Legal Due Diligence Checklist
Legal Due Diligence Checklist John F. Noble University of Phoenix-West Florida Campus Legal Environment of Business Law 529 Judge Gregory P. Holder and Amanda Kaiser October 27, 2005 Legal Due Diligence Checklist Assessing risks and issues while determining whether to purchase a company is the number one skill venture capitalists must possess. The prospective buyer of Five Friends Construction must investigate and gather all information about the company and its business assets. The purpose of this it to decide whether to proceed with the initial transaction on the initially discussed terms, establish areas of risk that need particular attention or, if justified, withdraw from the proposed investment (Global Law Review, 2005). Creating a due diligence checklist is the way to critically assess a companies current and potential profitability. Elements of Legal Due Diligence Checklists There are at least sixteen elements of a Legal Due Diligence checklist. The organization and it's good standing, financial information, physical assets, real estate, intellectual property, employees and employee benefits, licenses and permits, environmental issues, taxes, material contracts, product or service lines, customer information, litigation, insurance coverage, professionals, and articles of publicity completes a thorough list of risks to research before purchasing a company
Business Law
50 CLS Coursework 1 "Judiciary have no role to play in the interpretation of law created by Parliament. The words and phrases used within a statue must be followed irrespective of the views held by any particular judge, even where this may lead to perceived injustice or absurdity" Explain what is meant by the phrase "Statutory Interpretation", highlighting relevant case law (including facts and decisions) and assess the validity of the above statement. The definition of statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when a case involves a statute. In addition is may not always be apparent as to what an act means or how it should be applied in a particular scenario, there are a number of reasons for this as act's are not always clearly written, they may not always be properly drafted therefore causing problems, furthermore the language used may be ambiguous and a possibility could be that at the time of drafting the law the context in which it was written could have been different, therefore it was impossible to predict future events. When faced by an act in parliament, judges are supposed only to apply the law, not to make it (if parliament has legislated on an area, parliament is superior, thus the judiciary should apply parliament's law). Judges on that basis cannot refuse to
Affirmative action.
Affirmative action Once upon a time, there were two people interviewing for one position at the same company. The first person, let us call him Jack, attended a prestigious university and academically rigorous university. He had many years of work experience in the field and, in the mind of the employer, had the potential to make a positive impact on the company's performance. The second person, named Jill, was just starting out in the field and seemed to lack the ambition demonstrated by her opponent. "Who was chosen for the job?" you ask. Well, if the story took place before 1964, the answer would be obvious. However, with the adoption of the social policy known as affirmative action, the answer is relatively unclear. After the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, "it became apparent that certain business traditions, such as seniority status and aptitude tests, prevented total equality in employment"(Hicks 35). President Lyndon B. Johnson, decided something needed to be done to remedy these flaws. On September 24, 1965, he issued Executive Order #11246 at Howard University, which required federal contractors "to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed . . . without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. (Miller 72)" When Lyndon Banes Johnson signed that order, he enacted one of the most discriminating pieces
Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services.
Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services Part III of the DDA gives disabled people important rights of access to everyday services that others take for granted. Duties under Part III are coming into force in three stages. . Treating a disabled person less favourably because they are disabled has been unlawful since December 1996. Since 2 Dec 1996 * It has been illegal for service providers or employers to treat disabled people less favourably. * A reasonable adjustment must be made. 2. Since October 1999, service providers have had to consider making reasonable adjustments to the way they deliver their services so that disabled people can use them. Service providers have been required to take reasonable steps to: * Change policies, procedures or practices to provide a service to a person who is disabled; or * Provide auxiliary aids to enable service provision; or * Provide services by other means 3. The final stage of the duties, which means service providers may have to consider making permanent physical adjustments to their premises, comes into force in 2004. From 1 Oct 2004, the law will apply to ALL employers, however small. Where a physical feature makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to make use of services, a service provider will have to: * Take reasonable steps to remove, alter or avoid that feature
Jane encountered problems pertaining to contractual work relationship issues with Total Mechanic Management Services Pty Ltd (TMMS). The Common Law Tests (Also known as case law) is used to establish the following two categories.
Based on the information provided, Jane encountered problems pertaining to contractual work relationship issues with Total Mechanic Management Services Pty Ltd (TMMS). The Common Law Tests (Also known as case law) is used to establish the following two categories. Contract of Service relates to employees who provide labour to the employers. The employers are held accountable for vicarious liability arising from any wrongdoings from an employee's action. Employees are accorded legislative protections and statutory rights, through welfare and benefits by the employers. Contract for Service relates to independent contractors who provide services to their clients, in the capacity of a business entity and is self-employed. Unlike Contract of Service, separate general commercial law are covered for independent contractors and they are held responsible for vicarious liability in the event of any kind negligence. It is a challenge to differentiate and identify the scope of Jane's employment status. However, a series of control tests shall determine that aspect. . The Control Test consists of two elements, which are the nature, and degree of control the employer has towards the employee. Federal Commissioner of Taxation v J Walter Thompson (Aust) Pty Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 227, states that the producer had exercised great details of control over how the artists must perform during
Sexual Discrimination
GCSE Law: Coursework Assignment 1- Sexual Discrimination The law relating to sex discrimination is heavily influenced by European Union law. Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome provides that "Each member of state shall ensure that the principal of equal pay for male and female workers for work of equal value is applied." The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) prohibits sex discrimination against individuals in the areas of employment and education. The Sex Discrimination Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland. The SDA applies to women and men of any age including children. The Sex Discrimination Act was introduced to make it unlawful for employers to discriminate in any other way on the grounds of sex. This includes areas such as: * Employment * Education * Goods * Facilities * Services and * Housing The SDA 1975 was set up by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) which monitors equality. The commission can help a complaint to bring a case. It can also bring cases itself when it believes there has been a breach of the law. A teenage girl was once awarded over £24,000 compensation in 1994 because she was turned down for an apprentice as a motor mechanic because of her sex. The act also means it is against the law to: ) Discriminate against you because of your sex, martial status or pregnancy 2) Sexually harass you 3) Dismiss you from your job because of
Discursive Essay Equality for Women in the Workplace: Adam Without Eve?
