Did the Citigroup court agree that the plaintiffs had established evidence of red flags

TQ 3.1: In the Citigroup case, shareholders challenged the business decision to continue to operate in the subprime mortgage market after there was evidence that real estate investments might decline in value. Did Citigroup shareholders allege that the directors made a poor business decision or did they allege that directors failed to take appropriate steps to monitor risks related to the subprime mortgages issued and related real‐estate products? What is the difference between making a poor business decision and the failure to monitor risks? What action did shareholders argue that the board and executives should have taken to reduce Citigroup’s risk exposure in the subprime mortgage market?

TQ 3.2: In Stone v. Ritter, what standard did the court adopt for evaluating whether directors breached their fiduciary duties to monitor a corporation’s compliance program? How did the court’s application of this standard compare with the court’s approach in the Citigroup case?

TQ 3.3: Did the Citigroup court agree that the plaintiffs had established evidence of red flags? If the plaintiffs’ evidence did not establish that the directors knew or should have known about excessive risk‐taking activities, what type of evidence would have constituted a “red flag”?

 

Sample Solution

arietal cells, so pantoprazole must be absorped intact by GIT [184].

The pantoprazole is an acid labile drug, which undergoes degradation in the stomach [191-194]. Therefore, the drug should be targeted to the intestine; to bypass the stomach. The gastro resistant drug delivery system is designed for the acid labile drugs due to the necessity to pass intact through the stomach for reaching the duodenum for absorption. The dosage form is prepared to bypass the stomach by formulating a solution for intravenous administration (lyophilized powder for reconstitution) or as gastric‐resistant tablets (oral delayed‐release dosage form) [195]. In the case of oral administration, the enteric coating prevents the drug from degradation in the gastric juice (at pH 1–2, for a few minutes [195-197]. Therefore the enteric coating, on the acid labile drug, is essential, thus they are less affected by pH. Thus the concept of gastro resistant drugs was generated.
The wavelength of maximum absorbance for pantoprazole sodium sesquihydrate (λmax) was found to be 283.5 nm in 0.1N Hcl (pH 1.2) and 288.5 nm in phosphate buffer (pH 6.8).

Calibration curves for pantoprazole sodium sesquihydrate in each of 0.1N Hcl (pH 1.2) and phosphate buffer (pH 6.8) were assessed from absorbance values, at λmax of a series of pantoprazole sodium sesquihydrate solutions containing different concentration of pantoprazole as shown in figure (1) and figure (2).
The proposed nanoprecipitation (solvent displacement or interfacial precipitation) [143-148] method enabled the formulation of polymeric nanoparticles by using organic phase with different concentrations of Eudragit S100 (ES100) and HPMC phthalate HP55 with using Tween 80 and Poloxamer 407 as surfactant with different concentrations and different ratio of organic phase: aqueous phase. Although, all formulae produce nanoparticles, formulation factors significantly affect the size of prepared polymeri

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.