![Case Analysis
· Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem for the week in
the corresponding weeks assignment dropbox. The case
assignments will be posted by professor in the Announcements
each week. In a large class some students may have duplicate
cases assigned to other students.
· The assignment should consist of a presentable and
entertaining presentation (Power Point or other medium) and
will be delivered in some form of participative medium
(webex/on-site/or alternative as determined by professor) . It
should include a summary of the relevant facts, the law, judicial
opinion and answer the case questions. All that is necessary for
an understanding of the case is important and required.
· The report must go beyond the discussion of the problem
posed in the textbook, to achieve a superior grade. Do research
outside the textbook- this must include research outside the case
citation such as the Lexus-Nexis in the DeVry Library or
FindLaw.com, do research on the parties and circumstances of
the case itself and incorporate some audio-visual modality as a
part of the case analysis.something about one of the parties, as
well as some background contained in the legal opinion. Doing
significant research outside the textbook is essential.
· Utilize the case format below.
· Your grade comes from the content contained on the actual
submission.
Case Analysis Format
1. Read and understand the case or question assigned. Show
your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand
the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter
we are studying to show your reasoning. Dedicate at least one
heading to each following outline topic:
Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant]
Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the
case]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/caseanalysispostabriefcaseanalysisofalistedproblemf-221101053627-568a63c9/85/Case-Analysis-Post-a-brief-case-analysis-of-a-listed-problem-f-docx-1-320.jpg)
![Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in
the lower court(s)?]
Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case
turns]
Explain the applicable law(s). Use the textbook here. The law
should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use
citations from the textbook including page numbers.
Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's
decision]
2. Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate
that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research
beyond the legal research. This involves something about the
parties or other interesting related area. Show something you
have discovered about the case, parties or other important
element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and
adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.
3. Dedicate 1 slide to each of the case question(s) immediately
following the case, if there are any. Be sure to state and fully
answer the questions in the presentation.
4. Quality in terms of substance, form, grammar and context. Be
entertaining! Use excellent audio-visual material and
backgrounds!
5. Wrap up with a Conclusion slide. This should summarize the
key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on
the court's ruling.
6. Include citations on the slides and a reference slide with your
sources. Use APA style citations and references.
Submit your assignment to the Dropbox, located at the top of
this page. For instructions on how to use the Dropbox, read
these step-by-step instructions.
See the Syllabus section "Due Dates for Assignments & Exams"
for due date information.
Montgomery v. Kail Orexi LLC](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/caseanalysispostabriefcaseanalysisofalistedproblemf-221101053627-568a63c9/85/Case-Analysis-Post-a-brief-case-analysis-of-a-listed-problem-f-docx-2-320.jpg)
Case Analysis · Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem f.docx
- 1. Case Analysis · Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem for the week in the corresponding weeks assignment dropbox. The case assignments will be posted by professor in the Announcements each week. In a large class some students may have duplicate cases assigned to other students. · The assignment should consist of a presentable and entertaining presentation (Power Point or other medium) and will be delivered in some form of participative medium (webex/on-site/or alternative as determined by professor) . It should include a summary of the relevant facts, the law, judicial opinion and answer the case questions. All that is necessary for an understanding of the case is important and required. · The report must go beyond the discussion of the problem posed in the textbook, to achieve a superior grade. Do research outside the textbook- this must include research outside the case citation such as the Lexus-Nexis in the DeVry Library or FindLaw.com, do research on the parties and circumstances of the case itself and incorporate some audio-visual modality as a part of the case analysis.something about one of the parties, as well as some background contained in the legal opinion. Doing significant research outside the textbook is essential. · Utilize the case format below. · Your grade comes from the content contained on the actual submission. Case Analysis Format 1. Read and understand the case or question assigned. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter we are studying to show your reasoning. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic: Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant] Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case]
