LAW 531 Final Exam (Latest)

LAW 531 Final Exam (Latest) - Ann is troubled with the noise from an old generator set up by her neighbor Jose at his residence. The noise the generator makes is unbearable. Ann sues Jose for nuisance. Will she succeed? Yes, because the noise is interfering with Ann’s use and enjoyment of the land. No, because the generator is not on her property. No, because she cannot interfere with Jose’s personal matters. No, because it is a reasonable noise. Which of the following is likely to be forbidden by Title VII? Discrimination against a woman solely because she is a lesbian. Discrimination against a man solely because of his gender. Discrimination against a black woman solely because of her religion. Discrimination against a person of French ancestry because he “talks like an Englishman.” Gath Meat Packing Company is a meat processing business. To reduce costs and increase profits, the president and CEO of Gath orders Gath’s employees to violate federal criminal meat processing laws. The United States Department of Justice prosecutes Gath for criminal violations of the meat processing law. Has Gath committed criminal violations? Yes, because the president and CEO, a high-level administrator of Gath, authorized the commission of the crimes. No, because the board of directors did not authorize the president and CEO or the other employees to violate federal law. No, because a corporation is not liable for most crimes committed by its agents. Yes, because a corporation is always liable for the crimes committed by its agents. For which of the following would a shareholder derivative action be appropriate? The shareholder alleges that the corporation has violated the shareholder’s preemptive right. The shareholder alleges that the board of directors has imprudently managed the corporation. The shareholder has refused a request that his/her accountant be permitted to look at the corporate accounting records. The shareholder alleges that the corporation has been paying dividends to a previous shareholder from whom the shareholder purchased his/her shares. To prove his or her due diligence defense under the Securities Act Section 11 with regard to audited financial statements, an officer of the issuer must prove which of the following? The officer had no intent to misstate or omit a material fact in the audited financial statements. The officer had no reason to believe the financial statements omitted or misstated a material fact. The officer made a reasonable investigation into the accuracy of the audited financial statements. The officer believed the financial statements did not omit or misstate a material fact.