Questions Pertaining to Mega Mountain and Columbia Food Company - Essay Example

Questions Pertaining to Mega Mountain and Columbia Food Company Question Under what theory might Franklin be liable Explain fully. According to Liuzzo and Bonnice (2006), insider trading occurs when a person gains confidential information about a company that is not available to the general public, and based on that information, purchases company stocks with the intention of selling the shares for a higher price whenever the information is released (p. 411). In the case of Mega Mountain and Columbia, Franklin learns that a Mega Mountain takeover is "brewing," uses his master key to eavesdrop on executive conversations, and purchases stock in Columbia, at which the takeover is aimed.

He, then, realizes a $165,000 profit when he sells his shares after the takeover has been accomplished. Acting on inside information, Franklin gained an illegal advantage over other stockholders and profited from their losses. His actions were in direct violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Question 2. Based on this theory, will the SEC be able to prove its case Explain fully. In order to prove its case, the Securities and Exchange Commission will need to secure the testimony of the executive secretary who shared the takeover information with Franklin.

However, this testimony alone will not be sufficient to prove the case. If, as the scenario points out, the SEC has filed suit against Franklin and others, someone must have known about Franklin's entry into the executive offices to obtain information about the object of Mega Mountain's takeover. Using the testimony of both the executive secretary, and an informant who brought Franklin's activities to light, the SEC will be able to prove its case against Franklin for violation of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act.

Questions pertaining to the Green and Galaxy Easement IssueQuestion 1. Does Green have an easement Why, or why not Explain. Liuzzo and Bonnice (2006) define easement as "a right or interest in land granted to a party to make beneficial use of the land owned by another" (p. 321). Once an easement has been recorded, it cannot be sold or otherwise transferred. The question to be determined here is whether an easement was mentioned in the earliest available deeds of the two properties. During Bob's lifetime, no apparent attempt was made to deny Green an easement through Bob's property, even though the lease between Bob and Green does not mention access privileges.

If the easement is recorded in Bob's deed, Green is legally entitled to access privileges and Galaxy Management will have to remove any barriers. If the easement has never been recorded, Green may still be entitled to access privileges since Bob took no apparent action to deny access. Question 2. What must be shown to create easement Explain fully. An easement may be created in two ways: If an easement is recorded in a land deed, it cannot be sold or transferred in any way, but is said to "run with the land" (Liuzzo & Bonnice, 2006, p. 321). A longstanding, yet unrecorded, access to property can also create an easement.

Questions pertaining to Big FistQuestion 1. Did Big Fist violate Debbie's rights Explain fully. According to an article in Cardline ("Complaints," 2005), "Complaints about debt collectors, both in-house creditors' collectors and collections agencies, represented 23% of all the complaints reported to the Federal Trade Commission last year" (p. 1). As a result, the actions taken by collection agencies in order to collect debts are subject to an increased level of scrutiny by the FTC. In the transaction described in the Big Fist scenario, Big Fist attempts to collect Debbie's debt by offering not to post the collection to her file, if the claim is not contested and is paid within ten days.

In attempting to collect the debt in this manner, Big Fish is guilty of violating the debtor's validation rights. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Federal Trade Commission, 1996) was designed to protect consumers against unfair collection practices. According to Hobbes and Warren (1997), "The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act keeps collectors from using abusive techniques to get debtors to pay their debts, imposing minimum standards of fairness on collection agencies and others who collect what people owe" (p. 36). In Section 809, "Validation of Debts," consumers are given a period of 30 days to dispute a claim of indebtedness.

The careful wording of Big Fist's communication with Debbie implicitly threatens to post her failure to pay on her credit report, if she does not respond in 10 days. The failure of Big Fist to grant Debbie 30 days to dispute the creditor's claim violates her rights. References Complaints against debt collectors increase. (2005, August 26). Cardline, 5, p. 1. Federal Trade Commission. (1996). The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#809.Hobbs, R. J. & Warren, C. R. (1997, April).

Fighting abuse in debt collection. Trial, 33, pp. 36 - 38. Liuzzo, A. L. & Bonnice, J. G. (2006). Essentials of business law. (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.