Argument Date: November 29, 2011

Weather the two-year time limit for bringing a lawsuit under section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is fined when the defendant has failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of Section 16(a). The constitutional issue is that does the 2 year limit in Section 16(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act to file certain insider trading claims begin if the insider has not done what he is supposed to do under Section 16(a)? 

Credit Suisse Securities is a company based out of Zurich, Switzerland. Their a bank that provides company loan for a wide range of clients. Vanessa Simmonds was an investor who owned tech stocks underwritten by Credit Suisse and several other investment banks. Simmonds alleges that the underwriter for the IPO's were in violation of insider trading laws by manipulating stock prices with short-swing transactions. IPO stands for Initial Public Offerings which is the first sale of stock from a private company to the general public.

According to what has happened during the case argument, the court does not agree with either side of the argument. Most of the articles I've read reporting out on what happened during the argument are saying that when a decision is made it will most likely not side with wither party but instead find a middle ground in which no one's argument is fully supported. But it might also lead to systems put into place to prevent this from happening in the future once again.

Links:

"Argument recap: A middle ground on tolling of insider trading claims?"

"Argument preview: Tolling the statute of limitations for insider trading claims"

My task that I selected was a liquor license for a restaurant of some sorts. Basically the flirt thing that may partner and I did was find the paper work that we had to fill out. Since I didn't have a computer I took had to do the paper work for the most part. The paper was pretty straight forward however there were some things that I didn’t understand what they were talking about. Many things were repeats and I couldn't understand why, so figured it is probably because different papers may be going to different areas. Other than that the paperwork wasn't all that challenging, it was typically very straight forward. After filling out the paperwork Markia made the flow chart, I checked it and told her some adjustments she had to make then she finished it.

Constitutional Question: Should debtors pay federal income tax on the gain from the sale of assets (their farm) during bankruptcy proceedings and to what extent?

Facts:

• ♣ Lynwood and Brenda Hall owned a farm in Willcoz, Arizone
• ♣ 2005 they filed for bankruptcy under chapter 12
• ♣ chapter 12 is a provision in bankrupty code applying to farmers
• o eases burden on family owned farms
• ♣ discharge certain debts
• ♣ easier
• ♣ chapter 12 amended in 2005
• o discharge claims resulting from sale/trade of farm asset used in farming
• ♣ sold farm for $960,000
• ♣ made a profit because it exceeded their debt
• ♣ tried to discharge a capital gains tax
• o $29,000
• ♣ IRS objected
• o After assets are sold after bankruptcy petition taxes are not dischargable 
• ♣ Bankruptcy court said the Halls were liable because “a Chapter 12 esate is not a separate taxable entity” 
• ♣ Halls appealed to district court
• o Reversed decision 
• o Found in favor of the Halls
• o Said Chap 12 was made to help family farms stay in the family 
• ♣ Refusing the tax discharge would be inconsistent
• ♣ Gov’t appealed to US court of appeals
• o Case again reversed
• o Chap 12 estate is not a separate entity
• ♣ Capital gains tax must be assessed as a independent tax
• ♣ Halls appealed for certiorari
• o When a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court
• ♣ Supreme court granted Halls petition

Summary: The Halls owned a farm but they went bankrupt so they sold it. They made a profit but then got taxed but Chapter 12 is made so farmers can keep their farms in the family and it helps them. They applied to have the tax discharge but the IRS was like “No that’s totally taxable under chapter 12 because you filed for bankruptcy making it a separate entitity.” But the Halls didn’t want to give in so they appealed it and the gov’t said they were right because refusing the tax charge was inconsistent. But then the gov’t had it appealed and the court said the gov’t is right because capital gains tax must be assessed as a seprate tax. So the Halls filed for certiorari and went to the supreme court.

Predictions: I think the Halls will lose because since they made a profit its no longer just a matter of their bankruptcy issue. They should have to pay the tax regardless. 

• My partner and I researched the process to get a permit for block parties in the city of Philadelphia. For the process, the person who wants to arrange the block party has to do couple things before he/she can get a permit for the block party. First thing that person has to do is go to "Streets Department" on JFK Blvd to get the application. After that's done, there's two parts to the application first page is a form asking for basic information such as the person's name, address and which block(s) will be blocked. The second page is a petition where the residents of the street thats going to be blocked has to sign it which means they don't have a problem with the street being blocked. It requires the name, signature and address of the resident. 75 percent of signatures has to be residents of that certain block.  After that is completed, a 20 dollar check or money order is required with the application. If the application is being turned in 21 days before the event date then the cost will be 45 dollars. Once everything is turned in, wait for the application to process and obtain the permit. In my opinion this process is really simple and easy. Its also fair because without the permission of other residents, a block party wouldn't take place.