O. LUCY AND J. C. LUCY v. A. H. ZEHMER AND IDA S. ZEHMER., 1954). The argument was about the land Zehmer sold to Lucy for 50,000 dollars; the problem is that he offered it in jest. Zehmer assured that he meant it in a joking manner, but Lucy left, insisting that he sold the land. The conflict was about the existence of the contract: Lucy argued that there was one at the back of a restaurant check and was signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Zehmer.
Then in August 2008 Mattel received damages in the range of 100 million. In 2010 the ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a ruling that Mattel had appeared to have won for selling more Bratz dolls. In April 2011, a federal jury in California rejected Mattel’s claim that Mattel owned Bryants idea under his employment contract and the jury also ruled that secrets were stolen from MGA. Mattel was ordered to pay 85 million in liabilities plus another 225 million in damages and legal fees.
Timeline: Refco Inc. announced on October 10, 2005 that it’s CEO and chairman, Phillip R. Bennett had hidden information about $430 million in bad debts from the company's auditors and investors, and that now he had agreed to take a leave of absence. It was discovered through an internal review over the preceding weekend that a receivable was owed to the company by an unnamed entity that eventually turned out to be controlled by Mr Bennett, as much as approximately US$430 million. It was later known that, Bennett had been buying bad debts from Refco so that it would need to write them off, and he was paying for the bad loans with money borrowed by Refco itself. How he managed to pull this off is, at the end of every quarter he had arranged
Early in 1962, Kargman and Diamond created an Illinois land trust to hold title to the property to insulate Diamond and Kargman from personal liability on the mortgage note. On March 8, 1962, Diamond sold his interest to for $40,000 Liederman, except on a 50-50 basis. On their 1962 joint return, the Diamonds reported the March 8, 1962 $40,000 sale proceeds as a short-term capital
The lawsuit asked for $470 million in damages. The appellate court ruled that, “None of the proceeds went to Marvel, or were used for Marvel’s benefit”, but instead improperly enriched the directors. While denying any wrongdoing, Perelman agreed in August 2008 to settle for $80 million, which the trustees accepted. The settlement fund, after paying off trustees' and legal fees, administrative expenses and a $2 million loan, had $50 million to distribute to some Marvel Entertainment Group shareholders and unsecured creditors. Marvel was being used by its controlling interest to generate as much cash as possible, regardless of the long term consequences.
The forensic audit also highlighted unaccounted funds of approximately 55.8 million received by Prem and of 22.4 million recived by Bhagat, which was reflected in their Standard Charted Savings Accounts. These figures excluded transactions carried out via both’s other accounts with Axis Bank, Citibank and ICICI Bank. Both the accused denied the contents of E&Y’s report. Their counsel further alleged that E&Y had received 130 million from Reebok to produce a report that could challenge the previous audit carried out by KMPG’s auditing arm, BSR & Co., who when engaged to verify concerns over financial irregularities in 2010, had cleared RIC of any misdoing. Inspite of Agarwal’s allegations, the E&Y report has helped authorities positively verify their own investigative
In 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which “is a regulatory agency responsible for overseeing financial products and services that are offered to consumers” (Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, 2013) sued Ocwen Financial Corporation for $2 billion dollars in fees and to refund $124 million to nearly 185,000 customers who in the past suffered the foreclosure their homes. “The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which protects consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by mortgage servicers” (Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, 2013) claimed that Ocwen Financial Corporation, not only took advantage of the borrowers, but also failed to apply their monthly mortgage payments into their accounts. The lack of proper training, customer service, and leadership brought the company to misinform property holders and failed to communicate effectively. The key problem was that numerous customers claimed that Ocwen Financial Corporation denied loan modifications and due to the economic situation at that time, they were not able to protect their homes from
It was denied by two shareholders of Taro- Raging Capital and Grand Slam, saying that the deal value offered by Sun Pharma was not sufficient and the amount should have been $110 per share. In 2010, Sun Pharma was granted by Israeli court to close the deal in the U.S. by acquiring all outstanding shares of Taro. The takeover battle was elicited by Taro as at least two of their shareholders said that the company (Taro) was not being properly valued by Sun Pharma. But the private agreement contained the provision of option agreement which said that if the merger failed, Sun Pharma can buy out the controlling or promoter’s stake of Taro Pharma. Sun Pharma had already invested $105 million over the three years from the date of merger to acquire 36% stake.
He set up a company with the required seven shareholders (his wife and kids). He lent the company money (as a secured creditor) and then borrowed more money and got into financial trouble. The question of law was who should be paid first, unsecured creditors (like employees and utility bills) or himself as a secured creditor. The UK Court of Appeal was anti-semetic and felt Salomon was a fraud and his company was a "sham". But the House of Lords court stated that the company was properly set up, there was no fraud and thus Mr Salomon was a distinct entity from his company, his directorship, his shareholding and his rights as a secured creditor.
KARACHI, Sept 15: The Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) in its final report held the main sponsors of the Crescent Standard Investment Bank (CSIBL) responsible for the loss caused to the stakeholders and depositors and said the bank’s license should be cancelled. As CSIBL had already paid to Altaf Saleem and Anjum Saleem their principal amount of Rs95.04 million as well as mark-up (on April 10, 2006), therefore, payment against personal running finance facilities of Rs100 million tantamount to embezzlement of funds of CSIBL,” The equity of the bank had been eroded to the tune of Rs2.082 billion (in negative) as of August 26, 2006. “So it does not have the minimum regulatory equity of Rs300 million as required for the business of investment finance services, and Rs200 million as required for the business of leasing,” Inshort, institutional depositors complained about the bank that it was not able to meet their outstanding liabilities. The depositors were: Sialkot International Airport Rs555.57