Discussion Board Forum 6 - Due 3-28-12

Discussion Board Forum 6 - Due 3-28-12 - Instructions:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Instructions: Prepare a 600 word essay in APA format addressing the questions in red, with scholarly sources incorporated. This assignment is due NLT March 7, 2012. (Note: Each Question is a new paragraph written in APA format) Assignment: Turn to page 933 in your textbook and read Case Problem 8. The case ER MedSystems v. EchoCath (2000) may be relevant to your analysis. Chrisman’s (2001) article may also be helpful to you. Use LexisNexis Academic to retrieve the case and the article. Read the below case and article. Answer the questions in red in your essay. Be sure to follow all instructions given for Discussion Boards in making your answer, and thoroughly answer each question. Further, you should either use the words “Liable” or “Not Liable” in the subject line of your discussion board thread, depending on your conclusion.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Question: 1. What are the results of the case? 2. Do you agree with the results? 3. Who is the primary violator under Rule 10b-5? References Chrisman, R. D. (2001). “Bright line,” “substantial participation,” or something else: Who is a primary violator under Rule 10b-5? Kentucky Law Journal, 89, 201-225. ER MedSystems v. EchoCath, Inc. 235 F.3d 865 (3d Cir. 200)
Background image of page 2
No. 98-6461. - EP MEDSYSTEMS INC v. ECHOCATH INC - US 3rd Circuit http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1120670.html[3/1/2012 5:21:37 PM] View More » View More Latest Blog Posts You Want a BigLaw Job: Here are the Top Law Schools to Get You There Glaxo, Apotex Can Sell Generic Paxil, 3rd Circuit Rules Do Private Lawyers Hired by Gov't Get Immunity? iPhone User Awarded $850 in ATT Throttling Case Ask an Expert: Build a Lawyer Website that Attracts More Clients FindLaw Career Center Attorney Corporate Counsel Academic Judicial Clerk Summer Associate Intern Law Librarian Paralegal Post a Job | View More Jobs United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. EP MEDSYSTEMS INC v. ECHOCATH INC EP MEDSYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. ECHOCATH, INC. No. 98-6461. Argued Dec. 6, 1999. -- December 26, 2000 Before SLOVITER, ROTH and COWEN, Circuit Judges. for Appellee. OPINION OF THE COURT EP MedSystems, Inc. appeals the dismissal with prejudice of its securities action against EchoCath, Inc. According to the complaint, the Chief Executive Officer of EchoCath enticed MedSystems into investing $1.4 million in EchoCath by assuring MedSystems that lengthy negotiations had already taken place with four prominent companies to market certain new EchoCath products and that contracts with these companies were “imminent.” Relying on cautionary language contained in several public documents filed by EchoCath with the Securities Exchange Commission, the District Court held that these representations, as well as other related representations, were immaterial as a matter of law under the “bespeaks caution” doctrine and the
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 16

Discussion Board Forum 6 - Due 3-28-12 - Instructions:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online