Hurricane Katrina Analysis And Summary Of Articles1. .

Hurricane Katrina: Analysis and Summary of Articles 1 Hurricane Katrina: Analysis and Summary of Articles Micheal Boor GO125DL Natural Disasters Park University Ms. Jill Lockard 09 April 2017 Hurricane Katrina: Analysis and Summary of Articles 2 Abstract The intent of this paper will be to analyze and summarize scholarly case studies and news articles concerning the flooding caused when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana in 2005. Additionally, this paper will provide recommendations for how to prevent events of this magnitude from occurring or offer suggestions to mitigate the effects of flooding through providing government aid at the local, state or federal level. To accomplish this, examples and evidence†¦show more content†¦The follow on program to the Standard Flood Project was instituted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency when they established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP.) The NFIP effectively reset the assessment for high risk areas to every 100 years vice 500 years. Severe floods in the United States between 1993 and 2006 resulted in further changes to how the government approaches floodplain management versus floodplain Hurricane Katrina: Analysis and Summary of Articles 4 risk. One would assume that the Great Mississippi River flood of 1993 would have been the impetus to energize our government to take the steps to reform our aging flood control infrastructure. However, that was not the case and in 2004 Hurricane Katrina shined a spotlight on our out of date flood control infrastructure. Based on the post-flood analysis of the hurricane the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) found that the entire system was precariously designed at best and that if one component failed it would overwhelm the rest of the system causing a catastrophic failure of the flood controls. One thing the USACE did really well was to create an Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET), which acted as an independent group to assist in the fact check of the results from the studies conducted post Katrina. The increased focus on climate change, specifically the ebb and flow of the rainy season in conjunction with how the flood control efforts can play into this is

Arson Paper Free Essays

ARSON†¦ WHAT IS IT? Krystle Lamb Houston Community College Criminal Justice 1301 ABSTRACT Arson is one of the world’s oldest known crimes. It can cost a life or a generous amount of money in damages. Even though it can take a person’s life, arson is classified as a property crime to law enforcement agencies. We will write a custom essay sample on Arson Paper or any similar topic only for you Order Now It is time consuming and very difficult to investigate. Only twenty percent of arrests result in a conviction because it is classified as a â€Å"property crime† rather than a violent crime. The motives of arson range from profit to murder. People who use arson use it because it’s a quick easy act of terrorism to a person or company they are trying to hurt. I believe there should be more and better adequate training for investigators and prosecutors to put away the people that can commit such a crime. The United States has one of the highest fire death rates in the world. In 1998 the â€Å"NFPA reported about 14. 9 deaths per million population. Between 1994 and 1998 about 4,400 Americans died and about 35,100 were injured yearly. Also about 100 firefighters a year lost their lives in their hazardous job related duties. (http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Arson) Fires kill more Americans a year than natural disasters combined. Arson is the most expensive crime committed, this can be attributed to the several factors which are the lack of education on the problems of arson, and prosecutors do not want to take on the case because of circumstantial evidence, quick payments from insurance companies, and inadequate train ing for investigators. Legal arson is categorized in two categories; aggravated arson and arson. â€Å"Aggravated arson is burning of property while endangering human life. Arson is burning of property that does not include the risk of human life. â€Å" (http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Arson) Fire crime scenes begin like any other investigation. The trick is to connect the suspect to the crime. There are clues to determine if a fire is suspicious or not. For example, the color of the flames has to do with the accelerant use. Like alcohol burn with a blue-orange flame. The descriptions are usually gained from the witnesses. The odor of smoke can explain what material was used to start the fire. Before a fire is visible, the smoke can be observed. If the smoke is black then it is petroleum based. If the smoke is a white color the vegetation material was used (hay or straw. ) If the structure is completely engulfed in flames then it is difficult to determine which material was set to burn. The size of the fire gives the investigator information if it was arson or not. For instance, if a building is engulfed in flames in a short period of time, then that might be because of arson. Natural fire tends to burn at a slower steadier pace with a natural pattern but this is circumstantial. One of the articles that I decided to write about was the incident that took place at the beginning of September in Needville, TX. â€Å"It was a fire that burned 400 acres and charred a barn in the Needville area and was intentionally set, officials  said. The blaze started at the corner of a pasture on Foster School Road near Brinkmeyer on Sept. 7, according to the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s  Office. The blaze raced southwest and jumped Baker Road. It also destroyed a facility that housed two vehicles and travel  tailer. More than 100 firefighters from 20 agencies from nearby areas, including the Needville Fire Department, battled the  blaze. In conclusion, arson is a very serious crime and should be taken very seriously when one is criminally charged. Way too much money is lost, as well as the lives of others who are less fortunate. Works Cited Lezon, D. (2011, September, 7). $10,000 reward in arson fire near Needville. The Houston Chronicle. $10,000 reward offered in arson case. Retrieved September 15, 2011 from http://abclocal. o. com/ktrk/story? section=news/crime_tracker;id=8371513 Huge reward offered in Needville arson. