Jones works at an investment firm that helps corporations merge ...

[misspop]

Jones works at an investment firm that helps corporations merge with other companies. Because of her work, she knows that two clients of her firm are going to merge. She also knows that when the announcement is made, the price of stock in these companies will jump. She buys stock in the companies before the announcement. She is:
 a. probably guilty of insider trading
  b. not guilty of insider trading under the Dirks case because she is outside of the companies
  c. not guilty of insider trading under the Chiarella case because she owes no fiduciary duty to the companies d. probably not guilty of insider trading because, under SEC Rule 10b-5, one must be a director or manager ofthe firms in question for the law to apply
 e. none of the other choices

Question 2

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
  Russell's weight varied between 280 and 305 pounds while she was enrolled in a nursing program at Salve Regina College in Newport, Rhode Island. Her weight was never an issue until her sophomore year, at which time she began to be the target of cruel remarks by school officials. In her junior year, she received a failing grade in a clinical nursing coursenot on the basis of her performance but simply because she was obese. The normal consequence of failing a clinical nursing course was expulsion from the college, but Russell was offered a deal: If she signed a contract in which she promised to attend Weight Watchers regularly and to submit proof of her attendance, and if she managed to lose two pounds a week steadily, she would remain in good standing. Russell attended Weight Watchers regularly but failed to lose the required two pounds a week, and the following year the college requested that she withdraw from the nursing program. Russell sued the college for damages for breach of contract. The jury found that Russell's relationship to the college was essentially a contractual one in which she was required to abide by disciplinary rules, pay tuition, and maintain a good academic record (which she didexcept for the course that she failed because of her obesity) and the college was required to provide her with an education until graduation. The jury also found that Russell had substantially performed her side of the bargain and that the college's actions prevented Russell from rendering complete performance and constituted a breach.

[fatboyy09]

Answer to Question 1

a

Answer to Question 2

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. In supporting the college's position, you could argue, as has been done in several law cases, that applying the commercial law concept of substantial performance to an academic setting could foreseeably have unethical results, particularly in the areas of curriculum and discipline. For example, what if a student performed his or her requirements in all respects but one: the student cheated on two of the myriad exams taken during the four-year college program. Would it be fair to say that that student substantially performed? Another example would be students who plagiarize. What if a student had only plagiarized twice and refrained from doing so on all other written assignments? Had the student substantially performed the work? Normally, university administrations and staff members do not look kindly on plagiarism, and students have been dismissed from college for lesser offenses. But if the substantial performance measure were applied, the university's authority to discipline students and maintain academic standards could be jeopardized. One of the un-derlying goals of every institution of higher learning is to instill in its students a sense of respect for learning and civilized values, including honesty and fairness. To this end, students who are dishonest or unfair in performing exams and assignments are disciplined. The purposes of educational contracts and commercial contracts are therefore quite distinct in many respects, and it is not surprising that the standard measures of performance under the two types of contracts are not identicalnor, you might argue, should they be.
2. The court conceded that it would be inappropriate in many cases to apply the concept of substantial performance to the performance of college students. In the court's view, however, Russell's case differed significantly from those cases. According to the court, The College, the jury found, forced Russell into voluntary withdrawal because she was obese, and for no other reason. Even worse, it did so after admitting her to the College and later the Nursing Department with full knowledge of her weight condition. Under the circumstances, the unique' position of the College as educator becomes less compelling. As a result, the reasons against applying the substantial performance standard to this aspect of the student-college relationship also become less compelling. Thus, Salve Regina's contention that a court cannot use the substantial performance standard to compel an institution to graduate a student merely because the student has completed 124 out of 128 credits, while correct, is in apposite. The court may step in where, as here, full performance by the student has been hindered by some form of impermissible action.

[misspop]

Excellent

[dyrone]

Gracias!