JPMorgan Chase Essay

JPMorgan Chase is one of the oldest and most respected banks in the linked States. However, during the summer of 2012 Chase announced trading losses and bad enthronement decisions that resulted in a loss of approximately $5.8 billion. Not only did they plow this substantial loss they admitted to falsifying their first quarter reports, were they where attempting to c at a timeal the bulky loss. Three months prior to this event JPMorgan Chase was viewed as the top American bank. The first question to be discussed in this paper will be what actions can Administrative Agencies such the Securities and Exchange Com committee ( second) and or the Commodities Futures work Commission (CFTC) opt to prevent high risk gambles in securities/banking which ar one of the main cornerstones of this countrys economy.According to the entropy, their main mission is to protect investors, to maintain honorable, orderly, efficient markets and facilitate capital formation (www.sec.gov) unmatched of the ways that SEC does this is by requiring public companies to disclose meaningful pecuniary information to the public to help the public decide which companies will be the best to invest in. In response to the JPMorgan Chase revelation SEC Chair unmarried Mary Shapiro told the Senate Banking deputation that her agencys investigation is limited, beca procedure the trades happened in divisions of the banking giant that be not subject to SEC regulation. She too stated that we (the SEC) did not have any direct oversight or knowledge of the transactions. In addition to the above statements Ms. Shapiro stated that the SECs investigation would target the appropriateness and completeness of the entitys (JPMorgan Chase) financial inform and other public disclosures (Liberto, 2012). conterminous I will discuss the commodity and Futures occupation Commissions (CFTC) main purpose as advantageously as some of its other responsibilities.The Commodity and Futures Trading Commissions ( CFTC)main purpose is to regulate commodity futures and options markets. Its goals include the promotion of hawkish and efficient futures markets and the security department of investors against manipulation, abusive trade practices and fraud (www.sec.gov). Gary Gensler, chairman of the CFTC told the Senate Banking delegacy that he couldnt provide specific information ab knocked out(p) the investigation, provided he did say that he first learned about the contestable trades from press reports. He similarly stated that the CFTC does not have regulators on the ground to look at bank trades yet. Chairman Gensler besides told the Banking Committee that currently, the American public is not protected in that way (e.g. having regulators spirit at the trades as they happen) (Liberto, 2012). Regulators have been struggling for months trying to figure out who should be included in a new crackdown on swaps and derivatives.Swaps and derivatives be complex financial bets derived from ot her financial products. Gensler do it clear that once the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms are fully implemented it will be il healthy for JPMorgan Chase to make the kinds of trades that resulted in the $5.8 billion loss. He also clarified that Dodd-Frank allows for trades made to hedge against individual and aggregate positions not to justification against future economic losses, as the JPMorgan trades have been described (Liberto, 2012). Next I will cover the elements of a well-grounded contract, as well as discuss how consumers and banks each have a work of god combine and fair dealing in the banking relationship A contract is a legally enforceable promise or set of promises. If the promise is broken, the somebody to whom the promise was mad the promise has certain legal right fields against the person who made the promise the promisor (Bagley, 2012). there are 4 basic elements to a contract and they are 1) offer and acceptance, 2) consideration, 3) both parties must hav e the contentedness to enter into a contract, 4) the contract must have a legal purpose.The offer is a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain that justifies some other(prenominal) person in understanding that his or her assent will conclude the bargain (Bagley, 2012). Acceptance indicates the receiving persons willingness to enter into the agreement proposed in the offer (Bagley, 2012). Consideration is something of value that is provided by both parties (Bagley, 2012). Lastly, a valid contract requires that both parties have the capacity to enter into the agreement (Bagley, 2012. Next I will discuss the certificate of indebtedness of god trustingness and fair dealingin the consumer/banking relationship. Prior to 1929, Massachusetts expressly provided that in force(p) corporate trust was applicable to all contracts. In 1929, the Supreme Judicial Court, in addressing a breach of contract claim under an option agreement for the leveraging of stock in an oil-produc ing leasehold, expressly stated, for the first time, that there was an obligation of considerably faith and fair dealing in all contracts.The court emphasize that a business contract is to be interpreted as a business transaction entered into by practical men to accomplish an skillful and straightforward end. Beginning in 1936, the duty of good faith was defined as a covenant that