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www. fortbendnow. com/2011/09/28/56990 $10K reward out for anyone who turns in serial arsonist in Needville. Retrieved September 22, 2011 from http://www. yourhoustonnews. com/fort_bend/news/reward-out-for-needville-arsonist/article_74e0b30e-5347-5171-9852-b5f9002d0477. html Karki, Sameer , K. (2009, february 13). Arson. Retrieved from http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Arson How to cite Arson Paper, Papers

Duties and Corporate Social Responsiveness

Question: Discuss about the Duties and Corporate Social Responsiveness. Answer: Introduction: This report contains the discussion on Australian case Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17. We choose this case because in this the actual matter is related to breach of directors duties and officers duties under section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001. In this case, the full bench of the High Court of Australia overturned the decision of NSW Court of appeal and held that all the directors of the company that is seven non-executive directors, company secretary of the company breach their duties towards the company by releasing the statement which is related to misleading announcement to ASX. This case provides better understanding of duties of ASIC duties related to bringing proceedings under Corporation Act 2001 and also the duties of directors towards the company and other regulatory authorities. This case clarifies many other things also such as duties of executive and non executive director, management below the board level, and definition of officers under the act (Czoch Whalebelly, 2012; ABC, 2012). In this first we give brief introduction of the case, then how directors breach their duties towards the company, and we critically ANALYSE the court/tribunal decision and the reason for the decision in view of the Corporations Ac t. At last, we conclude the essay with the brief conclusion. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17: Case introduction: In 2007, proceedings under civil penalty were brought by ASIC to NSW Supreme Court against the seven non-executive directors of the company. Out of those seven directors three directors are former executive directors and company secretary of James Hardie Industries Ltd (JHIL) and proceedings against these directors are brought under section 180(1) of Corporation Act 2001. ASIC alleged that directors of the JHIL are failed to exercise due care and diligence for release of information related to share market, and this will result in breach of duties of directors towards the company. In this case NSW Supreme Court decided that seven directors of JHIL breach their duties by approving the misleading announcement made to ASX which stated that trust which is created to compensate the victims of asbestos related diseases have sufficient funds and this trust can meet the all claims related to asbestos in present and future. Later, it was found that this trust was underfunded by $1.5 billion. Court also held that Mr. Shafron as company secretary and general counsel of JHIL breach his duties by failing to advice the board that announcement made to ASX was misleading. For breach of section 180(1) of the Corporation Act 2001 court issue disqualification orders and imposed fines against the directors (High Court of Australia, 2012; Jacobson, 2012). Directors filed appeal against the decision of NSW Supreme Court in NSW Court of Appeal. Directors stated that judge of NSW Supreme Court does not consider the fact that announcement made to ASX is tabled and approved in the meeting of board in February. NSW Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that ASIC has not satisfied his burden of proof and court of appeal stated: Resolution related to ASX announcement was passed in meeting of board of directors conducted in February, and this resolution was not accurate and its accuracy is in question especially for the matter of ASX announcement (High Court of Australia, 2012). ASIC failed to call accurate witness, and they are unable in re-calling the events held in the February board meeting of directors. Court of Appeal also held that ASIC owned duty of fairness and they breach their duty by not calling the lawyer of JHIL that is Mr. Robb because he attended the meeting and also prepare the board minutes of that meeting. ASIC failed to call Mr. Robb which result in diminish of cogency of the evidence presented by ASIC. ASIC filed appeal against the decision of NSW Court of Appeal in the High Court of Australia (Lexology, 2012; Time base, 2012). High Court overturned the decision of NSW Court of Appeal, and remaining matters are remitted to the Court of Appeal brought by the directors and other officers related to relief from penalty and liability (news.com. au, 2012). Breach of directors duty: Before discussing the duties of director it is necessary that we discuss section 180 (1) of the Corporation Act 2001 which states that it is the duty of the director or other officers of the company that they must exercise their powers and discharge their duties with due care and diligence that any reasonable person would exercise (Corporation Act 2001). In 2012, High Court of Australia held that by approving the misleading statement made to the ASX which is related to asbestos compensation