EBC I‚ INC.‚ Formerly Known as eTOYS‚ INC.‚ by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of EBC I‚ Inc.‚ Respondent‚ v. GOLDMAN‚ SACHS & CO.‚ Appellant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 5 N.Y.3d 11 (2005) Before Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH‚ ROSENBLATT‚ GRAFFEO and R.S. SMITH concur with Judge CIPARICK. Judge READ dissents in part in a separate opinion. OPINION OF THE COURT CIPARICK‚ J. Plaintiff‚ the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of EBC I‚ Inc.‚ formerly known
Premium Initial public offering
Synopsis BPO‚ Inc. is a professional service organization that offers clients a range of services from risk management and insurance to management consulting. The company has grown and profited from the developing trend in the 90’s and 2000’s of companies outsourcing business processes‚ such as human resources and claims processing. Presently‚ BPO has launched a six sigma initiative to identify areas for process improvement and financial savings in the Human Resource Outsourcing department. Concurrently
Premium Strategic management Business process outsourcing Management
Chaiken Case Brief Facts: Chaiken made separate but equal agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barber shop. Under the “partnership” agreement: ~ Chaiken would provide the barber chairs‚ supplies and licenses. Strazella and Spitzer provide tools of the trade. ~ Gross returns were to be divided on a percentage basis between all three men. ~ Chaiken will decide all matters of the partnership policy. ~Stated hours of work and holidays. ~Chaiken holds and distributes all receipts
Premium Employment Corporation Profit
In “The Petitioner’s Brief in Sweatt v. Painter‚ 1950”‚ the document explained the NAACP arguments as they were before the Supreme Court. Essentially‚ it explored three arguments that the NAACP would later employ in future cases regarding segregation. Reprinted within Waldo E. Martin Jr.’s‚ “Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents”‚ it offers key insight into the arguments the NAACP used in the Supreme Court. The first argument relates to whether schools established for Blacks
Premium Brown v. Board of Education Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Introduction The case of Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575‚ [2002] HCA 56 raised the legal principle of defamation and its application when committed over the internet. In this instance‚ an article published on 30 October 2000 in a weekly financial magazine‚ a magazine which in turn was published by Dow Jones & Company Inc (‘Dow Jones’). The article‚ entitled ‘Unholy Gains’ alleged that Joseph Gutnick (‘Gutnick’) was connected to a jailed money launderer and tax evader and was
Premium Jury United States Law
Scenario 1 Energy Inc. has a present obligation (IAS 37-17) and probable liability (ASC 450-20-25-2) on December 31‚ 2011 as a result of a past event‚ the contamination of the land‚ because it is virtually certain that a draft law requiring cleaning up will be enacted. It is probable (more likely than not) that Energy Inc. will be required to transfer economic benefits in settlement which is an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits in settlement (IAS 37-23). The amount of the obligation
Premium Balance sheet Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Asset
Case Citation: Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808‚ (1991) Facts: After spending a morning and afternoon drinking beer and injecting cocaine‚ Pervis Tyrone Payne entered the apartment of 28-year-old Charisse Christopher and her two children‚ Lacie‚ age two and Nicholas‚ age three at approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 27th‚ 1987. Payne made sexual advances toward Charisse Christopher. She resisted‚ which lead Payne to kill both Charisse and Lacie. Nicholas was found with several severe stab wounds that
Free Supreme Court of the United States Jury United States
John D.R. Leonard v. PepsiCo‚ INC. 1. (a)What are the facts and (b) sources of law in this case? a. Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle‚ Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion‚ titled "Pepsi Stuff‚" attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign‚ PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the Pepsi Generation‚’ in order to gain
Premium Contract
Name: Lei Chen Course : ACCT 362W Prof: Kenneth Ryesky Esq. Date: 11/4/2010 Case Caption: United States v. Dentsply International‚ Inc.‚ Court: United States of Appeals‚ Third Circuit. Date: Argued September 21‚ 2004. February 24‚ 2005 Citation: 399 F.3d 181 Facts: This is an antitrust case that the defendant- Dentsply international‚ Inc.‚ is one of a dozen manufactures of artificial teeth for dentures and other restorative device. Dentsply dominates
Premium United States Competition law Competition
M&M’s History M&M’s has created a market share that has yet been unmatched by the competition. In 2004‚ M&M’s achieved an impressive $201 million in candy sales in the U.S. alone‚ making it the number one selling bagged or boxed chocolate candy in the country‚ beating out its nearest competitor‚ Hershey’s Kisses (Candy Industry). The success of M&M’s is due to many factors such as attractive and unique advertisements and promotions‚ customer participation and feedback defining the produced output
Premium Chocolate