Inland Bank Case
1. Closing of the two bank branches help destroy the community neighborhood. Became a huge issue because it went to the integrity of the community. The people in the communities of where the two branches of the banks are were not happy about replacing these banks with ATM machines. It would put people out of jobs and not help out the community of Rockdale and North Madison.
2. The stakeholders affected by this issue are the customers, employees and investors/owners.
3. The customers are affected by this issue because the customers are the residents in the towns that the two branches of banks are in that want to close. With closing the banks the community neighborhood could be destroyed and gets to the integrity of the community. The employees of the two banks would be affected because if the banks were to close then people would lose jobs and the case stated that only about a few of the employees would relocate to the new locations. The investors/owners of the banks are affected as well because they are the ones having to decide whether to close the banks or not, which will have an effect on the community. They have to put up with all of the angry customers and employees and try to solve the issue to make it work for all three stakeholders.
4. There is a variety of solutions that could be done for the issue of the case. One of the solutions is to keep the two branches of banks and just keep it as it and not have the employees and customers angry. Another solution is that the banks make a compromise with the customers and employees to keep at least one of the branches in business in the community which is stated in the case. That was the solution that was used to solve the problem. Also the banks could help out the communities with what they need while closing the banks, but still helping the communities without the banks being there.
5. The financial aspect makes the solution of closing both the banks and moving them the right decision for the owners/investors of these banks but that harms the people of the communities’ financial issues. Closing just one of the banks can still bring profit to the banks and help out the communities to not suffer as bad with keeping one of the banks there. Financially if the banks were to close the banks and still help out the community it would lose them money but help the community. The legal view of the solutions is to get together and come up with a compromise that doesn’t break any laws. Realistically the banks are allowed to do what they want and move. If the banks were trying to be ethical they would either keep both of the banks or remove them but help out with community so as almost the closing of the banks don’t affect the people.
Adelphia
1. There are a few issues presented in this case. The issues was caused by the Rigases and two other executives of the firm, who had been charged with securities, wire, and bank fraud, as well as conspiracy. When the company went public they sold stock to raise money for expenses needed to cover. The company had two classes of stocks. What was a little bit sketchy was that the Rigas family owned just 11 percent of the company, but the controlled 56 percent of the shareholder votes. These are very big issues to be dealt with. What the Rigas family had done was taken out at least $3 billion of unreported loans from the company to spend on their own personal lives. The issues that were done were very illegal.
2. All four stakeholders were affected by this case: owners/investors, employees, customers and supply chain.
3. The owners/investors were affected by this case because they were the ones who cause the issue with the company to affect the rest of the stakeholders. Employees were affected because the company filed for bankruptcy and moved their headquarters so some lost their jobs or may have had to move their families. Customers were affected because they could not buy this product for a while since the company went