Scientific-Atlanta also sold advertisement at a rate four to five times higher than normal rates. These abnormally increased rates caused inflation in Charter’s stock price. Stoneridge Investment Partners also claimed that Charter Communications wanted Scientific-Atlanta to purchase advertising on its networks just to enhance their revenue. Stoneridge Investment Partners sued both Charter and Scientific-Atlanta under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The claims against all other defendants other than Scientific-Atlanta were resolved.
The District Court had to decide whether or not Scientific-Atlanta was a primary violator of the relevant statutes. Procedures: The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the claims presented Stoneridge Investment Partners against Scientific-Atlanta, stating that they were “aiders and abettors” of the fraud as opposed to “primary violators. ” This concluded the District Court decision in favor of the defendant. In return, the plaintiff then appealed the case to be reviewed at the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Issues: Can a company be held liable for fraud when they engaged in transactions with a corporation in order to intentionally inflate that corporation’s financial statement, even though there were no public statements concerning those transactions, and they had no obligation to disclose? Holding: No Reasons: The District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri found that found that Scientific-Atlanta did not make any statements about action of financial statements, and Stoneridge Investment Partners did not rely on anything stated by these vendors.
The Term Paper on District Court Senate House Speaker
Approval of the Journal 1. The Speaker shall take the Chair on every legislative day precisely at the hour to which the House last adjourned and immediately call the House to order. Having examined and approved the Journal of the last day's proceedings, the Speaker shall announce to the House his approval thereof. The Speaker's approval of the Journal shall be deemed agreed to unless a Member, ...
Therefore, according to the court there is “no precedent for the conclusion that business partners, such as Scientific-Atlanta, made false and misleading statements by virtue of engaging in a business enterprise with a company such as Charter. ” The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with the decision of the District Court. The court stated that the vendor, Scientific-Atlanta, did not make a faulty statement or engage in a devious act.
This case then proceeded to the United States Supreme Court, where the issues and violations are under further review. The Supreme Court did however state, “That aiders and abettors of violations of section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act cannot be held liable under SEC Rule 10b-5. ” Currently the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari for this case. In regards to the Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut case Justice Thomas stated, “allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough…? With this statement Thomas is arguing that the City of New London shouldn’t have the right to take private property even if they claim it is being used for public purposes. If it is bad enough that the city can take property for public use than what is to stop them from taking away property for other uses. According to Thomas he found the statements “public use” or “public purpose” to be too broad of an argument. I disagree with Thomas because in order for a city to grow and redevelop these actions need to happen, whether property is being taken or not.
I understand the inconvenience of giving up your home, land, or property, but if the city is willing to accommodate you by paying for taking the land then it is understandable. The issue arises as to what falls under “public use”. Public use is a broad statement; however, any development that will potentially create more jobs and benefit the city undertakes this action. Thomas argued with other members of the committee, that any plan to forcibly transfer property from one private owner to another under eminent domain violates the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” standard.
The Essay on Nativity On Public Property
Composition Nativity on public property is becoming against the law. Nativity means a symbol of Jesus just after birth. That is why people like Jews, atheists and non-Christians are against of nativity. Nativity scenes became into an argument between non-Christians and Christians. On one hand, many people say that nativity should be allowed, but in the other hand, some people say that it should ...
I disagree with his argument, because when buildings such as hospitals, fire departments, or public schools are to be built the taking of private property should be constitutional because these places benefit the city. There are many instances where a city chooses to revitalize and expand certain areas of their city. If a city didn’t start new development, there are not many ways to grow, or ways to enable jobs and attractions. I find this action constitutional as long as those who lose their land and property to the city are being fairly compensated.