Christopher McGeary Discursive Essay Equality for Women in the Workplace: Adam Without Eve? The debate about women being treated as equals in the workplace has been a continuous issue for a number of years now. Women are constantly proving themselves to be an asset to the world of work, but still have to campaign and fight for equality. Could men really cope without women within the workplace? Could Adam have coped without Eve? Women are continually showing themselves to be more than capable. This can be told from the exam results received by both men and women. When the results are compared they show that women are much higher achievers than men. Since the early 1980's, the standards of achievement for all have been rising, but because of the differential rates of improvements, girls are still performing better than boys. Throughout all the subjects offered at G.C.S.E level, girls are presently gaining more A* grades in every subject with the exception of mathematics and physics although at A* level the results take a reversible change. As these results will determine the access to further or higher education for most school leavers, it is interesting to note that the number of females who receive acceptance for university is dramatically lower than that of the males. This leaves us asking the question 'why give the opportunity to a person less capable?' the answer:
Equal Opportunities Legislation.
Equal Opportunities Legislation Equal opportunities law states that a person applying to a job isn't allowed to be discriminated against by an employer because of: * their sex/gender * their religion * their race or colour * any disability that that may have If an applicant to a job thinks that they may have been discriminated against, they can complain to the Equal Opportunities Commission who will review their case. If the company is found to be guilty of discrimination then they can be prosecuted and forced to pay compensation to the applicant who did not get the job. The Laws businesses have to take into account when recruiting and selecting staff Sex Discrimination Act 1975 A law was passed in 1975 which made it unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their sex or because they are married. A company cannot advertise for people of a certain sex, neither can they show sex discrimination in training or promotion opportunities at work. Direct sex discrimination occurs when a person of one sex is treated less favourably on grounds of sex than a person of the other sex would have been treated in the same circumstances. Indirect sex discrimination can occur where a requirement or condition is applied equally to men and women, but the proportion of one sex that can satisfy the condition is much smaller than the proportion of the other sex. Unless it can
Dressed To Distract
Dressed to Distract 1 Dressed to Distract Patricia Murdock University of Phoenix Dressed to Distract 2 A 33-year-old single Mother, Debrahlee Lorenzana, filed suit against Citigroup, claiming that she was dismissed from the Citibank branch at the Chrysler Center for looking to provocative. As a result of the shape of her figure, Ms. Lorenzana was advised that her clothing, made it "too distracting" for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear. An article in the Village Voice described Ms. Lorenzana as a five-foot-six, 125 pound, Latin beauty with soft eyes, and flawless bronzed skin. Since the allegations, Ms. Lorenzana has also been publicly ridiculed as being referred to as having, a Jessica Simpson rack, J.Lo's curves, and Audrey Hepburn's elegance. TV and tabloids have published pictures of her wearing pencil skirts, turtlenecks, tailored jackets, and stiletto heals, all which have been blamed for the distraction of her male bosses and colleagues. Ms. Lorenzana's lawyer, Jack Tuckner, states, "Does she have to manage her wardrobe so these men can manage their libidos?" He also added that, "Her male bosses and colleagues were acting immaturely". Citigroup has failed to comment on the allegations (NYTIMES, 2010). The U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other
Legal Reasoning Example - of Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd2 which deals with an appeal against an employment tribunals decision to state that an employee was not actually an employee of the company
“Legal reasoning is… but an argumentation aiming to persuade and convince those whom it addresses, that such choice, decision or attitude is preferable to concurrent choices, decisions and attitudes” - Chaim Perelman Justice, Law and Argument Do you agree? Justify your answer. Yes. Kurt M. Saunders wrote “In practical argumentation, justification involves a heuristic search; that is, the arguer searches among the many available arguments to find those that will most likely persuade the audience to accept the claim.”[1] To give an example of this, consider the case of Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd[2] which deals with an appeal against an employment tribunal’s decision to state that an employee was not actually an employee of the company involved so therefore had no jurisdiction to hear her complaint of unfair dismissal (Right to not be unfairly dismissed.[3]) The appellant contended that, although she was not entitled to employee status under the general terms of her engagement with her employer, the hostel at which she was placed by her employer was governed by a single engagement contract of the type discussed in a similar case, McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment.[4] In this case it was found that the appellant was entitled to employee status on the basis of his general relationship with the agency. The employment tribunal in reaching their