Recent orders
Case # 1Assignment
Case # 1Assignment
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professor’s Name
Date
Case # 1Assignment
Case # 1: Critical Legal Thinking Cases
Based on this case, the defendant, Live Siri Art, Inc., is not subject to a lawsuit in New York. In the US, any state’s courts must have personal jurisdiction over the defendants in order to bring a lawsuit against an entity or a person. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s ability to rule on the party being sued in a case. According to the US Constitution, a party must have at least minimal contact with the forum where the court is located before the court may exercise its authority over that party.
Unlike general jurisdiction, if a court in New York has (i) long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant under CPLR 302, and (ii) the exercise of that jurisdiction is consistent with due process, the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary defendant (Quinn, 2012). If either the constitutional or statutory prerequisite is missing, the action cannot proceed. To obtain long-arm jurisdiction, the defendant must have a sufficient connection with the state (Nussbaum, 2014). In the presented case, Live Siri Art, Inc., which is a resident of California, does not have the requisite minimum contacts with New York. Therefore, a court in New York cannot obtain long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant under CPLR 302. Thus, Live Siri Art, Inc. cannot be subject to a lawsuit.
Case # 2: Ethics Cases
The rights guaranteed to the Ojibwe in the 1837 treaty are still valid and enforceable. Based on the presented case, the treaty signed in 1837 was not terminated. A treaty allows for one of the parties to terminate it by giving notice, usually after a set amount of time has passed after the notification was given (Helfer, 2018). Since Minnesota did not notify the Ojibwe Indians about the treaty termination when Minnesota entered the Union in 1858, this means that the treaty is still valid and enforceable. Naturally, treaties may also be dissolved by the parties’ consent or a party’s breach. In this case, there is no parties’ consent or breach; thus, the treaty is still valid and enforceable.
By declaring the Ojibwe’s hunting, fishing, and gathering rights invalid, the state of Minnesota failed to act ethically. This is because ethically the two parties should have mutually agreed to terminate the treaty. Also, the state of Minnesota should not have terminated the treaty without prior notice to Ojibwe Indians. If at all the treaty did not contain any provisions concerning withdrawal, termination, or denunciation, it is constitutionally accepted that the state of Minnesota could withdraw from the treaty unilaterally. However, even under such circumstances, the state of Minnesota should have notified the Ojibwe Indians prior to the termination.
References
Helfer, L. R. (2018). Treaty Exit and Intra-Branch Conflict at the Interface of International and Domestic Law.
Nussbaum, R. D. (2014). The Shortcomings of New York’s Long-Arm Statute: Defamation in the Age of Technology. John’s L. Rev., 88, 175.
Quinn, F. J. (2012). CPLR § 302 (b): Jurisdiction Over a Non-Resident in an Equitable Distribution Action Following a Foreign Divorce Will Be Controlled by the Matrimonial” Long-Arm” Statute . St. John’s Law Review, 60(3), 13.
Acquisition of Motorola
Acquisition of Motorola
Student’s name
Affiliation
Course
Date
IntroductionThe year 2011, on 15th August witnessed the potential of Google acquiring Motorola Mobility Inc. (MMI) (Kumar, 2012). This agreement for the merger was a total of about $12.5 million offer from Google Company. The merger happens to be vertical in nature since it is the software provider or supplier, acquiring Motorola Company that is the hardware client (Melka & Shabi, 2013).
Circumstances leading to the merger
The merger or acquisition of Motorola by Google took place due to a number of potential circumstances. Firstly, the android operating system of Google had a pending case in court filed by Microsoft and apple due to pertinent infringement. As a result, Google decided to seek access to MMI patents to ensure the independence of the company as a separate entity.
The other reason for the merger is that Motorola happens to be a big player in the market for manufacturing phone hardware. Their android phones made a significant positive impact in the market in terms of success achievement. Therefore, the decision to join hands with Google had a potential impact of increasing its rank in the business industry (Kumar, 2012).The year before the acquisition, Motorola witnessed very high sales in the smart phone sector.
The increase attracted Google to for a number of reasons. The major reason however is that Google Company had a great chance of increasing its smart phone share market (Kumar, 2012).The Motorola Company had made a development and launched numerous breakthrough products over time. It was the first company to bring portable phones to the market. Therefore, Google hoped to benefit from the technological advancement and innovations. This realization was a major push factor to the acquisition of MMI. Finally, the integration of the two companies will have the opportunity for the provision of complete quality mobile phones in the market. Thus, they will be able to compete favorably in the market with other top key players in the industry.
Impact of the deal
The two companies working together had to accelerate the innovation factor and choice in mobile computation. The two companies had a potential in their respective sectors before the merge. Motorola for instance is good at mobile devices, whereas Google is best at soft wares. Therefore, the customers will tend to have maximum benefit in cost as they are likely to enjoy low cost products (Melka & Shabi, 2013). In addition, they will also get high quality products since the combination of both companies’ ideas will bring high quality products in the market. Google alone earns many profits from the advertising business. Concerning this, the acquisition of MMI will be profitable as MMI also earned quite well before the merging took place.
The accruing benefits such as the development of the next generation mobile phone computing were also a potential expectation. This included the delivery of services such as Motorola cables and TV boxes (Kumar, 2012). The main intention was to compete with other phone development companies and bringing advertising services to the reach of most people. The move also aimed at the development of designs to comply with the government institutions regulations and the company needs. The objective would enable Google to compete favorably with competitor firms like Apple and Samsung with the emphasis being on Apple.
Structure of the deal
Differences between the two companies combined and the merger company
Whereas the two companies were initially independent, the merger company has the element of dependency on the two initial companies (Melka & Shabi, 2013). This is because it cannot succeed in the marked alone. All sections of the merger company have to work together for mutual success as a single entity. In addition, initially, the two companies produced different products in their separate companies. Google for instance specialized in advertising and software production while Motorola had a concentration in the production of mobile phones. The merger company however is to produce products with a relation in terms of their use. They have a combined effort to produce powerful products integrated to come up with a perfect idea (Kumar, 2012).
Human resource modification
When a merger takes place, there are reorganizations that take place in potentially all companies to reflect the change (Kaputa, 2012). These reorganizations are to improve the efficiency of the operations of the merged company. The human resources management of the initial companies had undergo new management changes since there is the need to maximize profits. Some have to quit while others have to be posted to other sectors. In the case of Motorola and Google companies however, the merger was not necessary.
The main reasons for is that the two initial companies were dealing in different and unrelated products. Therefore, they had to retain their professionals to guide on various potential decisions of the merger company. The professionals had initially gained experience in their companies that not related with the merging company. The two organizations ought to have kept the expected personnel. This move would serve to assist the new merger company in coming up with ways of succeeding with experience from both companies (Melka & Shabi, 2013).
The changes were also not necessary if one considers the time they effecting time. This is because at the time, the essential need of the company is to come up with strategies of improving the company’s potential and competitiveness. The sudden chance of tasks in relation to time therefore has a negative effect on the performance of the new company Herrick, D. F. (2012). People will not have adequate time to learn about new opportunities and even cultures of the initial employees. Culture within any organization is very essential in determining how the organization will perform.
In conclusion, mergers are necessary in any economy. They contribute to having competitiveness and high quality products from the market. The integration of ideas to come up with reliable products in terms of customer satisfaction it the driving force of mergers. They assist greatly in having a stable economy and various vibrant trades. Coming up with a merging plan is a process which is involving. Since the trustworthiness credit, cannot be given to any person, then it becomes necessary to hire experts to guide in the formulation of rules to govern the two merging companies. These persons involved, lawyers in most cases, act as links between the two persons just in case of disputes.
References
Herrick, D. F. (2012). Media management in the age of giants: Business dynamics of journalism.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Kaputa, C. (2012). Breakthrough branding: How smart entrepreneurs and intrapreneurstransform a small idea into a big brand. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Pub.
Kumar, B. R. (2012). Mega mergers and acquisitions: Case studies from key industries.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Melka, L., & Shabi, A. (2013). Merger arbitrage: A fundamental approach to event-driven
investing. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
Case # 1 Assignment
Case # 1 Assignment
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professor’s Name
Date
Case # 1 Assignment
Case # 1: Critical Legal Thinking Cases
Based on this case, the defendant, Live Siri Art, Inc., is not subject to a lawsuit in New York. In the US, any state’s courts must have personal jurisdiction over the defendants in order to bring a lawsuit against an entity or a person. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s ability to rule on the party being sued in a case. According to the US Constitution, a party must have at least minimal contact with the forum where the court is located before the court may exercise its authority over that party.
Unlike general jurisdiction, if a court in New York has (i) long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant under CPLR 302, and (ii) the exercise of that jurisdiction is consistent with due process, the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary defendant (Quinn, 2012). If either the constitutional or statutory prerequisite is missing, the action cannot proceed. To obtain long-arm jurisdiction, the defendant must have a sufficient connection with the state (Nussbaum, 2014). In the presented case, Live Siri Art, Inc., which is a resident of California, does not have the requisite minimum contacts with New York. Therefore, a court in New York cannot obtain long-arm jurisdiction over the defendant under CPLR 302. Thus, Live Siri Art, Inc. cannot be subject to a lawsuit.
Case # 2: Ethics Cases
The rights guaranteed to the Ojibwe in the 1837 treaty are still valid and enforceable. Based on the presented case, the treaty signed in 1837 was not terminated. A treaty allows for one of the parties to terminate it by giving notice, usually after a set amount of time has passed after the notification was given (Helfer, 2018). Since Minnesota did not notify the Ojibwe Indians about the treaty termination when Minnesota entered the Union in 1858, this means that the treaty is still valid and enforceable. Naturally, treaties may also be dissolved by the parties’ consent or a party’s breach. In this case, there is no parties’ consent or breach; thus, the treaty is still valid and enforceable.
By declaring the Ojibwe’s hunting, fishing, and gathering rights invalid, the state of Minnesota failed to act ethically. This is because ethically the two parties should have mutually agreed to terminate the treaty. Also, the state of Minnesota should not have terminated the treaty without prior notice to Ojibwe Indians. If at all the treaty did not contain any provisions concerning withdrawal, termination, or denunciation, it is constitutionally accepted that the state of Minnesota could withdraw from the treaty unilaterally. However, even under such circumstances, the state of Minnesota should have notified the Ojibwe Indians prior to the termination.
References
Helfer, L. R. (2018). Treaty Exit and Intra-Branch Conflict at the Interface of International and Domestic Law.
Nussbaum, R. D. (2014). The Shortcomings of New York’s Long-Arm Statute: Defamation in the Age of Technology. John’s L. Rev., 88, 175.
Quinn, F. J. (2012). CPLR § 302 (b): Jurisdiction Over a Non-Resident in an Equitable Distribution Action Following a Foreign Divorce Will Be Controlled by the Matrimonial” Long-Arm” Statute . St. John’s Law Review, 60(3), 13.