One of the issues that may impact a public offering is the past
situation involving Jane’s money siphoning and check forgery. The
responsible corporate officer doctrine notes that courts may assess
the liability “even on a corporate executive or officer who did not
engage in, direct, or know about a specific criminal violation”
(Kubasek et. al, 2019). Executives have a responsibility to ensure
their business is compliant with the law. One factor that the case
study does not address, and is extremely significant in its impact on a
public offering, is if Jane is still involved within the company. If she is,
this will be a major hindrance to their attraction to investors.
While it seems the business is past their darker days and is on the
rise, I believe they should wait before taking the company public. a It is
too soon since their issues have been resolved and they are now
experiencing new ones that need to be handled first. a With regard to
the sex discrimination claim from Tammy, this needs to be handled
appropriately and with care. a While it seems quite clear that Ted was
hired due to his experience as an accountant, these cases should not
be taken lightly. a Furthermore, Tammy is a current employee and this
will set a precedent for how all future employees are seen to be
perceived and treated.
While they may not take the company public, Fred and Sally may
begin laying the groundwork that will help in making their business
more attractive once they do so. a They can work on ensuring their
product packaging is appealing to consumers while still highlighting
the important factors of the product, they may create a new
marketing campaign to reach new target audiences, they may begin
brainstorming advertisement ideas, etc. Expanding their reach will
benefit them regardless of going public, so it will not be seen as a
waste of time and resources.
Kubasek, N., Browne, N. M., Herron, D., Dhooge, L., & Barkacs, L.
(2019). Dynamic Business Law (5th ed.). McGraw Hill.
