Skip to main content

Posts

Week 7: Blog #3

Insider Trading What is insider trading? According to our text, insider trading is the sharing of inside information by directors or officers to buy or sell securities at a profit. This inside information can be material, nonpublic, or factual data that only they have access. While people who work at a company can buy and sell their own stock, unless they report it to the SEC and do not violate any fiduciary duties owed the actions they take are considered illegal (Sukys, 2019).  There has been a lot of controversy on whether or not insider trading should be considered illegal or not. Most people are on the side of legalizing it. Personally, I do not believe it is a strictly black and white topic - with each situation comes different specific details that can change or effect the outcome of the action.  In the defense of legalizing insider trading, one of the biggest proponents is because there is no victim in the crime. While it may be an uneven playing field, ther...
Recent posts

Week 5: Blog #2

Fiduciary --- The Heart Of Agency Law Fiduciary relationships and agency law go hand in hand - without agency law there are no fiduciary relationships. We know from our text that agency law is a relationship between an agent (a person authorized to act on the behalf of another and subject to the other's control in dealing with third parties) and a principal (a person who authorizes an agent to act on her or his behalf and subject to her and his control). A key point to remember though is that all agency relationships are fiduciary relationships but not all fiduciary relationships are agency relationships (Sukys, 2019).  As an agent, there are duties that they must uphold to their principal. These duties include care, loyalty, good faith, confidentiality, prudence, and disclosure (Cornell Law, n.d.). I have had many fiduciary relationships where I have been the agent at times and the principal at times.  For work, because of my position, I am the agent for my company when ...

Week 3: Blog #1

ABLE DEMOLITION, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of PONTIAC, Defendant-Appellee On July 1, 2004, ABLE Demolition entered a contract with the City of PONTIAC for the demolition of certain abandoned homes. According to this contract, it was necessary for ABLE Demolition to obtain proper approvals and have a "Letter to Proceed" before the demolition of any house in order to receive payment for their services. Later o n May 17, 2007 the Court of Appeals in Michigan affirmed the trial courts ruling that the City of Pontiac was not liable for payment of $42,299 to ABLE Demolition for the demolition of 11 homes   ( ABLE DEMOLITION, Inc., v. City of PONTIAC, 2007). Per the contract, it explicitly stated that if prior approval with proof of a "Letter to Proceed" was not obtained then work performed would be unauthorized and ABLE Demolition would therefore forfeit any payment for work completed.  Sukys states in our readings that a written contract needs to be as clear ...