BA621-L9A3 - February 1 2010 BA621 Business Law Lesson#9...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
February 1, 2010 – May 21, 2010 BA621 Business Law Lesson #9 Assignment #3 Case 22-3 Summary: Barbara Schreiber v. Burlington Northern, Inc. In this landmark case (pages 671-672), the United States Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the Williams Act. The Court was concerned with the correct interpretation of the word "manipulative," which is the basis for causes of action brought under Section 14(e). In this case, defendant Burlington Northern, Inc. won a case after the United States Supreme Court ruled that the company’s behavior was not manipulative. The company had rescinded a tender offer and shareholders suffered. The shareholders lost. Answer the following questions (from page 672 of your text) to explore the influence of legislative ambiguities. 1) What legislative ambiguity was the Court dealing with in Case 22-3? Clue: The meaning of this term is the central issue of the case. The term “manipulative”, which the court says requires “misrepresentation or nondisclosure.”
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Spring '10
  • Weinstein
  • Supreme Court of the United States, United States Supreme Court, united states supreme, states supreme court, primary ethical norm

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online