Reference no: EM132203864
1) In Us securities law enforcement, the SEC bring civil suits and the Department of Justice brings criminal charges. But neither of them are allowed to cooperate with each other in any way. (T or F?)
2) Under the 1970 Racketeering influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, private plaintiffs could be awarded triple damages and attorney fees. It thus became obvious that plaintiffs should bring suit under RICO. Congress decided that this unfairly increased the incentive to bring or even just threaten a civil suit. Under the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), Congress therefore ended RICO's application to purely civil cases. If a defendant is criminally convicted under RICO, however, his/her/its civil liabilities
a) are thereby nullified.
b) may still apply with full force.
c) May still apply, but only for actual damaged.
3) Which of the following countries or regions is not sanctioned by the US, so that US nationals can legally do business with its government or companies?
a) Iraq
b) North Korea
c) Cuba
d) Syria
e) Crimes (region of Ukraine)
4) In Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, the Supreme Court found that an employee is not assured whistleblower protection if he/she has not yet reported the suspected violation to the SEC. The SEC believes that this ruling may conflict with Sarbanes-Oxley and its own recommendations that lawyers and accountants should report suspected fraud " up the ladder" before reporting it to the SEC. (T or F?)
5) In O'Hagan v. United States (1997), O'Hagan was a lawyer working for Grand Met, which secretly planned to make a tender offer for the stock of Pillsbury, the 'target' firm. O'Hagan bought call options on that stock before that offer went public. The misappropriation theory articulated by the Court's majority in this case is also called a theory of 'outsider' (rather than 'insider') trading. That is because O'Hagan was not an insider of Pillsbury, the 'target'. He was an outside who did not owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholder of that firm. The Court's majority held that he did, however, owe a fiduciary duty to Grand Met, the firm holding private material information relevant to the future value of Pillsbury stock. (T or F?)