Skip to main content

Bartleby Sitemap - Textbook Solutions

All Textbook Solutions for The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)

1BS 2BS 3BCP 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 9BCP 1CT 2CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BCP 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 9BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BCP 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 9BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 4CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BCP 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 4CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BCP 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 9BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 4CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BCP 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 4CT Assume that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a rule that it will enforce statutory provisions prohibiting insider trading only when the insiders make monetary profits for themselves. Then the SEC makes a new rule, declaring that it will now bring enforcement actions against individuals for insider trading even if the individuals did not personally profit from the transactions. In making the new rule, the SEC does not conduct a rulemaking procedure but simply announces its decision. A stockbrokerage firm objects that the new rule was unlawfully developed without opportunity for public comment. The brokerage firm challenges the rule in an action that ultimately is reviewed by a federal appellate court. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions. Is the SEC an executive agency or an independent regulatory agency? Does it matter to the outcome of this dispute? Explain.Assume that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a rule that it will enforce statutory provisions prohibiting insider trading only when the insiders make monetary profits for themselves. Then the SEC makes a new rule, declaring that it will now bring enforcement actions against individuals for insider trading even if the individuals did not personally profit from the transactions. In making the new rule, the SEC does not conduct a rulemaking procedure but simply announces its decision. A stockbrokerage firm objects that the new rule was unlawfully developed without opportunity for public comment. The brokerage firm challenges the rule in an action that ultimately is reviewed by a federal appellate court. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions. Suppose that the SEC asserts that it has always had the statutory authority to pursue persons for insider trading regardless of whether they personally profited from the transactions. This is the only argument the SEC makes to justify changing its enforcement rules. Would a court be likely to find that the SEC’s action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Why or why not?Assume that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a rule that it will enforce statutory provisions prohibiting insider trading only when the insiders make monetary profits for themselves. Then the SEC makes a new rule, declaring that it will now bring enforcement actions against individuals for insider trading even if the individuals did not personally profit from the transactions. In making the new rule, the SEC does not conduct a rulemaking procedure but simply announces its decision. A stockbrokerage firm objects that the new rule was unlawfully developed without opportunity for public comment. The brokerage firm challenges the rule in an action that ultimately is reviewed by a federal appellate court. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions. Would a court be likely to give Chevron deference to the SEC’s interpretation of the law on insider trading? Why or why not?4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS Informal Rulemaking. Assume that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), using proper procedures, adopts a rule describing its future investigations. This new rule covers all future circumstances in which the FDA wants to regulate food additives. Under the new rule, the FDA is not to regulate food additives without giving food companies an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Later, the FDA wants to regulate methylisocyanate, a food additive. The FDA undertakes an informal rulemaking procedure, without cross-examination, and regulates methylisocyanate. Producers protest, saying that the FDA promised them the opportunity for cross-examination. The FDA responds that the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such cross-examination and that it is free to withdraw the promise made in its new rule. If the producers challenge the FDA in court, on what basis would the court rule in their favor? Explain. (See The Administrative Process.) Rulemaking. The Investment Company Act prohibits a mutual fund from engaging in certain transactions when there may be a conflict of interest between the manager of the fund and its shareholders. Under rules issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), however, a fund that meets certain conditions may engage in an otherwise prohibited transaction. In June 2004, the SEC added two new conditions. A year later, the SEC reconsidered the new conditions in terms of the costs that they would impose on the funds. Within eight days, and without asking for public input, the SEC readopted the conditions. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States asked a federal appellate court to review the new rules. The Chamber argued that in readopting the rules, the SEC relied on materials not in the “rulemaking record” without providing an opportunity for public comment. The SEC countered that the information was otherwise “publicly available.” In adopting a rule, should an agency consider information that is not part of the rulemaking record? Why or why not? [Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 443 F.3d 890 (D.C.Cir.2006)] (See We Administrative Process.)4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 9BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 4CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BCP 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 4CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BCP Superfund. A by-product of phosphate fertilizer production is pyrite waste, which contains arsenic and lead. From to , seven phosphate fertilizer plants operated on a forty-three-acre site in Charleston, South Carolina. Planters Fertilizer & Phosphate Co. bought the site in 1906 and continued to make fertilizer. In , Planters sold the site to Columbia Nitrogen Corp. (CNC), which also operated the fertilizer plants. In, CNC sold the site to James Holcombe and J. Henry Fair. Holcombe and Fair subdivided and sold the site to All waste Tank Cleaning Inc., Robin Hood Container Express, the city of Charleston, and Ashley II of Charleston, Inc. Ashley spent almost cleaning up the contaminated soil. Who can be held liable for the cost? Why? [PCS Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston LLC, (4th Cir.2013)] (See Toxic Chemicals and Hazardous Waste.) 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BS 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 9BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 4CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BCP 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 9BCP 1CT 2CT 3CT 4CT 5CT 1RE 2RE 3RE 4RE 1IS 2IS 1BS 2BS 3BS 4BCP 5BCP 6BCP 7BCP 8BCP 9BCP 1CT 2CT

Page: [1][2]