fund, the 7 non-executive directors of JHIL breach their duties under section 180(1) and 181 of the Corporation Act 2001. Court also held that Peter James Saffron who is the company secretary and general counsel of the company also failed to discharge his duties with due care and diligence related to the announcement made to the ASX that Asbestos compensation trust is fully funded (Lamont 2012). The decision of High Court under this case highlights the duties and accountability of directors for the decision made by the Board, and also it state the responsibility of directors related to the accuracy of statements made by the company to the market. This case state the importance of the need that directors must understand the documents related to the company and representations the made to outsiders even if such documents are complex in nature. Court does not introduce any new law in this case and approach considered by court is not controversial. It is important for directors that they understand the document, and does not fulfill his duties merely on the basis of other directors and experts advice. This case also highlights the challenges for company secretary and other officers of the company regarding following matter (Redmond, 2012). After this case the career and reputation of former directors of James Hardie was ruined, and there is also great loss to the reputation of the company. Besides that there is damage on the market value of the shares of James Hardie which also affect the innocent shareholders of the company. This is clear, that risk taken by the directors of the company in this case by not making actual statement to the ASX to the board and ASX results in great damage to the company and to themselves (Govrick, 2012 : McVeagh, 2012). If management fails to provide accurate and complete information to the directors of the company then it does not mean that directors are free from the responsibility. Therefore, it is necessary for directors that they keep their eyes open and discharge their duties with due care and diligence (Casson, 2011). Decision of High Court: The High Court of Australia overturned the decision made by NSW Court of Appeal in which court of appeal stated that ASIC has failed to satisfy the burden of proof lien on him related to announcement made to ASX in February board meeting was tabled ad approved. High Court also stated that minutes of board meeting are record which are formal in nature and stated the proceedings of the meeting and these minutes are the true evidence of what happened at the meeting. Therefore, ASX announcement was tabled and approved at the meeting. Argument of directors stated that minutes of the meetings are not reliable because these minutes are prepared before the board meeting and these minutes are not accurate was rejected by the High Court. High court stated that this was great coincidence that not even single individual who was presented in the board meeting of April in which minutes of February board meeting was approved notice that minutes contained resolution which was not even passed in the meeting. In the words of the High Court respondents case would be a great blunder because recording such an important resolution in the minutes even if such resolution never passed in the meeting (Tam, 2012). High Court further held that there are some differences in the draft that was tabled in the February board meeting and amendments was made in the announcement made ASX but these amendments are not substantive and especially the misleading statements are same. High court also stated that ASX announcement was circuited and not even single individual raise question against that announcement which shows that announcement was tabled and approved by the directors of the company in the meeting of board of directors. On the finding of the NSW Court of Appeal that ASIC failed to call Mr. Rob diminish the Cogency of Evidence of ASIC, and ASIC agrees that this was general obligation of ASIC to act fairly. On these findings High Court held that: NSW Court of Appeal does not identify any source which imposes duty to call the particular evidence, and also not any source which stated any rule was applied in case of breach. Even if any source existed which impose duty to call specific witness then it was expected that primary judge direct the ASIC to call such witness or primary judge stay the proceeding of this case until ASIC call such witness. There is no provision which stated that cogency of evidence is diminished by not calling that particular witness (Austlii, 2012). The High Court rejected the decision of Court of Appeal on the basis of principles stated in Blatch v Archer and Jones v Dunkel. This case is not depend on the witness but it was depend on the Board minutes of February Board meeting. In this case High Court allowed the appeal of ASIC with cost and set aside the order of NSW Court of Appeal in relation Mr. Hellicar. High Court overturned the decision of NSW Court of Appeal, and remaining matters are remitted to the Court of Appeal brought by the directors and other officers related to relief from penalty and liability (Boardman Lees, 2012; Kemp Strang, 2012). All the judges held that Court of Appeal does not give sufficient importance to the board minutes of February Board Meeting, whereas Section 251A states that it is necessary for the company that it maintains the minutes book of the meetings and record the proceeding of the meetings within 1 month of the meeting. This section also state that minutes must be signed by the chair or reasonable authority, and these minutes are evidence of the proceedings to which it relates. Contravention of this section is criminal offence. Therefore, high court consider the minutes of February Board Meeting as evidence to the fact that draft of ASX announcement was tabled and approved by the board (Austin, Standen Reynolds, 2012). The impact of this