Issue: Whether the CBI can detain a witness to a potential terrorist’s crime, while continuing to investigate her for other unrelated crimes, as tax evasion, and if she does decide to testify, (either before a grand jury or via deposition), can she do so without implicating herself for the tax evasion?
No, the CBI cannot detain Rue, a witness1 to a potential terrorist’s crime, while continuing to investigate her for other unrelated crimes, as tax evasion. No material witness may be detained if the material testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by a deposition2. Although the information Rue obtains is material3, she will most likely agree to supply such information via a deposition4. Even if Rue decides not to supply the deposition, the CBI cannot investigate her for a separate crime because of the growing federal trend of “transactional immunity5.” The ACA told Rue that if she didn’t volunteer to testify, they will detain her until she testified, but in the meantime will further gather evidence regarding the tax evasion. Rue in return can obtain an agreement with the Capitol attorney in which it will stop any investigations of her6.

Issue: Whether an debtor can be held liable for allocating a customer’s investment in a manner other than what the customer was expecting? Yes, a debtor can be held liable for allocating a customer’s investment in a manner other than what the customer was expecting. In order to sustain a federal claim for securities fraud, a plaintiff must show, (1)an untrue statement of material fact or omission of material fact by the defendant (2) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security7 (3) scienter8. Effie committed a material9 omission when she failed to disclose the fact that she was using Haymitch’s, the customer10, investment for purposes other than what Haymitch intended. Haymitch was a past winner of the Hunger Games who had used all his fortune in alcohol. He was desperate and broke and was willing to entrust the only money he had left to Effie because he genuine believed when Effie assured in that his money would be safe with her company, Mockinjay Investments. Effie also committed a scienter when she intentionally used Haymitch investment to pay off other early investors. Overall, Effie committed a “Ponzi scheme11.”

Issue: Can Haymitch, a customer, receive his share of the remaining money of the debtors, in this case Mockinjay Investments, when the debtor has filed for bankruptcy and there is a bank creditor awaiting his share as well? Yes, a customer can receive his share of the remaining money from the debtor after whom has filed for bankruptcy and when there is a bank creditor awaiting his share as well. Under 1 the stockbroker liquidation provision of the bankruptcy code, the subchapter for liquidation of a stockbroker, 11 U.S.C §§ 741-753, states that bank creditors would receive no return on their claims, while customer creditors, in this case Haymitch, would receive a full return. In order for 11 U.S.C §§ 741-753 to apply, Mockingjay Investments must be qualified as a “stockbroker12.” Mockingjay Investments is indeed a stockbroker because Mockingjay Investments did in fact have customers, including Haymitch and other many of his friends, also Mockingjay Investments is engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities because Haymitch’s first investment was indeed used to purchase securities which he received a “tremendous rate of return on his investment.” Based on Haymitch’s first investment, Mockingjay Investment did conduct legitimate business thus achieving the status of a “stockbroker.” Therefore, Mockingjay Investments assest should be distributed under the stockbrokers liquidation. Thus, Haymitch is entitled to receive his share of the remaining money from Mockingjay Investments.

Issue: Whether Katniss, who lived with her boyfriend, Peeta, for two years, and subsequently introduced themselves to new people as a married