court matter addressing the modification of a child support order. The supervising attorney asked that I review the facts of the case and the legal authority provided to determine strengths and weaknesses of Ms. Morgan’s case and if the Motion to Vacate requested by Mr. Morgan will be granted by the court, applying only the law provided, not to include any outside research.
In the Matal v. Tam court case, the court settled certain aspects of the First Amendment law while it opened up new issues in trademark law. It is a challenge for the uninitiated to follow a coherent path through the court’s First Amendment. Tam and his band, The Slants, sought to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office. The Office denied the application because it found that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.” The office cited the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs,
The court case Graham v. Connor took place in 1989 when a man named Dethorne Graham was working from home when he suddenly had an insulin reaction due to his diabetes. He had one of his friends drive him to the nearest convenience store to purchase orange juice to counter the reactions. Once they arrived, Graham got out of the vehicle and ran quickly inside. Once he walked inside the store, he noticed the checkout line was abnormally long. Seeing this and wanting to counter the reaction as soon as possible, he left the store and ran quickly out of the store and into his friend’s vehicle to go somewhere else.
Naturalization refers to the transition of a person becoming a U.S citizen. Essentially, this implies the adoption of a new status as well as the inalienable rights that come with it. To fully understand the concept of naturalization through the scope of this class it is important to understand the discriminatory history that accompanies it. Naturalization is an important concept in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 because, this case decided that slaves could not be citizens and therefore could not be naturalized (Dred Scott v Sanford 1857). This idea of being naturalized thus, did not apply to black people regardless of where they were born “Blacks, on the other hand, were not included and were not intended to be included under the
The company allegedly falsely increased the depreciation time length for their assets on the balance sheet. Waste Management was aided in the fraud by the company’s long-time auditor, Arthur Andersen. For five-year their auditors issued unqualified audit reports on the company’s annual statements. From the beginning of it all, the company allowed Arthur Andersen to earn additional fees by performing “special work”. When they discovered the irregularities with their accounting practices it was proposed to management that they correct them. Naturally, Waste Management refused the adjustments and instead entered into arrangements to write off the collected errors over a period of 10 years. This signed agreement was known as the Summary of Action Steps, which laid out the wrongful actions of the two parties and a plan to cover future frauds.
Sollars, G. C. 2001. An appraisal of shareholder proportional liability. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(4), 329-345.
Over the years many companies have decided abandon ethical practices is lieu of higher profits. Because of the high value placed on profits in America, many companies have taken extreme measures to increase profits and increase payouts for shareholders. Arthur Andersen LLP is a prime example of how business executives have been willing to make unethical business decisions in order to please clients and gain an edge on competition. In the short run, these unethical decisions may have seemed beneficial, but in the long run, the extensive consequences of this behavior was not worth any anticipated gain. Arthur Andersen made many unethical business decisions in lieu of higher profits that had drastic consequences that extended father than any executive
...the agents to be the gatekeepers for keeping the corporation alive. While some of Dr. Friedman’s opinions came across bold and harsh, ultimately I feel that he presents a strong case for developing a profit-motivated company that does not treat its stockholders inappropriately.