Case summary: Company TGS conducted an aerial geo-physical survey of eastern Canada for more than 15,000 square miles. There was a concentration of commercially exploited minerals which was indicated because of the operation. A hole was drilled by TGS to yield the core with an exceedingly high content of minerals. The result of the survey was not made public. The employees purchased the stock of TGS after knowing about the samples. The price of stock TGS rose, after the survey report was published in the newspaper. SEC filed a case against the organization’s employees for insider trading. The employees claimed that the information on the basis of which they traded is not a material.
To explain: The liability of company, if enough ore was not found after drilling of the area.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter 28 Solutions
MindTap Business Law, 1 term (6 months) Printed Access Card for Cross/Miller's The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases, 10th (MindTap Course List)
- In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., foreseeability was an issue. The question addressed by the court was: Group of answer choices Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that the scales would fall? Was it foreseeable to Ms. Palsgraf that her injury would have been caused by an explosion? Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff (Ms. Palsgraf) that someone in the train station would be carrying explosive fireworks? Was it foreseeable to the passenger carrying the fireworks that they might explode and injure someone?arrow_forwardHow did the court evaluate the Prewitt v Numismatic Funding Corporation case?arrow_forwardPlease do not give solution in image formate thanku. Please review the case titled Drake Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Polyflow, Inc. in the textbook and submit a written response summarizing what happened in the case (i.e., a summary of the facts). Be sure to include the following in your summary: Who are the parties in the case? The parties in this case are Defendant, Drake Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Plaintiff, Polyflow. Do you believe that Drake Manufacturing Company, Inc. was doing business in the state for the purpose of being required to qualify to do business?arrow_forward
- BUSINESS LAW 3 - David Ungar holds a Dunkin’ Donut's franchise. The terms of his franchise agreement require him to use only those ingredients furnished by Dunkin’ Donuts. He is also required to buy its napkins, cups, and so on, with the Dunkin’ Donut's trademark on them. Is this an illegal tying arrangement? What if Dunkin’ Donuts maintains that it needs these requirements to maintain its quality levels on a nationwide basis? [Ungar v. Dunkin’ Donuts of America, Inc., 429 U.S 5 - Hines Cosmetic Co. sold beauty preparations nationally to beauty shops at a standard or fixed- price schedule. Some of the shops were also supplied with a free demonstrator and free advertising materials. The shops that were not supplied with them claimed that giving the free services and materials constituted unlawful price discrimination. Hines replied that there was no price discrimination because it charged everyone the same. What it was giving free was merely a promotional campaign that was not…arrow_forwardThe Acme Electric Company worked day and night to develop a new current regulator designed to cut the electric power consumption in aluminum plants by 35%. They knew that, although the competition was fierce, their regulator could be produced more cheaply, was more reliable, and worked more efficiently than the competitors’ products. The owner, eager to capture the market, personally but somewhat hastily put together a 120-page proposal to the three major aluminum manufacturers, recommending that their regulators be installed at all company plants. She devoted the first 87 pages of the proposal to the mathematical theory and engineering design behind his new regulator, and the next 32 to descriptions of the new assembly line she planned to set up to produce regulators quickly. Buried in an appendix were the test results that compared her regulator’s performance with present models, and a poorly drawn graph showed how much the dollar savings would be. Acme Electric didn’t get the…arrow_forward19) The Elle Corporation manufactures fingernail polish. Suzy buys a container of Elle's fingernail polish, applies it to her nails, and suffers a severe allergic reaction. She sues Elle under the implied warranty of merchantability, The test for determining whether Suzy will recover is whether: A) the nail polish she bought was suitable for the needs of the average consumer. B) the nail polish she bought properly performed its function of coloring one's nails. C) such a reaction in an appreciable number of consumers was reasonably foreseeable. D) the ingredient causing the reaction was foreign to the nail polish or natural to it. nating one model, Bobby noticesarrow_forward
- The City of Dover needs land owned by the Smith family to expand Route 13/North DuPont Highway. The Smith family does not want to sell. Discuss what course of action the city can take and the legal and constitutional basis for this action. What, if anything, can the Smith family do in response?arrow_forwardA) Under what circumstances might a court have committed the cellophane fallacy? B) In the Google Shopping case, Google was found to have abused its dominant position under Art 102 TFEU. On what grounds did the courts find Google guilty?C) In the Microsoft case, Microsoft was found to have committed an offence under 102 TFEU. What was the offence, and why is it a problem for Microsoft and not for other competitors.D) Suppose a firm can produce for a marginal cost of 2 and receive a price of 4. What would the elasticity of demand for its product be?arrow_forwardDiscuss the competing interests at issue in antitrust cases where state-action immunity may be available to the defendant. Why does the United States have such a doctrine?arrow_forward
- You are President and CEO of Apex Business Systems, Inc. (Apex). Apex, through its purchasing agent, bought a new microwave from Inki Appliances Company (Inki) who sells microwaves on a daily basis. There was no written or oral warranty given when the sale was made. The microwave stopped working one week after it was placed it in the company kitchen. Assume also that nobody misused the microwave or in any way caused it to quit working. The purchasing agent returned the microwave three days after it quit working. The owner of Inki refused to repair or replace the microwave or offer a refund. Prepare a demand letter to be sent to Inki.arrow_forwardThe National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. §§ 4301-06, exempts certain joint research, development and production activities from the per se rule of antitrust liability, and from the automatic award of attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who successfully challenges such activities under the antitrust laws. For parties that notify the antitrust agencies of their intent to engage in such activities, it also requires “detrebling” – successful antitrust plaintiffs are entitled only to single damages. Do you support this legislation? Why or why not? Would you support extending these same protections to all competitive conduct that is subject to the US antitrust laws? Which categories of conduct would you include or exclude from such protection? Explain your reasoning.arrow_forwardPls helparrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education