neither companionship shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract. This fruits articulation of the duty of good faith carcass intact today and is regularly quoted as the operative standard (Weigand, 2013). The side by side(p) topic is to compare and contrast the residuums between well-educated and negligent civil wrong actions. There are several types of knowledgeable torts and they are torts against persons, learned torts that make personal dimension, and intentional torts with regard to economic inter est and business relationships.There are also several types of negligent torts. Two of which are duty to rescue and duty to invitees. Intentional torts against consist of battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional hurting of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of privacy. The key word in all of these intentional torts is intent or purpose to cause misemploy to another. Intentional torts against property include trespass of land, nuisance, conversion, and trespass to personal property. Intent and purpose are also why these are considered intentional. The key difference between these ii torts is that one is against people and the other is a misuse of anothers property. An individual has to purpose commit these acts. Negligent torts consist of different types of duties. barter is when a person with a legal duty to another is infallible to act, reasonably, under the circumstances to avoid harming the other person.Some examples of this are duty to rescue and duty to invitees. Duties are basically an obligation that one person is legally bound to make out for another. In comparing the two types of torts we keep that intentional torts are torts that people commit against other people. Negligence also others but it is a failure to perform that causes the injury or unsportsmanlike action. Anexample of this comparison is the intentional tort of battery and failure to perform the duty to rescue. When I commit battery I cause harm to another, when I fail to perform the duty to rescue the other individual also suffers harm but it is because I failed to act. In contrast intentional torts are actions committed against another and negligence is when I fail to take action on another. Next I will discuss the tort action of interference with contractual relations and alive(p) in a breach of fiduciary duty. contraceptive with contractual relations protects the right to enjoy the benefits of legally binding agreements. It provides a remedy when the defend ant advisedly induces another person to breach a contract with a plaintiff. Interference with contractual relations requires intent to interfere.The existence of a contract is the difference between knobbed interference and the more difficult to prove convoluted interference with prospective contractual relations. The most famous case of tortuous interference was Pennzoil v Texaco which occurred in 1983 (Bagley, 2013). Similarly a defendant who wittingly participates in, or induces a breach of fiduciary duty by another commits the tort of participation in a breach of fiduciary duty. Lastly, I believe that if god grounds exist for the interference, such as exists in the JPMorgan Chase case then I should be able to obligate in the tort action. Lastly, I will cover how banks protect the packet program that allows for online transactions. Most banks protect the customers who participate in online transactions through what is called the Online Banking Guarantee. This protection cov ers your banking and personal information. It is the banks responsibility to ensure the customers protection while the customer engages in online transactions.In most if not all case the customer is coulomb% covered in the case of theft of funds. One of main defenses for software protection is through complex encryption systems. Another deterrent is exclusively the vast amount of software that is available for online banking. So between the unsubtle array of software and encryption systems online banking transaction are relatively safe. In this paper I have covered several topics and they are as follows What actions Administrative Agencys take to be effective in preventing high-risk gambles in securities and banking, the elements of a valid contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing between banks and consumers, comparing and contrasting intentional and negligent torts, the tort action ofInterference with contractual relations and participating in a breach of fiduciary du ty, and lastly, how banks protect the software that they use for online banking.ReferencesBagley, C. (2013). Managers and the Legal Environment Strategies for the 21st Century, 7th Edition. Mason South-Western, Cengage Learning. Liberto, J. (2012) CNN Money. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2013, from http//money.cnn.com/2012/05/22/news/economy/jp-morgan-senate/index.htm U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2013, from U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission http//www.cftc.gov/index.htm U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2013, from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission http//www.sec.gov/ Weigand, T. (2013) . The Duty of life-threatening Faith and Fair Dealng in Commercial Contracts in Massachusetts, Massachusetts truth Review. Retrieved 10Sep13