Question 6 a. Nero’s management has a substantial ownership interest in the company, but not enough to block a merger. If Nero’s managers want to keep the firm independent, what are some actions they could take to discourage potential suitors? Answer: Nero’s management may consider to employ staggered board, Supermajority voting provision for merger, Golden parachute and Fair price amendments etc. as defence strategies’ pre-offer. Post offer, Nero may consider Pac man defence or Litigation, Leveraged recapitalisation, Share repurchase to stop being acquired.
Another option would be to take them to court claiming promissory estoppel. Furthermore, claim that due to a promise that the manager was depending on, that the defendant failed to keep, the company lost money and profits and should be held responsible even if the promisor claims that it should not be legal (“Promissory Estoppel,” 2010). Either one of these options the store would prevail on due to the nature of the contract and that it was for the transfer of good from Mr. Stevens to the
The appellate court however, determined that he was within the scope of his employment and this cannot be sued personally. Reasoning: FRIEDLANDER, Judge stated he believed the trial court correctly concluded that the allegation of negligence upon which the Bushongs’ action is premised was against a government employee acting within the scope of his employment. Judge Friedlander quoted Ind. Code Ann. § 34-13-3-5(a) prohibits a lawsuit against a public employee for actions committed while the employee was acting within the scope of employment, for his reasoning to dissent or reverse judgement.
They also determine the court made a mistake as difficulty of the law by definition; the plaintiff is independently liable for the judgment against OPL, a limited liability partnership preceding an alter-ego viewpoint. Therefore, the judgment should be reversed, and return to the courts for issuance of a statement of verdict and a new judgment should be made. They did not reached the dispute of whether significant evidence supported the court 's discovery that the plaintiff stands as the alter ego of OPI. The plaintiff may possibly be judged to have contributed in the governing of OPL simply because he implemented his responsibilities as president of OPI or because he may have represented as an indemnity for, or loan funds to, OPL. Furthermore, nothing in the records suggests that the plaintiff, in his capability as a limited partnership, should be held accountable for OPL 's partnership
The Supreme Court Decision On several occasions, the Supreme Court has stated its view that ERISA jurisprudence is derived from the common law of trusts. The Supreme Court faulted the Ninth Circuit for failing to adequately consider principles of trust law when it rejected the Employees’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the mutual funds added in 1999. Not only is there a duty of “prudence” to select appropriate investment choices at the outset, but the Court held that there is a “continuing duty” to monitor those investment selections to “remove imprudent ones.” The Supreme Court held that the “continuing duty” is separate from the initial duty to choose investments carefully; violation of the “continuing duty” counts as a breach of the fiduciary duty under ERISA. As long as the breach of the “continuing duty” occurred within six years of the filing of the lawsuit, ERISA’s statute of repose does not bar the
The court in that case found that since they could always reinstate his job and give him back pay later, the agency didn’t need to hold the hearing prior to firing the employee. One criticism with this decision is that the court gives no guidance on how to compare the factors. For example, how do you compare the risk of error to the fiscal burden to the agency? It’s apples and oranges. It is impossible to create a common metric.
These facts suggest that the tractor should not be considered as a gift because there is nothing to prove that the tractor was a donative intent of Marcella. There is neither a delivery nor an acceptance. In this case, because Christine borrowed the old tractor from her mother, she should have a prove saying that she will return the equipment. Also, Christine traded the old tractor for a new one. She should also pay Marcella for the sale of the old tractor.
No one can profit from the marriage. The prenuptial agreement only protects the wealthy and without it they are exposed. This paper will seek to find how does this movie relates to the economic theory asymmetric information. Upon entering Miles office Marilyn had information about Miles that Howard Doyle was not aware off. She didn’t mention to Doyle that Miles was her ex-husband lawyer, and was the reason she didn’t get any money from her last marriage.
Lieutenant Cross actually burns his girlfriend Martha’s pictures because they are a distraction for him. The analysis of the situation would be the following: something that is considered to be a distraction for a soldier cannot be any kind of motivation whatsoever. In case of Henry Dobbins later on in the novel author mentions that pantyhose of Henry are actually a superstition of some kind. It gives the soldier invincibility in the battle zone. Dobbins’s girlfriend actually left him while he was in war so this could not be a motivation for him either.
She may start working with the president better, but will not do the “dirty work” the president wants her to do. In the future, either she will be the next president, or will be fired from her current position as a vice president. 4. PART D With all the issues, there added the deans who would not follow her orders. She could not manage her time efficiently to get her work completed.