Business Law - Securities Exchange Act and the Security Act - Essay Example

Jake Johnson’s Company has been seen to have a profit of 200% in a period of only two years. This information has been doctored and therefore the financial statement of the media company should be suspended or be prevented from use. The plan by Johnny Jones to start a new Ethanol manufacturing plant is not a plan that has been included in the company’s registration statement and therefore such a plan should be prevented and suspended. Section 11 of the Securities Exchange act states that it will be deemed unlawful for any person who is a member of any securities exchange to make a transaction on such an exchange for his own account, that of an associated person, or exercises investment discretion.

In this case, Joan is acting in the capacity of a market maker in that she is a stockbroker and therefore such a transaction can be seen been unlawful. Johnny also does not have any authorization to conduct such transactions in ethanol neither does he comply with the rules of the commission. A registration that is made under the exchange act entitles one to make periodic and current reports regarding the company. This is the duty to disclose which is made public for a market evaluation of the specific company together with the way the company conducts the pricing of its securities (Smith, Washburne, & Pham).

Johnny Jones does not disclose periodic and current reports for the company that has expanded instead he is seen to enrich their stock portfolio which is taken as an unlawful activity. The Securities Act provides a penalty of not more than $10,000 upon conviction while the security exchange act provides that any person or anyone who becomes associated with someone who violates the requirements of the act or makes a false and misleading statement with regard to the act will be liable to a fine of $ 5,000,000 or imprisonment that does not exceed 20 years.

In this case, Jonny Jones, Joan, and Jake will be liable to such fines and even imprisonment for the violation of the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. They do not have reports for their Ethanol manufacturing thus, they contravened the duty to disclose. Johnny also made a misleading statement to his secretary. Class action suits occur whereby so many plaintiffs sue the same defendant over the same subject matter. In this case, a class action suit is likely to arise because the defendants violated so the provisions of the Security Exchange Act, the current company, and the investor who doctored his company documents.

He is responsible for giving the wrong amount of profit by over 100% and he, therefore, participated in triple profit disgorgement. Joan is likely to be held liable for insider trading as all the components of the fraudulent activity were taking place when she was still a stockbroker and she could have disclosed such information relating to securities to others. It is unethical for an investor to participate in profit disgorgement just as it is for a stoke broker to involve herself in insider trading.

More so, a certified public accountant should not alter any documents or statements of account or issue any misleading documents. Johnny, Joan, and Jake had a fiduciary role to play in the committal of acts that are deemed to be in violation of the Security Exchange Act together with the Security Act as they were all participating as beneficiaries in the commission of the said fraudulent acts. If there were any one of them who did not benefit then they would be excluded as a fiduciary participant.

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a person who is found to have violated the provisions of this act shall be fined or imprisoned for a period of not more than 25years.In this regard, suitable sentencing would be under the Securities Exchange Act whereby the fine and the imprisonment fit the violations that Johnny, Jake, and Joan engaged in.