Welcome to EssayHotline!

We take care of your tight deadline essay for you! Place your order today and enjoy convenience.

May the shareholders now add Midtex as a party defendant to their suit? Why or why not?

ASSIGNMENT

1.Neese, trustee in bankruptcy for First Trust Company, brings a suit against the directors of the company for losses the company sustained as a result of the directors’ failure to use due care and diligence in the discharge of their duties. The specific acts of negligence alleged are

(a) failure to give as much time and attention to the affairs of the company as its business interests required;

(b) abdication of their control of the corporation by turning its management entirely over to its president, Brown;

(c) failure to keep informed as to the affairs, condition, and management of the corporation;

(d) failure to take action to direct or control the corporation’s affairs;

(e) permission of large, open, unsecured loans to affiliated but financially unsound companies that were owned and controlled by Brown;

(f) failure to examine financial reports that would have shown illegal diversions and waste of the corpora-tion’s funds; and (g) failure to supervise properly the corporation’s officers and directors. Which, if any, of these allegations can constitute a breach of the duty of diligence?

2. Minority shareholders of Midwest Technical Institute Development Corporation, a closed-end investment company owning assets consisting principally of securities of companies in technological fields, brought a shareholder derivative suit against officers and directors of Midwest, seeking to recover on Midwest’s behalf prof- its that the officers and directors realized through dealings in stock held in Midwest’s portfolio in breach of their fiduciary duty. Approximately three years after commencement of the action, a new corporation, Midtex, was organized to acquire Midwest’s assets. May the shareholders now add Midtex as a party defendant to their suit? Why or why not?

3. Riffe, while serving as an officer of Wilshire Oil Company, received a secret commission for work he did on behalf of a competing corporation. Can Wilshire Oil recover these secret profits and, in addition, recover the compensation paid to Riffe by Wilshire Oil during the period that he acted on behalf of the competitor? Explain.

4. 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 share- holder 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? Explain.

15. Pritchard & 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 2014, 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 increasingly dominant role in the affairs of the business during the elder Charles’s later years. Starting in 2011, 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 2016, 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 year. Mrs. Lillian Pritchard, the widow of the elder Charles, was a member of the corporation’s board of directors until her resignation on December 3, 2016, the day before the corporation filed for bankruptcy. Francis, as trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding, brought suit against United Jersey Bank, the administrator of the estate of Charles Sr. He also charged that Lillian Pritchard, as a director of the corporation, was personally liable for the misappropriated funds on the basis of negligence in discharging her duties as director. Is Francis correct? Why or why not?

© 2024 EssayHotline.com. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer: for assistance purposes only. These custom papers should be used with proper reference.