One case writeup, one discussion and two replies
- Your write-up should be 1 to 2 pages, single spaced, at standard type face (12 or 14 point).
- It should briefly (in very few sentences) lay out the basic facts of the case. These are usually generally agreed upon by the time it gets to final appeal stage; i.e., the Supreme Court of a Federal District court.
- What is much more important is the issue at law – the dispute about what the law means or how it should be interpreted.
- What was the majority of the court’s decision in the case, and – more importantly – what was the basic reasoning behind this decision?
- If you are asked to read a dissent in the case, what was the decision and reasoning in the minority?
- Do you agree or disagree with the court’s decision? Explain why.
This week we also have one case writeup which I am going to send you over now. And please include your references in the response. You can cite certain external references as well to support your argument.
This is this week’s discussion question:
Historic Financial Scam: Eddie Antar — Crazy Eddie
Please research the above historic financial scam that connects to our laws today, present your learning to your group, learn from group members’ posts, and have conversations with others. Each original discussion post should explain: (please include 2-3 external references)
- Who are the key players?
- What was the financial scam or scheme?
- What laws were violated? Or, if the scam is really old, what current laws would have been violated?
- What was the response to the scam of government regulators? Did it lead to any changes in the law?
I will send you over this week’s lectures as well.
I will send you the other two students’ post later once they post them. You can work on the case writeup and the original discussion post first 🙂
Answer previewGovernment regulations make sure that companies are engaged in fair practices to avoid harm to the customer and the public. For example, ICA or the Investment Company Act makes sure that investment companies can respect people’s rights by giving accurate information about securities (Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 2005). Sometimes a conflict of interest may appear between two parties. At this point, the court becomes part of the conflict resolution by applying legal processes and making sure that no party is acting against the law. In the case between Dura pharmaceuticals petitioners and Michael Broudo, the court was involved to assess the plaintiffs’ complaints against the Dura Company. After a series of no satisfaction, the case reached the Supreme Court, where the final ruling was made.
694 words
