Critical Legal Thinking Cases

Business law
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
1] Critical legal thinking- United States v. Bhagat
Insider trading relates to an employee’s actions to profit from material inside information, and the employee’s acts are usually not in the interest of the corporation. Tipping is closely related to insider information when an employee engages in unlawful tipping of insider information when there is a profit motive. The tippers and those engaging in insider trading have access to information for their positions as employees, office position or profession. Even though, the evidence against Bhagat was circumstantial, the timing of the purchase in Nvidia by Bhagat and his close associate, suggest that the defendant desired to make a profit having already known about the acquisition of Nvidia by Microsoft. With the increase in merger and acquisition activities, the government is unlikely to track all activities to determine insider trading and may deal with only 10% of such cases.
2] Law case with answers-
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Company
Both Crawford and Coates had insider information that Texas Gulf Sulphur (TGS) had struck minerals while drilling and subsequently bought the company’s stock before TGS made an announcement of the find (Cheeseman, 2013). Coates purchased the stock at 10: 30 A.M just before the announcement and the public did not have this information (Cheeseman, 2013). Taking into account the timing of the stock purchase, and his behavior before the announcement, it is clear that Coates had the intention of profiting from insider information. The defendant also withheld information from other people even as there was uncertainty whether the mineral mining would eventually be successful. Coates could have approved that his actions were not meant to profit from insider trading, but he would have to prove his timing of the purchase was not suspect. The timing, access to insider information not available to outsiders and the defendant’s behavior before a public announcement are all taken into account to determine whether they profited from insider information.
3] Critical legal thinking case
Act of State Doctrine- United states v. Belmont
Petrograd Metal Works, a Russian company deposited money with Belmont in the U.S., but all Russian companies were naturalized (Cheeseman, 2013). In an agreement between the two countries the Soviet Union could not bring claims against US nationals. In this case, there was a question of foreign policy and what was to be enforced in relation to the money held in the U.S. the release of the claims held by Belmont did not require approval since it was a case of foreign policy, and legislators do not ...