Smith and Roberson's Business Law
16th Edition
ISBN: 9781285428253
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 3, Problem 11CP
Summary Introduction
Given situation:
Person KT brought suit against his former employer of Company K and two of its employees named Person BP and JJ, regarding the dispute of commission on sale of securities.
Person KT had filled out a form containing the clause of arbitration. He refused to arbitrage, replying on Section 229 of State C Labour code, which provides that “without regard to the existence of any private arbitration agreement,” actions for collecting wages may be maintained.
Both KT and BP had filed a petition in a State C labour court to compel arbitration under section 2 of federal Arbitration act.
To discuss: Whether the petition of Person BP and Person JJ is granted.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Kenneth Thomas brought suit against his former employer, Kidder, Peabody & Company, and two of its employees, Barclay Perry and James Johnston, in a dispute over commissions on sales of securities. When he applied to work at Kidder, Peabody & Company, Thomas had filled out a form, which contained an arbitration agreement clause. Thomas had also registered with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Rule 347 of the NYSE provides that any controversy between a registered representative and a member company shall be settled by arbitration. Kidder, Peabody & Company is a member of the NYSE. Thomas refused to arbitrate, relying on Section 229 of the California Labor Code, which provides that actions for the collection of wages may be maintained “without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate.” Perry and Johnston filed a petition in a California State court to compel arbitration under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Should the petition of Perry and…
Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives. Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney. Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the companyfunded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?
Parker and Phillips incorporated P & P Resorts Inc., a closely held Texas corporation. Parker was president and Phillips served as vice president and director for operations. Parker owned 40% of the stock, while Phillips owned 60%. Both men met with CTA, a group of travel agents from California to discuss special deals for booking groups into the resorts. After the first meeting, all contracts with CTA were made by Phillips, who learned that there was a good chance that CTA would award the contract to P&P Resorts. Phillips incorporated Travel Brokers and was its sole owner. Phillips used P& P Resort’s time to work on proposals for Travel Brokers and managed to keep negotiations with CTA a secret from Parker. When Parker discovered Phillip’s actions, he filed suit against him for wrongfully taking a corporate opportunity from P &P Resorts. Phillips claimed that he did not take a corporate opportunity because Travel Brokers did not have the financial ability to…
Chapter 3 Solutions
Smith and Roberson's Business Law
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Muller, a shareholder of SCM, brought an action against SCM over his unsuccessful negotiations to purchase some of SCM’s assets overseas. He then formed a shareholder committee to challenge the position of SCM’s management in that suit. To conduct a proxy battle for management control at the next election of directors, the committee sought to obtain the list of shareholders who would be eligible to vote. At the time, however, no member of the committee had owned stock in SCM for the six-month period required to gain access to such information. Then Lopez, a former SCM executive and a shareholder for more than one year, joined the committee and demanded to be allowed to inspect the minutes of SCM shareholder proceedings and to gain access to the current shareholder list. His stated reason for making the demand was to solicit proxies in support of those the committee had nominated for positions as directors. Lopez brought this action after SCM rejected this demand. Will Lopez succeed?arrow_forwardThe pre-emptive rights of stockholders in a corporation are not statutory rights, but are ____________ and exist even when no specific grant or recognition of such right is provided for in statutory law. inherent rights common law rights provided by the Corporation Code implied rights A share held by a third person to be released only upon the performance of a condition or the happening of a certain event contained in the agreement. Common share Preferred share Escrow share Treasury share One of the attributes of a corporation is that it is an artificial being with a separate personality. As a result of this attribute, the corporation: is not liable for torts committed by its officer or agent. is liable for torts committed by its officer or agent. is liable for torts by its stockholders. is liable for torts committed by its stockholders and officers or agents. The “Grandfather Rule” in Corporation law means that: corporate stockholdings would be traced from the nationality of the…arrow_forwardSmith, a shareholder, filed suit against the board of directors of a corporation in which he had owned stock. Smith claimed that he and other shareholders had not received top dollar for their shares when their corporation had merged with another. Consequently, they sought either a reversal of the merger or payment from the directors to make up for their losses. The directors, Smith argued, had violated their duty of due care because they based their decision on a 20-minute speech by the CEO. Also, the directors had not even looked at the merger documents, let alone studied them. Furthermore, the directors had not sought any independent evaluation by outside experts. For their part, the directors argued that because their decision was made in good faith and was legal, they were protected by the business judgment rule. Were the directors correct?arrow_forward
