Andrew Lindberg Case Analysis

In this case, there are several conspirators who is involved in the fraud receiving punishment from either SEC or federal government. Robert Levin, the AMRE executive and major stockholder, and Dennie D.Brown, the company’s chief accounting officer, were subject to the punishment in the form of a huge amount of fine by the SEC and the federal government. This punishment came from reasons. After AMRE going public, the company have the obligation to publish its financial reports but its performance did not meet expectation. The investigation by SEC shows that Robert took the first step of this scam, fearing the sharp drop of AMRE’s stock price because of the poor performance of company. He abetted Brown, to practice three main schemes to present a false appearance of profitable and pleasant financial reports. Firstly, they instructed Walter W.Richardson, the company’s vice president of data processing, to enter fictitious unset leads in the lead bank and they originally deferred the advertising cost mutiplying “cost per lead” and “unset leads” amount, so that they deferred a portion of its advertising costs in an asset account. The capitalizing of advertising expenses allowed them to inflate the net income for the first quarter of fiscal 1988. Secondly, at the end of the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 1988, they added fictitious inventory to AMRE’s ending inventory records, and prepared bogus inventory count sheets for the auditors. Thirdly, they overstated the percentage

State of New South Wales v Lepore [2003] 212 CLR 511, 536 per Gleeson CJ.

took place will be determined and explained as well as the penalties associated with this case will

This case is about Dave Armstrong, a 29 year old second year MBA student of Harvard Business School. Immediately after his graduation from a small liberal arts college in Texas, he started working for Thorne Enterprises as a computer Programmer. After eighteen months in the job, he quit to go into life insurance business in Amarillo. He applied to Harvard Business school but hadn’t considered what he would do, once accepted, he decided to go there as he and his wife wouldn’t have to compromise on their lifestyle as he would still be receiving renewal income from his old policy holders.

Ardoldis Chapman, a “closer” pitcher for the New York Yankees was suspended and fined under the baseball’s new domestic violence policy. Chapman was said to have gotten into an argument with his girlfriend in October 2015. It then escalated to Chapman aiming a fire arm at her as she ran into the woods on a neighbor’s property. However, no charges were filed against Chapman. He has made history as the first baseball player to be suspended and fined under the baseball’s new domestic violence policy.

On this 9/3/15 worker visited the residence of Mr. Alvin Higgins, for the purpose of making first victim contact. Mr. Greg Nunn, RN with New Beacon Hospice greeted worker outside of the residence. Mr. Nunn stated he called the residence about 3 1/2 hours before arriving and Ms. Betty Griffith was not home. However, her daughter Gina Craven and her boyfriend, Kenneth Woods was at the home. When he arrived, the door was unlocked and Mr. Higgins was lying in his bed located in the living room. After being there for several minutes, Mr. Woods came into the living room and asked if he needed anything. Mr. Nunn told him no and Mr. Woods walked toward the back of the house. Medically Mr. Higgins diagnoses are late stage Alzheimer's. He is bedbound, hard of hearing, and unable to communicate.

legal Aid. I recognized that my case was mislead by my ex husband for hate and punishment for originally filling divorce.

Since 1776, independent nation of the United States encountered countless of political, economical, as well as territorial obstacles. The Civil War in 1861 ranked highest among the numerous historical turns in America. Although, many debates and disputes foreshadowed this tragedy of internal split, the issue of slavery proved to be one of the major cause of the war. Despite the fact that the Kansas-Nebraska Act has already passed, the case of Dred Scott drifted the nation even further toward disunion. On March 6, 1857, this simple case turned into a complex political issue, arguing the rights of the black slaves. At the same time, Dred Scott case resulted in an unexpected decision over the territorial slavery issue in the United States.

William Marbury was one of the justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. Marbury’s nomination was part of the “midnight appointments” process. They had been nominated by President John Adams and affirmed by the “lame-duck” Senate however Secretary of State John Marshall failed to deliver four of the signed and sealed commissions. President Thomas Jefferson informed secretary of state, James Madison, to hide the commission from William Marbury so that Marbury and colleagues get dismantled of their positions. Therefore, Marbury issued a writ of mandamus as a petition to the Supreme Court to Madison enforcing the delivery of his commission. The case relied on upon the Court's power to issue a writ of mandamus to Secretary of State Madison

Between 1861 and 1865, the United States was in a dark period. Americans were fighting Americans, making it the deadliest war in US history. For many years before this war, tensions between the North and the South were elevating because no one wanted to compromise. Three main causes are the Dred Scott case, the Fugitive Slave Law, and the election of 1860, which divided America. As a result of the Civil War, the Congressional Reconstruction, 15th Amendment and postwar life reconstruction in the South occurred.

The first two experts that will be presented are the previous and current Secretary of the Veteran’s Administration. Eric Shinseki was recently replaced by Robert MacDonald. Both men in this distinguished position feel that the U.S government is providing effective care to our disabled military veterans. The third expert is Mike Coffman the U.S Representative for the 6th District of Colorado. He has had a long military career, while fighting on the front lines. Rep. Coffman does not feel that the VA has effectively handled the illnesses that have been acquired while overseas and would like to have a separate government agency oversee these issues.

• Section 29(1)(k) (“false or misleading representation concerning the place of origin of the goods”)

The primary proposition in this regard is that the Arbitrator’s award is final in fact and law . Court’s interference is only in exceptional cases . The Courts have always been careful in

There is no clear framework of the rules that would cover the contingencies of a ruling to pierce the corporate veil Idoport Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd. The corporate Veil usually protects owners and shareholders from being held liable for corporate duties. Yet again a decision made by the court to lift that veil and would place the liability on shareholders, owners, administrators, executives and officers of the company without ownership interest. The purpose of this essay is to conduct an analysis on the concept of lifting the corporate veil and to review the different views on its fairness and equitability to present a better understanding of the notion, the methods used was throughout researching the numerous scholars views on the subject, case law and statutes examples, and the evidence provided by the empirical study of Ramsay & Noakes. When we discuss the lifting the corporate veil the first case that pops out is the case of Salomon V A. Salomon & Co Ltd, since the decisions of applying the corporate veil were first formed as a consequence of this case. The idea covers all of company law and distinguishes that a company is a separate legal entity from its members and directors. Furthermore, spencer (2012); have indicated that one of the core principles that followed the decision in Salomon v Salomon was the wide acceptance one man company’s. However In order to form a

It is significant to note that BP made a total loss of $3,324 million after deducting the cost incurred in that year from the total sales and operating revenues. The loss is largely attributed to the infamous Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill on the 20 April 2010. The incident was triggered by a well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, which ultimately led to an extensive oil spill. BP, however, responded quickly by funding the oil spill cleanup and setting up the Gulf Coast Restoration Organization (GCRO) that specializes in carrying oil spill cleanup operations, investigations and public reporting (BP p.l.c. 2012c). In the aftermath, BP has suffered considerably in financial performance. Figure 2.1 shows BP’s share price performance through the period of