Prior to beginning work on this discussion,
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
· Browse the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Laws & Regulations web page (Links to an external site.) .
· Review Chapter 4 of the course textbook.
Suppose a manufacturing facility emits into the air a chemical that it has reason to believe is inadequately regulated by the EPA and that poses a significant threat to nearby residents even at levels lower than permitted by the EPA. As manager of the facility, would you be satisfied to meet the EPA required level or would you install the additional controls you believe necessary to achieve a reasonably safe level? Keep in mind that installing these controls would be expensive and you can anticipate resistance from corporate executives as well as shareholders. Explain why or why not. Support your answer with one or more of the ethical theories from Chapter 4 of the course textbook. Your initial response should be a minimum of 200 words.
Prior to beginning work on this discussion,
· Review the Insider Trading (Links to an external site.) video.
· Review the summary of United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014) in Chapter 45 of the course textbook.
· Review Chapter 45 of the course textbook.
Assume Ken Hastings (cookout host) and Tim Daniels (Ken’s tennis partner) both bought stock in New World Industries as soon as the market opened on Monday and all profited 30% after the press announcement by Mrs. Chen. Pursuant to their agreement, Tim Daniels paid Ken Hasting 5% of the profit he made on the transaction.
· With regard to Judith Chen, Steve Chen, Ken Hastings and Tim Daniels, which of these parties could be considered an “insider” under rule 10(b)(5) of the Securities Act of 1934? Explain why or why not.
· Which of these parties could have tipper or tippee liability in this case?
· Did Judith Chen’s actions in telling her husband about the settlement breach her fiduciary duty?
· Who actually obtained a personal benefit from the tip and how?
Your initial response should be a minimum of 200 words.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 1 NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED USING THE IRAC RULE JUST LIKE BELOW: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU NEED TO RESPOND. YOU HAVE TO STATE THE ISSUE; RULE; APPLICATION, AND CONCLUSION
Issue: Jones, City Attorney for the town of Smithsville, filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper, the Town Crier, because the writer referred to Jones as “the political hatchet man” and “one of the biggest powers behind the throne in local government.” The writer asserted that Jones is leading the town to “destruction.”
Rule: There are two forms of defamation: libel and slander (Langvardt, et al., 2019). Libel is a written or printed form of defamation which could cause assumed damages such as emotional distress, and slander is an accusation or statement, often verbal and considered less damaging depending on the severity. There are four elements of defamation: 1) unprivileged, 2) publication of 3) false and defamatory and 4) statements concerning another (Langvardt, et al., 2019).
Analysis: Defamation involves “publication, without any justification, of a derogatory and/or false statement regarding another individual or party,” (Ronquillo, 2020). The plantiff would need to prove that the comments caused damages to reputation and livelihood and therefore requires compensation. In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that a public figure must show the false, defaming statements were said with actual malice (Defamation Legal Information Institute, 2021). Jones is considered a public figure since he holds public office, and needs to provide evidence that there was malice. Considering the statements made, that Jones is “the political hatchet man” and “one of the biggest powers behind the throne in local government,” while these are strongly worded they are also of an opinion and not fact.
Conclusion: Jones will likely not win this case because the comments in the newspaper were opinion and there is little evidence to prove that they were malicious, which is how the newspaper would construct their defense. Had the writer specified how Jones was “leading the town to destruction” say, misappropriation of funds, abuse of power, then the plaintiff would have a case.