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.
For the reason that plaintiff could not carry out her essential function needed as a shaker table inspector job, the District Court articulate that appellant was not a qualified individual as per the ADA. In addition, the district court the reliable that appellant could not sustain a claim for reasonable accommodation, for the reason that any exclusion from the rotation system would make a danger of increasing the injuries for the pretender and the other table inspectors and therefore, would be arbitrary. In other words, was the case so that no reasonable jury could find that the employee was eligible for reasonable essential accommodation claim under
Although Neumann and Tides mentioned their IT internal control security controls to their managers, they did not pursue other formal company reporting measures. Thus, the courts could not provide whistleblower protections to Neumann and Tides who did not meet the reporting requirements.
Agency theory suggests that the interest of the business should come before self-interest. This may imply maximisation of profit, growth and shareholder return. Some writers such as Herbert Simon have argued that directors are more likely to act as ‘satisfiers’ than maximisers since corporations as organisations don’t act to achieve the best possible results but merely to achieve satisfactory results across several objectives. Simple agency theory aims to explore the corporate governance issues involved in the shareholder and director relationship as principal and agent. Whereas shareholders represent the owners of the business, the executive directors/directors look after the running of the business for them.
He gives us some assumptions and examples of their potential results and impacts on corporations to express his ideas clearly. In addition, he makes comparisons between being an individual and an executive and mentions the sharp differences between their responsibilities. The writer’s purpose is making it distinguishable and understandable for readers if there is a reality of the doctrine of the social responsibility for business. He aims to show
It doesn’t go deep enough into creation of a general ethics upon which organizations in general can be held accountable. This is so because his moral doctrine cannot make sense of collective responsibility, when this doctrine depends on strict criteria for what counts as a moral agent. Does this conclude that Kant is absolutely lame in so far as business ethics is concerned? A person would therefore seek a different application for Kant’s categorical imperative in business and only one option is left: the Individual responsibility within the organization, to which an employee
Under the idea of limited liability the owners of the organization under ordinary circumstances, are not answerable or in charge of the commitments of the organization in this manner owners shareholders liable just for the amount of their unpaid shares and not the commitments of the organization. The idea of separate legal personality was strongly found by House of Lords in the major case Solomon v Solomon and co.Ltd . (Idzwan, 2009) The case strongly found that upon incorporation, another and separate artificial entity starts to be. At law, a partnership is
CHR cannot be a constitutional commission. CHR is NOT a constitutional commission. Yes, the CHR is a Constitutional Office but it is NOT a Constitutional Commission. Let’s me restate. The Supreme Court said the CHR enjoys LIMITED fiscal autonomy, which means it is not a Constitutional Commission, which enjoys full fiscal autonomy.
Not only will increasing the minimum wage make it pricier for businesses to hire young, inexperienced workers, but it is also not stated in the constitution to allow such a thing for the government to handle. Boosting the minimum wage will not alleviate poverty, and there are plenty of alternatives to decrease the poverty rate. Also, by leaving the amount the minimum wage should be to the government and no the people. America is losing its freedom and changing its economic system. By increasing minimum wage, America would be hurting its people, not helping them.
They can sue, represent in trials etc. But, what does it mean to have a legal personality? Certainly attributing anthropomorphic qualities to an entity does not qualify it to be a legal person as is evident from the fact that a corporation cannot marry, procreate etc. but it still comes
This is not true and should not even play a part in any decision made to the Native American population. Therefore, we should not be forced of our homeland because according to the doctrine of discovery, which states that any land discovered by a government subjects is the one who owns it. However, the Cherokee and Native American as a whole were here first and own the land. The United States government cannot simply take away from us what we own, but that being said does not mean we cannot live in peace with the United
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). In the scenario, it is important to remember that the employer is a government entity and the Fourth Amendment was originally designed to limit government authority as it applies to unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). You would not be able to make a strong argument that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in this scenario. The property, whether it is a laptop, cell phone, or tablet, belongs to the government. Government entities have policies that employees must read and sign specifically acknowledging there is no expectation of privacy on these devices owned by the government.
Courts turn to common law principles to analyze the character of an economic relationship (Master-servant), NY 8th Circuit stare decisis was established by Graves v. Women 's Prof 'l Rodeo Assoc., 907 F.2d 71, 74 (8th Cir.1990). “Where no financial benefit is obtained by the purported employee from the employer, no “plausible” employment relationship of any sort can be said to exist because although “compensation by the putative employer to the putative employee in exchange for his services is not a sufficient condition, it is an essential condition to the existence of an employer-employee relationship.”