Business Ethics - Case Study Example

? TEACHER 17 May Business Ethics Case Study This was an interesting case study where business and legalethics are to be considered. The issue in all four of these questions lies in the notion of whether an individual should receive preference over the masses, or should the interests of the masses be considered first. As with most ethical decisions, there is likely no one solid answer, but I have done my best below to provide some possible courses of action that the judge in this case could consider. Question 1 In this situation, Mr. Groetsch has done nothing wrong. As such, he is under no obligation to allow other people to handle his personal fight against Securities America. He is convinced that he has been financially damaged as a result of this case, and he is perfectly able to work through arbitration on his own, with a judge, to come a fair resolution. Let us remember that arbitration was set up as a way to settle disputes between two parties who simply cannot come to an agreement on any given problem. The judge in this situation should only concern himself with the specific arbitration case that Mr. Groetsch has dutifully bought before him, regardless of any potential impact on cases that might be pending before other courts at a future date. This is a decision that will likely weigh on the judge, knowing that many more clients may lose out on a judgment in the future that is rightfully due them. In the end, however, the judge is ethically responsible for the arbitration hearing in this case and should let it proceed without delay. Question 2 This case is particularly troublesome because of the sheer number of clients that were adversely impacted as a result of the fraudulent acts partaken by Securities America. Due to this unique situation, no one person should receive the benefit of arbitration at this time until the outcomes of the class action suits are settled. The actions of one fraudulent company has negatively impacted the lives of many people, so the judge should ethically do everything in his power to make sure all alleged victims have an equally opportunity at a fair judgment. The judge should go ahead and table the arbitration hearing and allow the cases in Montana and Massachusetts to proceed. This will allow the money that is currently available to be paid out to victims to remain in a frozen, yet liquid account to be distributed once the case is completed. Once settled, the judge should then allow the arbitration to proceed until finished. The reasoning behind this lies in simple numbers. Should one person benefit greatly from arbitration, draining a limited pool of funds that will be available, while the masses are left to scrounge what is left over? In this case, that would not be a beneficial course for anyone involved, except Mr. Groetsch. It needs to be pointed out that he had the option to join the class action suit, yet for whatever reason, decided not to. As such, he has given up his claim to that hearing. His actions, however, do nothing to mitigate the fact that class action suits are filed to level the playing the field. That is what the judge should do in this case – level the playing field so all victims will eventually be compensated in a fair and equitable manner. Question 3 The judge in this case can also act as an advisor. In the legal system, judges are put in place to protect those that appear before them. In this particular situation, it appears that the interests of Mr. Groetsch will be best served if he were to drop his arbitration claim and fold his interests into the class action suits that are pending. This becomes particularly helpful advice if the judge has already determined that he is going to table the arbitration hearing until the current cases in Montana and Massachusetts are resolved. If this were to happen, there would simply be little to no money left to pay Mr. Groetsch in any event. While the estimated 10 cents to the dollar is not a happy outcome for this client, it will certainly be better than nothing should he choose not to accept the judge’s counsel. In this situation, the judge cannot force Mr. Groetsch to do anything, but he can use the authority of the bench to strongly recommend that he drop the arbitration case altogether, allowing the class action suits to continue without delay. Again, this is not an easy decision for the judge, and is one in which his ethics will be called into question regardless of what he decides. In the end, however, this seems to be the most prudent solution. He is offering an opportunity for the class action suits to continue, and to encourage Mr. Groetsch to get involved because that will be his only real opportunity to collect any damages. Question 4 This a tough decision for the judge, and one that I am sure he does not approach lightly. The three possible solutions presented to this point are all viable options. There are, however, some other options that the judge could consider. One option that could be presented is to purse criminal and civil action against Ron Carazo himself. Since it is apparent that Mr. Carazo ignored the counsel of his own company in presenting these bonds to Mr. Groetsch, it would appear that a case could be made against the broker himself. At the very least, Mr. Carazo violated terms of his securities license and this could be cause for a judgment to be leveled against him. Yet another alternative for the judge to consider is to advise Mr. Groetsch to purse his own private litigation against Securities America. While the judge has complete latitude in this situation to table any pending arbitration hearings, Mr. Groetsch would be within his legal rights to pursue this on his own. The drawback, as mentioned in the text, is that litigation is often more expensive and time consuming. If, however, the client is not inclined to become a part of the class action suits, this could be his only financially viable alternative in the face of losing an arbitration hearing altogether. Read More