Corporate conflict and analyze the legal case - Research Paper Example

Corporate Conflict and Analyze the Legal Case Corporate Conflict and Analyze the Legal Case Corporate conflicts usually the differing of interests among partners in a business or even third parties such as federal, state or regulatory agencies. In the case of Walmart, their business interests regarding the manner in which they handled hazardous wastes and pesticides conflicted with those of the Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

After analyzing the case and the judgment delivered, it becomes apparent that Walmart does not stand a chance of any appeal. The key factor that denies the organization an appeal is its own guilty plea regarding the environmental crimes it had been charged with. Secondly, the organization opted for an administrative Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) as a way of getting a resolution to the violations. Among the limited conditions under which the courts can accept the withdrawal of a guilty plea is if it is presented before the judges have accepted the plea, and that is usually in the pre-sentence scenario (Weaver, 2001).

It could also be accepted before defendants have been sentenced. Further, Walmart cannot show that they were served with obvious injustice because of conditions that existed during the time they were charged with the environmental crimes. The organization was aware of federal laws that required them to determine hazardous waste, prepare its manifest, and handle and dispose it as stipulated but failed to meet those requirements. At the same time, Walmart contracted Greenleaf to recycle its pesticide products, yet Greenleaf lacked the capacity for handling such products, which lead to the release of hazardous substances.

Although it is not clear whether or not Walmart of aware of this lack of capacity, it was their legal responsibility to establish whether Greenleaf met all the requirements stipulated by law. This means that Walmart becomes legally responsible for contractors conducting business on its behalf. It can, therefore, be shown that the judgment served was sufficient to hold the organization accountable for its own as well as its contractor’s illegal and irresponsible business conduct that was a threat to the environment and life.

Walmart may also not appeal against the ruling because there are no sufficient indications that they are not guilty because of lack of understanding the charges or consequences of pleading guilty. That can be demonstrated by United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236, 239 (6th Cir. 1987). If the lawyers entered the guilty plea with the client’s full consent and viable chances occurred during the trial, an appeal may not be possible. Then, the judges will most likely consider the amount of time separating the plea and the withdrawal attempt that the defendant wants to use in order to appeal (Weaver, 2001).

The fact that the CAFO was entered into is enough to show that the organization agreed to comply the RCRA out of their own volition. This does not mirror any obvious injustice specifically because of its long term effects that will impact the entire corporate world in management of waste. The importance of basing the appeal in this case on the chances of withdrawing the guilty plea is because the defendant will only go to trial or makes a new deal with the prosecution only if the withdrawal is successful.

ReferenceWeaver, K. (2001). A change of heart or a change of law: Withdrawing a guilty plea under federal rule of criminal procedure. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 92(2), 273-305.