CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW - Case Study Example The paper applies both corporate and securities law to solve the issue existing at Bagofglass, Inc. (BofG). Peter, the petitioner in the case, seeks compensation for damages caused by Bog as provided under section 11 of corporate law. Bagofglass Inc., through its CEO, Mr. Erwin Mainway, signed the registration statement. The statement took effect on January 1, 2011 after its successful filing on December 10, 2010. In the statement, Bagofglass Inc declared public offering of its shares. Mr. Peter bought shares after the statement became effective. Each share sold at ten dollars; Peter purchased a thousand shares. On January 15, the Company violated the agreement stipulated in the statement by selling its shares at fifteen dollars per share. Peter, the plaintiff, therefore, alleges that Bagofglass violated the law by omitting the facts stated in the registration statement. Therefore, the registration statement signed by Erwin was misleading. In this case, Bagofglass Inc’s CEO is liable as the signatory and director of the corporation. Corporate Law provides that if an individual purchases the shares not in the initial offer, except when from a third party, the plaintiff may seek compensation for damages caused by false statements as provided under section 11. Therefore, it is possible for Mr. Peter to recover against Bagofglass and its staff involved in giving a misleading registration statement. The staff includes Mr. Ewin Mainway (Bagofglass Inc.’s CEO), the law firm representing Bagofglass Inc., Dewy, Cheat hem and How (DUCHY) and the accounting firm representing BofG, Ernest and Ernest, LLP (E&E). The law firm, DC&H is liable if they expertise the portion of the initial public offering of Bagofglass, Inc. The aforementioned statement takes effect only if the conducted reasonable investigations provide facts beyond reasonable doubt that DUCHY participated at the time when the registration statement thereon was untrue. However, DC&H are not liable in