United States V. O Hagan Case Summary

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

When assessing the economic damage to due to Paul Thayer and those that he tipped off about the acquisition of Campbell Taggart, it should be noted that some argue that this kind of insider trading circulates information and forces the stock to its “true value.” If we assume this argument to be flawed, then part of Anheuser-Busch stock dip after the announcement was due to the insider trading and the fact Anheuser-Busch probably paid more to acquire its target. Thayer and his friends trade the Campbell stock for nearly a month before any public announcement of the merger. On July 27 nearly half the volume was insider volume controlled by those individuals who were in violation of rule 14(e)-3 (See exhibit 2). The increased volume might

The case involving Perin v. Hayne seeks to determine if the defendant Dr. Robert Hayne, was in any way negligent when he performed a surgical procedure on the plaintiff Ilene Perin, described as a cervical fusion. This particular procedure sought to alleviate pressure, numbness, weakness and pain in the plaintiff’s back. As a result of this procedure, the plaintiff was left with vocal cord damage that severely diminished her ability to speak above a whisper. This is supported by the reading, “but plaintiff alleged she suffered paralysis of a vocal cord because of injury to the right recurrent laryngeal nerve during surgery” (Showalter, 2017, pg.171). The plaintiff, Ilene Perin, filed suit against the defendant Dr. Hayne, under the guise of res ipsa loquitur, specific negligence, battery and or trespass and breach of express warranty. Applicable law and evidence must be applied in this case to determine if there was a considerable difference between the consented surgical procedure and the surgery that was actually done.

The Security and Exchange Commission is the organization who monitors fraudulent transactions and insider trading. Some experts in ethical behavior consider inside trading the most dramatic form of utilitarian ethics.

Insiders have immediate access to huge amounts of valuable company information and can misuse their privileges or imitate someone else with higher privileges to plant a virus, copy information, or to infect research data. The main idea for insiders to sell out to a competition are: lack of loyalty, disgruntled, boredom, mischievousness, blackmail, and very important, money.

The Perin v. Hayne case involves malpractice in which the plaintiff, Perin sought damages on four theories specific negligence, res ipsa loquitur, breach of express warranty and battery. The surgery was successful at eliminating pain, however as a result the plaintiff suffered vocal cord paralysis. I believe that due care was shown because Dr. Hayne, the defendant, performed the surgery exactly the same way any other physician would under the same condition. Also, informed consent was exercised and there was no way to predict or prevent such occurrence. Dr. Hayne followed the standard of care and did not sway from it. There is no negligence because there was no evidence that the nerve was severed during surgery. The court found that

SEC alleged that Mark Cuban violated misappropriate insider trading. To be qualified as misappropriate insider trading, an individual wrongfully obtains (misappropriates) inside information and trades on it for her or his personal benefit. In this case, Cuban actually traded his shares based on the material inside information he was told and saved him $750,000 in losses. Wrongful misappropriation means violation of a fiduciary duty.

In the 2001 trial of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s case of Landrigan vs. Stewart was a great example of how behavioral genetics can have both a negative and positive effects on criminal cases Landrigan had filed a petition because he claimed he did not have an effective counsel during the penalty phase of his capital case (Farahany, Beret).. After four years of being sentenced he said he would have been cooperative if his attorney tried to offer evidence, that his biological background ‘made’ him a criminal. Even with his effort to chance his sentence the Ninth Circuit was unmoved. His background showed the court room his genetics will make him still violent in the future, because he cannot change his genetic

A medical malpractice case was filed by Mr. William M. Odom and Mrs. Ramona R. Odom in 1994 against the State of Louisiana through the Department of Health and Hospitals. They lost their fourteen year old adopted son named Joseph Paul Odom (Jojo), who died of hypoxia at the Pinecrest Development Center in Louisiana, due to nursing negligence, on August 19, 1994.

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

Freedom of assembly defines the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. In the case of “De Jonge v. Oregon,” the Court protected freedom of assembly from state actions and rather referred to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Dirk De Jonge was a member of the Communist Party. De Jonge protested against “police brutality.” Oregon charged De Jonge as wanting to cause civil unrest. However, in the end, the case made it to the Supreme Court who stated the following, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). “The Court said this means that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Another freedom of assembly case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network involved pro-life protestors who surrounded abortion clinics. The Pro-Choice Network complained that pro-life protestors were hassling their clients outside their clinics (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). This case was about the assembly rights of citizens who wanted to protest abortion, which was their First Amendment right (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). The Supreme Court struck down the “floating buffer zone” due to safety concerns, yet upheld that pro-life protesters can still pass out leaflets and make statements from the approved buffer zone (“Schenck

Insider trading – insider trading is the trading of a corporation’s stock or other securities by individuals with potential access to non-public information about the

Insider dealing has been affecting the efficiency of stock markets in different places like United States, United Kingdom and Australia. Hong Kong is of no exception. Basically, insider dealing refers to the trading of a corporation’s stock or other securities by individual with potential access to non-public information of the company. The law of insider dealing in Hong Kong provides a much more detailed definition and is very comprehensive. However, when it comes to enforcement, it seems not very effective. In the following, the law of insider dealing in Hong Kong will be summarized. After analyzing the comprehensiveness of the law, the underlying reasons of the difficulty in enforcement will be identified. Some

For example, Manna (1966) states that insider trading should be allowed because insider trading is the most effective way to compensate to insider to generate new economic information in firm. Hirshleifer() states that for insider, good information is as good as bad information to make profit but this profit may not be related to economic contribution of insiders in corporate. Proponents of insider trading suggest (Carlton and Fischel (1983) that insiders are the most informative member in the market, and by trading, they bring new information to the markets and causing prices to change toward their true value and, therefore, promoting the optimal allocation of resources. On the other hand, Scholars (Benabou and Laroqu, 1992) say that insider trading may provide incentive to corporate insiders either to delay the announcement of price-sensitive information to public or to prevent to release price sensitive information, which in turn makes stock prices less informative. However, Georgakopoulos (1993) argues that restriction on insider trading may have little adverse impact on market efficiency but it reduces the cost of transaction that burdens on uninformed traders

Corporate directors and officers often obtain advance inside information because of their positions. Sometimes the information can affect the future market value of the corporate stock. It is obvious that their positions can give them a trading advantage over the general public and shareholders. Often times the insider is the company manager; other times it is the company's lawyer, investment banker, or even the printer of the company's financial statement. Anyone who has knowledge before public dissemination of that information stands to benefit from good news or bad news.