Held Respondent did violate Section10b and Rule 10b 5 because all of the

Held respondent did violate section10b and rule 10b 5

  • Test Prep
  • kellmargs2
  • 43
  • 100% (2) 2 out of 2 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 29 - 31 out of 43 pages.

Held: Respondent did violate Section:10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because all of the element of the rule were met. Respondent did use deceit in connection with the purchase of securities. He did not disclose to the firm or the client that he was using the nonpublic information, and his use of it was at the expense of the client. He did not necessarily have to deceive the seller in order to violate the Rule. As a matter of public policy, it would not make sense to limit the scope of the Act to only prohibit certain kinds of activities that endanger a fair market. Rule 14e-3(a) did not exceed the SEC’s rule-making authority. Again, the purpose of the Act is to provide safeguards to ensure that the market is operating fairly and that investors can rely on the market. Rule 14e-3(a) does not require a demonstration
Image of page 29
of a breach of duty in order to find a party liable for violations of the Act. There will be instances where justice would deem this appropriate, such as in this case. Al-Dabagh v. Case Western Reserve University- {breached contract with a university, courts cannot determine academic rules} The district court ordered Case Western School of Medicine to award plaintiff a diploma, despite the university’s determination that he lacked the professionalism required to discharge his duties responsibly. The Sixth Circuit reversed . Lack-of-professionalism finding amounts to an academic judgment to which courts owe considerable deference. The Case Western curriculum identifies nine “core competencies.” First on the list is professionalism. The task of figuring out whether a student has mastered these professionalism requirements falls to the university’s Committee on Students. Although plaintiff did well academically, as exhibited by recommendation letters praising his “academic excellence” in 2011 and 2013, published several articles, and won a special award for “Honors with Distinction in Research,” he received a stinging evaluation about his performance in an internal medicine internship. There were several complaints about his dishonesty, aggressive behavior, lack of preparation, tardiness, poor hygiene, and a DUI conviction. He refused an offer to repeat his internship in order to graduate. Precision Concepts Corp. v. General Employment & Triad Personnel Services ( unilateral contract) Precision didn't pay General Employment for helping them find a new employee; Precision sued (said no contract was there), General Employment counter sued and won unilateral contract formed according to court have to show there was offer, acceptance, consideration just because appellant didn't want to pay the fee, doesn't mean he wasn't obligated to (it was a condition of hiring the employee) Carol v. Lee (implied contract) Couple lived together but not married; bought land together but paid for by man; woman“kept the house”; parted ways and had dispute over property ownership Trial court and state supreme court ruled that woman had partial ownership
Image of page 30
Image of page 31

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 43 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Baker

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes