This is an interesting case. Carol Bond’s husband was infidel. Based on this fact, Bond could have filed a lawsuit against her husband and/or his mistress, including a divorce petition. There could have been a myriad causes of action – some colorable and others robust – for potential lawsuit by Bond. But, instead, Bond tried to get even with her husband’s mistress, Myrlinda Haynes. She tried to poison her husband’s mistress “by spreading chemicals on (among other things) her doorknob, causing only a minor burn that was easily treated with water.” Bond spread “two toxic chemicals on Haynes's car, mailbox, and door knob in hopes that Haynes would develop an uncomfortable rash.”
Dr Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor, reports here onBond v. United States.
This is an interesting case. Carol Bond’s husband was infidel. Based on this fact, Bond could have filed a lawsuit against her husband and/or his mistress, including a divorce petition. There could have been a myriad causes of action – some colorable and others robust – for potential lawsuit by Bond. But, instead, Bond tried to get even with her husband’s mistress, Myrlinda Haynes. She tried to poison her husband’s mistress “by spreading chemicals on (among other things) her doorknob, causing only a minor burn that was easily treated with water.” Bond spread “two toxic chemicals on Haynes's car, mailbox, and door knob in hopes that Haynes would develop an uncomfortable rash.”
0 Comments
Dr Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, experienced professor and Director of Faculty Research at New York Institute of Technology, is now a co-leader and executive programs professor at Singapore Management University and Tata.
A professor with long records of academic achievements and honors, Dr Gurumurthy Kalyanaram started his academic career as a full reigned professor at the University Of Texas School Of Management. He was the Founding Director of the Cohort MBA Program, Senior’s Director of the Master’s Programs, Faculty Liaison for External Affairs and the Chairman of the Department of Marketing during his tenure at the University of Texas. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram NYIT As an academic Director of NYIT Global MBA Programs, he was the in charge of students and faculty recruitments, budgetary management and accreditation related matters as well. During his administration, several major curricular reviews and revisions were undertaken along with the development and design of new programs and concentrations such as New MBA concentrations in Economic, Innovation, Public Policy and a new program on health care management was started. Additionally the enrolment of students increased and the student’s placement was recorded at 80%. Dr Gurumurthy Kalyanaram was served on the Personnel Committee at NYIT School of Management and responsible for tenure decisions, retention, recruitment and promotion of faculty. During his tenure at NYIT he was an active member in several conferences including Allied Academies Conference, International Business Studies Conference, International Research Conference and Global Scholar Citations. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram NYIT The courses he taught at NYIT are International Business Studies, Interdisciplinary Advanced Courses, Marketing and Executive Education, Business Policy Courses, World Trade in Services Course and Cross Cultural Promotion Course. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram NYIT More Detail :- Gurumurthy Kalyanaram NYIT REPORTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND PUBLIC PRAYER
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and Public Policy, Including Politics, Law and Lawsuit and former professor NYIT and UT Dallas professor, reports here on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that a town/city can begin its meetings with a public prayer and such prayer does not violate freedom of religion. Galloway and other citizens filed a lawsuit in the District Court against their town, Greece in New York for violating their freedom of religion (Galloway v. Town of Greece (2014). REPORTS ON PLEADING STANDARDS AND FALSE CLAIMS ACT
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and former professor NYIT and UT Dallas professor, reports here on the write petition filed by Nathan to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of pleading requirement in a qui tam complaint/lawsuit. Relator Nathan filed a qui tam lawsuit (under False Claims Act, FCA) against Takeda Pharmaceuticals (U.S. ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals) alleging fraudulent representations and activities in “off label” promotion of stomach acid drugs by the pharmaceutical company. Dean Emeritus Gurumurthy Kalyanaram and former professor NYIT and UT Dallas reports on Rajat Gupta’s conviction in insider trading and affirmation of the conviction by the Appeals court in the criminal prosecution/lawsuit.
Upon filing of criminal complaint/lawsuit by the US government in the District Court, and after a jury trial, Rajat Gupta was convicted of three counts of security fraud (insider trading) and one count of conspiracy to commit fraud. Consequently, Gupta was sentenced to two years of jail and asked to pay a fine of $5 million in November 9, 2012 Dean Emeritus Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, and former professor NYIT and UT Dallas, reports here on Rajat Gupta’s appeal (lawsuit) against his life-time ban from all financial institutions in US, and attendant penalty by Securities and Exchanges Commission. This essay summarizes the status of the appeal lawsuit.
In response to Gupta’s lawsuit/appeal of his ban by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), SEC has filed a response asking the Second Circuit appeals court to affirm the district court’s decision that Gupta pay a $13.9 million penalty and be banned for life from serving as director of a public corporation. SEC has argued that the district court acted well within its discretion by permanently barring Gupta from associating with brokers, dealers, and investment advisers, permanently barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Here is a report on Whistleblower Protection of Sarbanex-Oxley Act 2002 by Dean Emeritus Professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, formerly of NYIT and UT Dallas.
Whistleblower protection and ant-retaliation provisions have spawned lot of debate, and many lawsuits. This reportdiscusses the recent US Supreme Court decision which addressed whether the scope of the anti-retaliation provision of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.Specifically, whether Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A) limits protection from retaliation to the employees of public companies, or if it also covers employees of contractors to a public company and if the said contractors can file a lawsuit under the anti-retaliation provisions of SOX. Jackie Lawson and Jonathan Zangwho were employed by private company contractors filed a lawsuit asserting that they were terminated because they reported alleged fraud by the funds. Mutual funds file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but typically do not have employees; rather, the funds are managed by employees of investment advisers. Lawson and Zang lawsuit became the test case. In a divided but majority 6-3 ruling, in Lawson v. FMR LLC,the Court held that Section 1514A whistleblower protection extends to employees of contractors and subcontractors of public companies, including investment advisers, law firms, and accounting firms. The Lawson decision means that such employees are protected by Section 1514A. The decision's scope is not limited to employees of mutual fund contractors but also extends to employees of other contractors to public companies, such as law firms and accounting firms. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinion said that the totality of circumstances including the text of Section 1514A,other considerations such as legislative intent, and the Department of Labor's interpretation and similar prior whistleblower protection legislation that Congress drew on when drafting Section 1514A, weighed in favor of interpreting the SOX whistleblower protection to cover employees not just of the public company itself, but of any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a public company. Further, the Court reasoned that Congress did not intend to stop contractors from retaliating against whistleblowers employed by the public companies they served, yet permit them to retaliate against their own employees.(Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined in the opinion only to the extent it was based on the language of the statute itself.) Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent argued that the majority's holding gave the law a "stunning reach." A babysitter, for example, could bring a Section 1514A claim against his employer, merely because that employer was an employee of a public company. Justice Ginsburg's opinion discounted the dissent's "fanciful visions of whistleblowing babysitters" and noted that "[f]ew housekeepers or gardeners... are likely to come upon and comprehend evidence of their employer's complicity in fraud." This is a landmark ruling with far reaching implications. Professor Paul R. Kutasovic of New York Institute of Technology (NYIT), who was a colleague of Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, is an expert and an active independent consultant on macroeconomic forecasts as well as forecasts for the regional economies. (While Gurumurthy Kayanaram was the Director of MBA programs globally at NYIT, Paul Kutasovic was the Director of the Undergraduate Programs.)
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on research insights by Paul Kutasovic on oil demand. This research was published in NMIMS Management Review, which is edited by Gurumurthy Kalyanaram. Over the past decade, oil has become a global commodity. In this global marketplace, there have been fundamental changes which will have a large impact on the future price of oil. This study examines these changes focusing on factors determining global supply and demand. On the supply side, the primary issue is peak oil. This refers to the concern that the world is running out of oil and that oil production will soon peak. Numerous doomsday predictions have been made by oil professionals at various times over the past two decades and have failed to come to fruition. Yet, the evidence is growing that these pessimistic forecasts may be right this time and that the era of cheap energy may be over. What is surprising is that despite the critical importance of the issue of peak oil, the topic has not been more widely discussed. On the demand side, global composition of demand is shifting away from the advanced economies in Europe, Japan and North America towards developing economies, especially those in Asia. This means the impact of the US in determining oil price is becoming less and less of a factor. The results show that oil production capacity must increase by a staggering 75.5 mbd by 2030 to meet demand growth and replace depleted supply. This capacity increase is more than twice the level of current OPEC production. The loss of capacity will have more important impact on future supply needs than the increase in demand. What makes the situation even more challenging is that peak oil analysis indicates that the rate of decline will accelerate with the increase in the age of oil fields. If this prediction is correct and peak production occurs in the next few years, there will be an even greater need to discover more oil to offset the larger declines in production. See the following URL for the paper and further analysis and discussions: http://nmims.edu/NMIMSmanagementreview/pdf/april-may-2012/01-changes-supply-demand-crude-oil.pdf Professor Paul R. Kutasovic of New York Institute of Technology (NYIT), who was a colleague of Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, is an expert and an active independent consultant on macroeconomic forecasts as well as forecasts for the regional economies. He has conducted research on methods used to forecast sales tax revenues, regional economic activity and the implications of peak oil for the regional economy. He has also worked on using economic indicators to guide the investment decision process. (While Gurumurthy Kayanaram was the Director of MBA programs globally at NYIT, Paul Kutasovic was the Director of the Undergraduate Programs.)
Here is a report by Gurumurthy Kalyanaram on interesting research by Paul Kutasovic on the debate on appropriate accounting methodology. In light of the financial meltdown that followed the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2008, there is considerable debate in the financial community on the appropriate accounting methodology used to value financial assets. In fact, many analysts on Wall Street argue that much of the blame for the current financial and economic crisis is due to fair value accounting and the implementation of FASB 157, which regulators put into effect for financial statements released after November 15, 2007. The argument is that with assets trading in illiquid markets, financial institutions reported outsized losses by writing down the value of their security and loan holdings even if they had the intent and ability to hold the assets to maturity. The critics of FASB 157 charge that these sharp write-downs contributed to the failure of banks and forced others firms into a difficult financial situation. The following study examines the issues surrounding fair value accounting and looks at the role accounting played in the financial crisis. The researchers conclude that fair value accounting played no significant role and is the preferred accounting framework for financial institutions.See the following URL for the paper: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871271 |