Steps For the Discussion:
Please remember as we discussed in the zoom session, you are debating the DEBATE THIS prompt. You are going to write an 1 introductory paragraph stating your position then 3 supporting paragraphs, and lastly 1 conclusion paragraph (total of 5 paragraphs). Feel free to incorporate the fact pattern I gave you as an example to help prove your point. But you do not necessarily have to answer the questions posed. I want to see reasoned analysis and critical thinking. There is no right or wrong answer. Feel free to use the internet for all supporting resources, cases, journal, articles, etc… Make sure that you cite your sources.
1. Admin Law
Assume that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a rule under which it enforces statutory provisions prohibiting insider trading only when the insiders make monetary profits for themselves. Then the SEC makes a new rule, declaring that it has the statutory authority to bring enforcement actions against individuals even if they did not personally profit from the insider trading. The SEC simply announces the new rule without conducting a rulemaking proceeding. A stockbrokerage firm objects and says that the new rule was unlawfully developed without opportunity for public comment. The brokerage firm challenges the rule in an action that ultimately is reviewed by a federal appellate court. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
- Is the SEC an executive agency or an independent regulatory agency? Does it matter to the out-come of this dispute? Explain.
- Suppose that the SEC asserts that it has always had the statutory authority to pursue persons for insider trading regardless of whether they personally profited from the transaction. This is the only argument the SEC makes to justify changing its enforcement rules. Would a court be likely to find that the SECs action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Why or why not?
- Would a court be likely to give Chevron deference to the SECs interpretation of the law on insider trading? Why or why not?
- Now assume that a court finds that the new rule is merely interpretive. What effect would this determination have on whether the SEC had to follow the APAs rulemaking procedures?
Debate This:
Because an administrative law judge (ALJ) acts as both judge and jury, there should always be at least three ALJs in each administrative hearing.
Steps For the Discussion:
Please remember as we discussed in the zoom session, you are debating the DEBATE THIS prompt. You are going to write an 1 introductory paragraph stating your position then 3 supporting paragraphs, and lastly 1 conclusion paragraph (total of 5 paragraphs). Feel free to incorporate the fact pattern I gave you as an example to help prove your point. But you do not necessarily have to answer the questions posed. I want to see reasoned analysis and critical thinking. There is no right or wrong answer. Feel free to use the internet for all supporting resources, cases, journal, articles, etc… Make sure that you cite your sources.
2. Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Superior Wholesale Corporation planned to purchase Regal Furniture, Inc., and wished to deter-mine Regals net worth. Superior hired Lynette Shuebke, of the accounting firm Shuebke Delgado, to review an audit that had been prepared by Norman Chase, the accountant for Regal. Shuebke advised Superior that Chase had performed a high-quality audit and that Regals inventory on the audit dates was stated accurately on the general ledger. As a result of these representations, Superior went forward with its purchase of Regal.
After the purchase, Superior discovered that the audit by Chase had been materially inaccurate and misleading, primarily because the inventory had been grossly overstated on the balance sheet. Later, a former Regal employee who had begun working for Superior exposed an e-mail exchange between Chase and former Regal chief executive officer Buddy Gantry. The exchange revealed that Chase had cooperated in overstating the inventory and understating Regals tax liability. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
- If Shuebkes review was conducted in good faith and conformed to generally accepted accounting principles, could Superior hold Shuebke Delgado liable for negligently failing to detect material omissions in Chases audit? Why or why not?
- According to the rule adopted by the majority of courts to determine accountants liability to third parties, could Chase be liable to Superior? Explain.
- Generally, what requirements must be met before Superior can recover damages under Sec-tion 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5? Can Superior meet these requirements?
- Suppose that a court determined that Chase had aided Regal in willfully understating its tax liability. What is the maximum penalty that could be imposed on Chase?
Debate This:
Only the largest publicly held companies should be subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
