ATSU International Business Law Discussion

September 19, 2022

ATSU International Business Law Discussion

Order ID:89JHGSJE83839

Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago

Pages:5-10

Instructions:

ATSU International Business Law Discussion

ATSU Business Discussion

Little, Ltd., is a small publicly traded stock company that owns a valuable patent. Little has approximately 1,000 shareholders and about 100,000 shares authorized and outstanding. Big Company would like to use the patent, but Little has refused to grant it a license. Big offered to buy out all of Little’s assets, but Little’s board of directors refused.

Big has now tendered an offer to all of Little’s shareholders to pay them U.S. $10 a share for their stock, a price that is slightly above the current fair-market price. What can Little do to prevent Big from succeeding? And could Big do to do the opposite?

ATSU International Business Law Discussion

Turnip Company, a multinational enterprise headquartered in State T, ordered its subsidiary in State R, the Radish Company, to close and to declare itself bankrupt. The Radish Company did so. However, it did not give its employees adequate notice of its closing, and its assets were inadequate for funding the termination payments due the employees under State R law.

In the bankruptcy proceeding, the employees asked the bankruptcy tribunal to order Turnip to fund the termination payments that Radish owed them. In support of this, the employees introduced evidence establishing that Turnip had known for some time that Radish was an unprofitable subsidiary and would have to be closed; and that, in anticipation of this, it had taken assets belonging to Radish out of the state so that they would be unavailable at the time of the bankruptcy liquidation. How should the tribunal rule? Discuss.

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.

Methodology

58-53 points

Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.

83-76 points

Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.

52-49 points

Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.

75-1 points

Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.

48-1 points

There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met