- Musab who is appointed as liquidator of the company had acted beyond his scope of authority as claimed by third parties. Which one of the following is IRRELEVANT to this situation? Liable to apologize to the third parties Liable to the partners of the company Liable to the Auditors of the company All of the given optionsarrow_forwardDiscuss ...How does the company law protect the rights and interests of the persons who enter into business transactions with a company?arrow_forwardIn Corporation Law, the application of the principle of “Centralized Management” has brought about the jurisprudential doctrine of --- Theory of Concession Business Judgment Rule Doctrine of Limited Liability. Ultra Vires Doctrine. SEC Opinion No. 04-43, dated 26 October 2004, held that a temporary or permanent cessation of operations of a corporation which does not involve the shortening of corporate term or a formal dissolution of the corporation, may be pursued by the Board of Directors only with ratification by stockholders owning or representing at least two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock, although not particularly governed by the Corporation Code, is in recognition, and implementation, of the --- Theory of Concession. Theory of Delegated Power Theory of Business Enterprise Doctrine of Strong Juridical Personality Whereas, a decrease of the authorized capital stock will not be approved by the SEC if the effect is to prejudice the rights of the creditors, and…arrow_forward
- Spence was a promoter in the incorporation of a new business. The new corporation had not yet been formed when he bought Huffman’s employment agency to serve as the nucleus of that corporation. Eventually, the corporation was formed, but it never generated enough cash to pay Huffman for the employment agency. Huffman sued Spence, attempting to hold him personally liable for the amount due. Spence claimed that the corporation was liable and that his personal assets were not a proper target of the suit. Was Spence correct? Explain.arrow_forwardA proxy is a representative of a (shareholder, officer, director) who is liable to (vote, sell shares, buy shares) on the shareholder's behalf at a shareholder meeting. Proxy agreements are generally valid for (eleven months, twelve months, thirteen months). At the time of the shareholder meeting, Francescas's proxy agreement was (fourteen months, thirteen months, twelve months) old. Therefore, Francesca's proxy agreement with her representative (expired, did not expire), and her representative (may not, may) vote on Franscesca's behalf. What if the Facts were Different Assume that Brenda purchased Mike's 100 shares of stock and Fransesca signed a new proxy agreement on May 15, 2020. Brenda's purchase of stock on May 15, 2020, is (after, before) the record date. On the record date, (Mike, Brenda) is the owner of the 100 shares and (may not, may) vote based on ownership of the 100 shares at the shareholder meeting. If Francesca signed a proxy agreement on May 15, 2020, it is (more…arrow_forwardZenith Steel Company operates a prosperous business. In January, Zenith’s chief executive officer (CEO) and president, Roe, who is also a member of the board, was voted a $1 million bonus by the board of directors for the valuable services he provided to the company during the previous year. Roe receives an annual salary of $850,000 from the company. Black, Inc., a minority shareholder in Zenith Steel Company, brings an appropriate action to enjoin the company from paying the $1 million bonus. Explain whether Black will succeed in its attempt.arrow_forward
- Sayre learned that Adams, Boone, and Chase were planning to form a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing a line of novelties to wholesale outlets. Sayre had patented a self-locking gas tank cap but lacked the financial backing to market it profitably. He negotiated with Adams, Boone, and Chase, who agreed to purchase the patent rights for $5,000 in cash and two hundred shares of $100 par value preferred stock in a corporation to be formed. The corporation was formed and Sayre’s stock issued to him, but the corporation has refused to make the cash payment. It has also refused to declare dividends, although the business has been very profitable because of Sayre’s patent and has a substantial earned surplus with a large cash balance on hand. It is selling the remainder of the originally authorized issue of preferred shares, ignoring Sayre’s demand to purchase a proportionate number of these shares. What are Sayre’s rights, if any?arrow_forwardPritchard & Baird was a reinsurance broker. A reinsurance broker arranges contracts between insurance companies so that companies that have sold large policies may sell participations in these policies to other companies in order to share the risks. Charles Pritchard, who died in December 2011, controlled Pritchard & Baird for many years. Prior to his death, he brought his two sons, Charles Jr. and William, into the business. The pair assumed an increas ingly dominant role in the affairs of the business during the elder Charles’s later years. Starting in 2008, Charles Jr. and William began to withdraw from the corporate account ever-increasing sums that were designated as “loans” on the balance sheet. These “loans,” however, represented a significant misappropriation of funds belonging to the corporation’s clients. By late 2013, Charles Jr. and William had plunged the corporation into hopeless bankruptcy. A total of $12,333,514.47 in “loans” had accumulated by October of that…arrow_forwardTri R Angus, a closely held corporation, was owned 80 percent by Jon and Frances Neiman, who were also directors of Tri R Angus. Troy Neiman and Carol Lewis owned 12 percent of Tri R Angus’s shares. Troy and Carol asked a court to remove Jon and Frances as directors of the corporation on the grounds that they authorized Tri R Angus to distribute its assets in violation of state law, inappropriately mortgaged or sold corporate assets, misused corporate earnings, and wasted corporate assets. Jon and Frances denied the allegations. At trial, Troy and Carol entered as evidence pleadings from other actions against Jon and Frances and introduced no objective evidence of current conduct by Jon or Frances. What standard of misconduct did the court require Troy and Carol to prove in order to remove Jon and Frances? Did the court find they had proved their case?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...ManagementISBN:9781305947412Author:Cliff RagsdalePublisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...ManagementISBN:9780135191798Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. LaudonPublisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134237473Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De CenzoPublisher:PEARSON
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134527604
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...
Management
ISBN:9781305947412
Author:Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...
Management
ISBN:9780135191798
Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...
Management
ISBN:9780134728391
Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134237473
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:PEARSON