- 2. Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?] Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns] Explain the applicable law(s). Use the textbook here. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers. Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?] Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision] 2. Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case. 3. Dedicate 1 slide to each of the case question(s) immediately following the case, if there are any. Be sure to state and fully answer the questions in the presentation. 4. Quality in terms of substance, form, grammar and context. Be entertaining! Use excellent audio-visual material and backgrounds! 5. Wrap up with a Conclusion slide. This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court's ruling. 6. Include citations on the slides and a reference slide with your sources. Use APA style citations and references. Submit your assignment to the Dropbox, located at the top of this page. For instructions on how to use the Dropbox, read these step-by-step instructions. See the Syllabus section "Due Dates for Assignments & Exams" for due date information. Montgomery v. Kail Orexi LLC
- 3. When Montgomery, a customer at Gondolier restaurant, became intoxicated on the alcoholic beverages he was served, the restaurant staff called for a taxi to take him home. The taxi driver tried to drive him home, but Montgomery kept saying he didn’t want to go home and kept trying to grab the steering wheel out of the driver’s hands. The taxi driver finally pulled over and removed Montgomery from the cab. The taxi driver then called 911 to report that he left a very drunk man at the side of the road. Montgomery subsequently fell off a bridge and was killed. His blood alcohol was very high. His heirs sued the restaurant owner and the company that supplied the alcohol to the restaurant. Do you think the court imposed liability on either the restaurant or the distributer of the alcohol? Montgomery v. Kail Orexi, LLC, S.W.3d (2009 WL 837711, Ct. App., Tenn., 2009). Business Law Case Study David Harrison-Trimble Week 2 Case Study Keller v. Central Bank of Nigeria MGMT-520 Keller University Parties Involved Prince Arthur Ossai Central Bank of Nigeria- defendant Henry Keller-Plaintiff
- 4. The key parties invovled in this case is Prince Arthur Ossai and Henry Keller. Prince Arthur Ossai is the defendant whereas Henry Keller is the plaintiff. Ossai was a government official in Nigeria, who entered into a contract with Henry Keller, who is a sales representative for H.K E enterprises, Inc, which is a Michigan-based manufacturer of medical equipments. Being a plaintiff, Keller accused The Central Bank of Nigeria of deffrauding him 428, 950 in fees for a transaction that was never successful. This is because upon payment if the money, Kellerr was supposed to receive $25.5 million for the contract to supply the needed equipments (United States Court of Appeals, 2002). 2 Facts Ossai and Keller entered into a contract to distribute medical equipment in Nigeria Osai demanded that Keller grant him exclusive distribution rights Ossai demanded that $25.5 million deposit in CBN be transferred to Keller’s account. CBN employees charged Keller $28,950 in fees for the transaction, but never transferred the money. Keller and H.K Company filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against CBN and others, citing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) However, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss it under the Foreign Sovereign Iimmunities Act (FSIA). The court dismissed the motion, asserting that the claim fell within the FSIA’s commercial activity exception.
- 5. Prince Arthur Ossai, a Nigerian government official, entered into a contract with Henry Keller, a sales representative for H.K Enterprises, Inc, based in Michigan. Keller’s company manufacturers and supplies medical equipments. The parties agreed that Ossai would be granted exclusive distribution rights to sell H.K products in Nigeria. In addition, it was agreed that Ossai would buy $4.1 million of H.K products for $6.62 million, together with a $7.65 million licensing fee. Prior to the closure of the deal, Ossai requested that $25.5 million on deposit to the Central Bank of Nigeria be transferred into an account established by Keller. The CBN employees charged Keller $28,950 in fees for the transaction. However, the funds were never transferred. As a result, Keller filed a lawsuit against the CBN and others, basing his accusations on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). However, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss it, citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (United States Court of Appeals, 2002). 3 Procedures The defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit This happened after the lower court denied their dismissal motion that was based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FISA) The lower court stated that the claim fell within FISA’s
- 6. ‘commercial activity’ exception Thereafter, the defendants moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. The defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Initially, the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s accusation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Act. In the dismissal motion, the defendants dismissed the accusations under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). However, the lower court denied the motion, stating that the claim fell within the FSIA’s commercial activity exception. As a result, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The district court had the original jurisdiction without regard to amount of controversy of any nonjury civil action against a foreign state as described in section 1603(a) of the title on any claim for relief in person with regard to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1603 to 1607 or under any applicable international agreement (United States Court of Appeals, 2002). 4 Issue: The Central Question The key question is whether ‘commercial activity’ exception is applicable under FSIA The court also seeks to determine whether RICO provisions can be applied under the ‘commercial activity’ exception. Another question is whether immunity under FSIA can be granted when there are individuals involved, who act on behalf of FSIA
