Categories
Business Law

Business law Argumentative Essay

In the context of the various ethical theory of autonomy (Rainbow, 2002), the secretary could ethically withhold information about Mrozek’s admission of having committed a killing. Under the said principle people are given control over their lives because said people are believed to have understanding of their chosen situation. Mrozek deserves to be protected in the eyes of the law and for him to enjoy that, the legal ethics has laid down rules upon which the same may be enjoyed.

Since knowledge acquired by the secretary is covered within the attorney-client privilege, the secretary must respect that right accruing to Mrozek, the moment the information on the killing was communicated to her or to the attorney. Communicating to secretary at that time was the only possible way that Mrozek would be protecting himself from harm and which the law allows him to have under the law hence it is also in accordance with principle of least harm (Rainbow, 2002). A legal system could ethically permit murders under the ethical theory of justice (Rainbow, 2002) which require that actions should be fair to those involved.

The laws respect the basic human rights of individual including Mrozek in this case, to presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Hence the secretary or the lawyer she is representing is not in position to declare that guilt as there is requirement for an official authority like the judge or the court to do that. Hence all legal remedies should be made available by those entitled, which applies to secretary in this case, to do the same before the courts decide. Answer to Question No. 2
Johnson & Johnson may be deemed to be assuming both a profit maximization and social responsibility at the same time in responding to the crisis. But the pursuit of the social responsibility first was the more paramount objective that had allowed Tylenol to pursue profit maximization. Social responsibility is broader that profit maximization as the former is concerned on the effect of corporate decisions on the foundation of a free society. The concepts may however contradict each other if profit maximization includes inappropriate forms of pursuing profits but in this case such was not the thing that was found evident.
Had not the company recalled and destroyed capsules that it believed to be laced with cyanide, the consequences could have been worse that it could have lost all the trust of its customers. It is therefore possible to attain both objectives if one would just act responsibly. Answer to Number 3 It is would not be ethical to accept the greater risk of disaster by locating a plant in India on the ground that such risk would be more than offset by the lower damages it would have to pay because it would sound that social responsibility is being sacrificed at the alter of profit maximization.
The ethics of an act in business should not be measured by the amount of damage that would have to be paid independent of some other standards like the precautionary measures that should have set in setting up the plant in the area to prevent accidents and being able to maintain the same and the compliance of ethical standards set on said business decision. While it is true that company has the responsibility to its investors to maximize profits it cannot do so by sacrificing social responsibility in neglecting to practice code of ethics under the circumstances.
Under the case facts , the setting up of pesticide plant in Bhopal India is not unethical per se and that there could still be some ethical reasons for putting up or maintaining the same plant in India. Although the liability would be higher had the plant accident happened in the US, the project could still be justified if the same precautionary measures are present or maintained in India as presently done in the US. Another possibility of compliance of ethical standards as far the company plant in India is concerned is the by adhering strictly with the code of ethics in India pertinent to such kind of business activities.
In the absence of such of code of ethics , efforts should be employed by legislation or otherwise in India as in done the US (Boroughs, 1995) as guidance of future actions and as basis of evaluating whether actions done by company officials are still within ethical standards. Reference: Boroughs, 1995, “The Bottom Line of Ethics. ” U. S. News and World Report (March 20): 61-66 Rainbow, C. , Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles, {www document} URL http://www. bio. davidson. edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories. htm, Accessed February 14, 2008

Categories
Business Law

AIG Current Issues Pertaining to Business Law

AIG (American International Group Inc) has most recently been a common feature on American as well as international headlines following its possibility of going into liquidation as a result of financial difficulties. The federal government bailout extended to the company to help it in reviving its activities has also been a topic of discussion.

Following all these, issues related to business law have been a common occurrence as AIG fights legal battles and accusations from enraged customers demanding their investment monies. AIG has as a result lost clients, employees and business in general. This paper focuses on these and other current events pertaining to business law at AIG.

Analysis
AIG was recently faced with an economic downturn as a result of the current economic crisis. AIG is said to have made losses worth $62 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 (Sorkin, 11-14). As a result, it has not been able to pay its credit dues on time.
Creditors are constantly knocking on AIG’s doors to obtain their money as they fear that the company could fail to pay them under the current financial difficulties it is experiencing. AIG has resulted in selling its assets in order to meet its obligations to creditors and beginning 2008 it obtained bailout from the government.
Following the government bailout, AIG is no longer a wholly private company. The majority shares of AIG are now in the hands of the government hence it expects to receive more government control.
AIG traded 79.9 percent of its shares for the federal government bailout. The government now possesses the rights to suspend dividends to the previously common and preferred stock.
This is an indication that the company has ceased from being a fully private company to a nationalized one. It therefore owes the citizens who are represented by the government to operate profitably as well as repay the loan advanced by the government from the tax payer’s money.
As a result of the government bailout, AIG has to adjust itself to the government’s requirements and laws that have been set for companies obtaining bailout.
For example, The House of Representatives passed a requirement that all companies receiving federal government bailout exceeding $5 should pay 90 percent on bonuses given by companies. The companies must also operate with positive net value so that they can be able to pay up the loans advanced. If this is not so, the government will force companies that cannot pay up into liquidation Mich, 23-25).
AIG has been under scrutiny following the handsome benefits that were issued to its more than 400 employees in the financial products division ranging between $1 million and 6.4 million. This follows the fact that AIG received $170 billion as federal government bailout which has necessitated investigations on how AIG was spending the taxpayer’s money.
(Turkish Weekly, 22-29). The government owns 79.9 percent of AIG now and as a result the public is the major shareholder of the company and this is what has created a major uproar in the public about AIG’s activities. There are claims that the company is not taking its responsibilities towards shareholders in a serious manner.
Edward Liddy, AIG’s chief executive officer told the congress in March, 2009 that the company had asked the employees to return half of the bonuses received (Sorkin, 19-23). Further, he argued that the reason for the hefty bonuses was an attempt to retain employees in the financial products division.