Your write-up should be 1.25 to 2 pages (2.5 pages double spaced), 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 theissue 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 basicreasoning 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.
I will send you over this week’s materials shortly.
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:
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?
Just like last week, we still need to go deeper into each of the 4 discussion questions with adequate support.
Answer preview
Milken finally ended up in jail after being convicted of financial crimes. His case got presented in court by SEC, where the following laws helped to make a decision. The first one is rule 10(b)-5, which prohibits investors from using a deceptive device to make sales or purchases of securities (Horwich, 2016). Hence, by aiding and abetting the filing of false reports, Milken acted against rule 10(b)-5. The second rule is 17(a), which prohibits the use of deceitful information to make purchasers buy securities. Based on the above scams, Milken deceived investors to buy stocks by promising them that he would buy the stock back. Since he did this to benefit and exploit others, he never observed rule 17(a).
What was the response to the scam of government regulators? Did it lead to any changes in the law?