- 7. The central question that the U.S Court of Appeals concerned itself with was whether the ’commercial activity exception’ to Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act was applicable. To begin with, the parties strongly dispute the relevance of immunity under FSIA. This law provides, in relevant part, that in view of the existing international agreements to which the US is a party at the time of enactment if this act, a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of the same chapter. Under FSIA, ‘commercial activity is either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act (Hartley, 2009). This includes the commercial character of any transaction or activity (United States Court of Appeals, 2002). 5 The Applicable Laws The main applicable laws include: Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) The ‘Commercial Activity’ exception clause under FSIA The laws that are applicable in this case scenario include the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The FSIA
- 8. governs all litigations that concern both state and federal courts, including their agencies and instrumentalities. It has provisions for the exclusive basis for gathering jurisdiction over these entities in the US courts (Hartley, 2009). FSIA recognizes immunity in every civil action against a foreign state or its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities. In addition, it also has ‘commercial activity’ exception that can be used as a basis to scrap off this immunity. The RICO, on the other hand, is a federal law that that is meant to avert organized crime in the United States by prosecution and civil penalties for racketeering activities undertaken as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Activities include bribery, money laundering, and embezzlement (Goldman & Sigismond, 2013). 6 Holding: How the Court Resolved the Issue The defendants acted within the scope of the sovereign Defendants are protected by FSIA Court upheld district court’s ‘commercial activity’ exception under FSIA. Motion gives room fro civil claims under RICO against the defendants The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that as a collective, the defendants acted within the scope of the sovereign. Therefore, they are potentially protected by FSIA. The Court also upheld the decision of the lower court, which regarded the transaction as a ‘commercial activity. As a result, an exception to the Act was granted. The Court also held that the motion can therefore give room for civil claims under RICO to be brought against the defendants, for criminal racketeering activities. Under RICO,
- 9. racketeering is regarded as an indictable, punishable criminal act, and the final decision of the Court was that FSIA gives foreign sovereigns immunity from Civil claims (United States Court of Appeals, 2002). 7 Reasoning Commercial activity exception was applicable The contract was a deal to license and sell medical equipments Such an activity is private, not a regulator function of the CBN. Thus, this was a commercial activity. The defendants’ argument neglects the extended business dealings of the defendants The Court reasoned that the commercial activity clause was applicable because in this case, the conduct was a deal to license and sell medical equipments. This type of activity is done by private parties and not a market regulator function of the CBN. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that this was a commercial activity, and that any fraud and bribery involved did not render the plan for non-commercial (United States Court of Appeals, 2002). In addition, the court stated that the argument by other defendants that only Ossai, who is not a party to the appeal, entered into the contract with the plaintiffs is erroneous. To this, the court reasoned that the defendant’s argument neglects the extended business dealings of these defendants (Ogwuma, Rasheed, Sadiq, and the CBN), with the plaintiff in furtherance of the contract. In view of the above, the court determined that there is no reason to affirm that the continuing negotiations by other defendants at the CBN fell outside the confines of the ‘commercial activity’ of the
- 10. arrangement. 8 Conclusion The above case clarifies the extent to which foreign sovereigns are immune to criminal prosecution in US Courts It also explains the defining features of non-individual sovereign rights It also clarifies that individuals who serve as agents on behalf of sovereigns also enjoy immunity under FSIA The central idea of the above case scenario is sovereign immunity and the degree to which foreign sovereigns are immune from criminal prosecution in the United States Courts. Therefore, the above case served to identify the defining characteristics of non-individual sovereign. It also established that these people, who serve as agents on behalf of the sovereigns, still enjoy immunity under the FSIA. The fact that the defendants faced criminal persecution from which they were ultimately given immunity supersedes the fact that their initial activities were regarded as commercial, and not protected by FSIA. Thus, the court dismissed RICO (United States Court of Appeals, 2002). 9 References Goldman, A. J., & Sigismond, W. D. (2013). Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law: Principles and Practices. New York: Nelson Education.
- 11. Hartley, T. C. (2009). International commercial litigation: text, cases and materials on private international law. Cambridge University Press. United States Court of Appeals. (2002). H. Henry KELLER; H.K. Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA; Paul Ogwuma; Alhaji Rasheed; Alhaji M.A. Sadiq, Defendants-Appellants. Retrieved from http://www.findlaw.com 10