Case summary:The people who work in public services, health care, and property services constitute SEIU which has 2.2 million members. UHW which is a union of 150,000 health care workers from California is affiliated with SEIU. SEIU has the authority to realign the various local unions and place them into trusteeship. A proposal of moving 150,000 long term care workers into a new union is charted by SEIU. The move was opposed by UHW as 65,000 members of the union were effected by the act of moving them to a new union. UHW was placed into trusteeship by SEIU. UHW restricted the entry of trustees in the building, removed the property of UHW from the building. The official of UHW created and promoted a new union namely NUHW. SEIU filed a suit in the court against UHW for breach of fiduciary duty.
To find: The liability of UHW if they only expressed opinion on creating a new union and imposition of trusteeship.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter 22 Solutions
Bundle: The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th + Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card
- In Corporation Law, the application of the principle of “Centralized Management” has brought about the jurisprudential doctrine of --- Theory of Concession Business Judgment Rule Doctrine of Limited Liability. Ultra Vires Doctrine. SEC Opinion No. 04-43, dated 26 October 2004, held that a temporary or permanent cessation of operations of a corporation which does not involve the shortening of corporate term or a formal dissolution of the corporation, may be pursued by the Board of Directors only with ratification by stockholders owning or representing at least two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock, although not particularly governed by the Corporation Code, is in recognition, and implementation, of the --- Theory of Concession. Theory of Delegated Power Theory of Business Enterprise Doctrine of Strong Juridical Personality Whereas, a decrease of the authorized capital stock will not be approved by the SEC if the effect is to prejudice the rights of the creditors, and…arrow_forwardPalatka Costumes & Caps LLC ("PC & C") is a large props company formed in 1957, and Frodo Flags Corporation is a small, local flag manufacturer formed in 2015. These two businesses never had any dealings with each other until they recently entered into a contract, with terms all drafted by PC & C. The contract provides that PC & C shall purchase 1,000 flags that Frodo Flags will specially design for PC & C. The contract further provides that PC & C has the right to initiate, on a weekly basis, purchase orders of up to 100 flags until the contract's total number of flag purchases - 1,000 flags has been met. Also, the contract includes a clause stating that PC & C can cancel its obligation to pay for the remaining flags at any time if any Frodo Flags shipment does not arrive on the exact day as stated in a particular purchase order; this last provision is included in the contract even though time was of little importance to PC & C. W The first shipment of 100 flags arrives a day late,…arrow_forwardNasser and Khalil are partners in a bike business. One of their bike models malfunctioned and many customers were injured as a result. If they operate their business, Nasser & Khalil's Bicycles, an LLPS (Limited Liability Partnership), neither the business nor the O partners would be liable for the injuries. they would be personally liable for the injuries. the business would not be liable for the injuries. they would not be personally liable for the injuries.arrow_forward
- Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives. Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney. Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the companyfunded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?arrow_forwardQuincy forms a manufacturing corporation, the Fabri-Q Co. (Fabri-Q). He is the sole shareholder. He does not keep records of any dividends and very little records of the corporation's accounts. Ten months after the formation and incorporation of Fabri-Q, one of Fabri-Q's products injures a user and Fabri-Q is sued. Which of the following ordinarily is a reason for a court to hold Quincy personally liable? O If Quincy is not held liable, creditors would not be fully compensated. O Fabri-Q's headquarters was at the same address as another business that Quincy. O The corporation did not elect any directors. O Quincy decides to use some of the profits from Fabri-Q - paid to him as a dividend to pay his personal debts. O Quincy served as the CEO and CTO (Chief Technology Officer) of Fabri-Q.arrow_forwardSolve this questionarrow_forward
- Why would a business support allowing a transfer of rights or duties to third parties?.arrow_forwardRaphael, a minority shareholder of the Sample Corporation, claims that the following sales are void and should be annulled. Explain whether Raphael is correct. a. Smith, a director of the Sample Corporation, sells a piece of vacant land to the Sample Corporation for $500,000. The land cost him $200,000. b. Jones, a shareholder of the Sample Corporation, sells a used truck to the Sample Corporation for $8,400, although the truck is worth $6,000.arrow_forward"Lillian Pritchard was a director of Pritchard & Baird Corporation, a business founded by her husband. After the death of her husband, her sons took control of the corporation. For two years, they looted the assets of the corporation through theft and improper payments. The corporation’s financial statements revealed the improper payments to the sons, but Mrs. Pritchard did not read the financial statements. She did not know what her sons were doing to the corporation or that what they were doing was unlawful. When Mrs. Pritchard was sued for failing to protect the assets of the corporation, she argued that she was a figurehead director, a simple housewife who served as a director as an accommodation to her husband and sons. Was Mrs. Pritchard held liable?"arrow_forward
- Mr. B’s business is not registered as a One-Person Corporation (OPC); it is thus a single proprietorship. Unable to pay his construction materials supplier, the latter wishes to go after said entrepreneur's vehicles at home. Here, can said obligation of the business be paid-off through Mr. B's other assets? Briefly reason-out.arrow_forwardThe client seeks advice concerning the actions of the majority stockholder in a small corporation. The majority stockholder owns 58 percent of the stock, and the client and another shareholder together own 42 percent. The majority stockholder controls the board of directors and is president of the corporation. He refuses to allow the corporation to issue any stock dividends. Until recently, the client and the other minority stockholder worked for the corporation. Last month, the majority stockholder fired the client and the minority stockholder. What sections of Am. Jur. 2d discuss this topic?arrow_forwardAy-Bee-Cee-Dee Corp. has filed a Subchapter S election under the Internal Revenue Code for taxation purposes. As you know, S corporations are allowed only a limited number of shareholders and, regardless of the number, certain types of entities, including other corporations, cannot be shareholders in S corporations. Carter wants to transfer his shares of Ay-Bee-Cee-Dee Corp. to CarCor, Inc., a corporation that he and his brothers own. If Able, Baker, and Dennis want to preserve their Subchapter S election and, thus, block the transfer of Carter's shares to CarCor (without being stuck having to purchase Carter's shares themselves), which of the following transfer restrictions would best allow them to accomplish their goal? Multiple Choice Right of first refusal Consent restraint Provision disqualifying purchasers Buy-and-sell agreement Option agreement Right of first refusal Consent restraint Provision disqualifying purchasers Buy-and-sell agreement Option agreementarrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education