Lawsuit: Adjourned The Commonwealth v. Trentrick_Lamar [2022] SCR 14

Status
Not open for further replies.

Verdict


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

The Commonwealth v. Trentrick_Lamar [2022] SCR 14

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. CEO Trentrick Lamar has failed to act in the interest of his company Wallgreens by failing to provide Stock Price Updates.
2. Secretary of the DEC Trentrick Lamar is using his position in a corrupt manner by refusing to enforce the law on his own company.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The DLA should not be bringing a Fiduciary violation before the Court, The Shareholders of Walgreens should as it is a civil dispute between two stakeholders.
2. Secretary of the DEC Trentrick Lamar has not prevented any DEC employee from enforcing any laws upon Walgreens.
III. THE COURT OPINION

Chief Justice Krix delivering the opinion of the Court, on behalf of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

1. In the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, the Courts believes that Trentrick Lamar is not inviolation of his Fiduciary obligation, as according to the "Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act" This is due to the Act stating: "(7) The employees, officers, and other such decision-making personnel of a company will have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of the company to maximise the long-term profits and increases in value of the shares of the company."

It was CEO Trentrick Lamars first obligation to his shareholders to "maximise the long-term profits and increases in value of the shares of the company." The CEO may determine the best way to do this at their own free will and it may have been CEO Trentrick Lamars opinion that by showing a decrease in the value of Walgreens he may be putting its share price at risk.

2. In the opinion of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont, Trentrick Lamar is not guilty of Corruption as Corruption stipulates that:
"To use a government position to act to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to unfairly benefit oneself, or someone else. By applying, being appointed to, or being elected into a position in government, the player agrees to serve the server over themselves."

The Court believes that Trentrick Lamar did not use his position as Secretary of the DEC to "unfairly benefit oneself" as from the information presented before the Court he did not limit DEC Employees from enforcing laws upon Walgreens. Additionally The Court believes it would be improper for Secretary Trentrick Lamar to have handle DEC matters relating to his own company as this would have be a clear conflict of interest.

In Conclusion the Court does believe that TrentrickLamar acted in a manner of negligence when performing his DEC duties relating to the "Corporate Law and Shareholder Protections Act" but as the Act places no onus on TrentrickLamar as secretary of the DEC to perform any specific duties he can not be found in violation of it. Should the plaintiff wish to see TrentrickLamar face punitive damages for this negligence then they would have to take the matter before congress.

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont hereby finds TrentrickLamar not guilty on all charges.

The Court thanks both parties for their continued commitment to the case throughout and would like to apologies for the delay in the delivery of the verdict.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top