decision raise many questions such as whether it is right that directors of the company lies on the advice of experts and management and whether it is not possible for the company secretary to divide his task from the role of company secretary or general counsel (Austlii, 2012). Conclusion: In this case, we understand the obligations and duties of directors related to the representations made by the company to the outsiders. It is important that directors discharge their duties with due care and diligence. This case not only impacts the reputation of former directors of the company and company itself but also affect the innocent shareholders of the company. In this case, High Court overturned the decision of NSW Court of Appeal, and remaining matters are remitted to the Court of Appeal brought by the directors and other officers related to relief from penalty and liability. This decision of High Court highlights the importance of directors duty and their impact on the company. Therefore, it is clear from the above facts that directors are responsible for the decisions made by board. This case also state the importance of minutes held by the company and considered them proper and good evidence of the matter related. At last, we conclude the essay by saying that ASIC v Hellicar case leaves number of question marks on the working of directors and other officers of the company. References: Czoch, K. Whalebelly, R. (2012). The James Hardie Decisions: ASIC v Hellicar Ors [2012] HCA17; Shafron v ASIC [2012] HCA 18. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/176336/Directors+Officers+Executives+Shareholders/The+James+Hardie+Decisions+ASIC+v+Hellicar+Ors+2012+HCA17+Shafron+v+ASIC+2012+HCA+18. High Court of Australia, (2012). AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v MEREDITH HELLICAR ORS [2012] HCA 17. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum17_ASIC_v_Hellicar.pdf. Jacobson, D. (2012). ASIC V HELLICAR: LIABILITY OF COMPANY DIRECTORS (JAMES HARDIE). Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.brightlaw.com.au/asic-v-hellicar-liability-of-company-directors-james-hardie/. High Court of Australia, (2012). AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v MEREDITH HELLICAR ORS [2012] HCA 17. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2012/HCA/17. Lexology, (2012). The decision: ASIC v Hellicar Ors. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c02498f5-ec3a-4514-af79-0d8982db328a. Time Base, (2012). ASIC v Hellicar Others James Hardie directors lose to ASIC in High Court. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.timebase.com.au/news/2012/AT169-article.html. Corporation Act 2001-s180(1). Lamont, L. (2012). Hardie directors breached duties: High Court. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.smh.com.au/business/hardie-directors-breached-duties-high-court-20120503-1y0cu.html. Redmond, P. (2012). Directors duties and corporate social Responsiveness. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2012/13.pdf. Govrick, D. T. (2012). The James Hardie case: risk, reputation and business ethics Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.ethics.org.au/on-ethics/blog/june-2012/the-james-hardie-case-risk,-reputation-and-busines. McVeagh, R. (2012). Corporate Advisory Legal Update. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.russellmcveagh.com/Publications/ViewPublication/tabid/176/Title/directors-duties-james-hardie/pid/83/Default.aspx. Casson, J. (2011). Directors Duties What was the James Hardie Appeal About. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.holmanwebb.com.au/blog/directors-duties-what-was-the-james-hardie-appeal-about. Corporation Act 2001-s251A. Austin, R. Standen, M. Reynold, C. (2012). The High Court decides the James Hardie Case. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.minterellison.com/files/uploads/Documents/Publications/Alerts/NA_20120509_JamesHardieDecision.pdf. Tam, K. (2012). The sting for General Counsel in the James Hardie decisions - Shafron v ASIC and ASIC v Hellicar. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.hunthunt.com.au/SiteMedia/w3svc1265/Uploads/Documents/Shafron%20decisionMay2012.pdf. Austlii, (2012). Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Brown; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Gillfillan; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Koffel; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Terry; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v O'Brien; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Willcox; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Shafron [2012] HCA 17 (3 May 2012). Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html. Austlii, (2012). "Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2012) 286 ALR 612" [2012] UTasLawRw 16; (2012) 31(2) University of Tasmania Law Review 155. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/2012/16.html. Boardman, P. Lees, J. (2012). James Hardie Directors Approved Misleading ASX Release. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.wottonkearney.com.au/downloads/case%20note%20-%20james%20hardie%20directors%20approved%20for%20misleading%20asx%20release.pdf. Kemp strang, (2012). James Hardie decisions - implications for general counsel and company secretaries. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.kempstrang.com.au/publication/james-hardie-decisions-implications-general-counsel-and-company-secretaries. ABC, (2012). James Hardie directors breached duties: court. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-03/high-court-rules-in-favour-of-asic-in-hardie-case/3987196?pfmredir=sm. News.com.au, (2012). High Court rules in favour of ASIC in James Hardie case. Retrieved on 22nd December 2016 from: https://www.news.com.au/finance/markets/high-court-rules-in-favour-of-asic-in-james-hardie-case/news-story/b1c4798daec37297c54e7cc80f650ca8.