The Baron Finance Company

Kendall the court ruled that both parties were to suffer the losses.Advice For the company to overcome the capacity constraint in future and achieve efficiency in operations without the indication of space constraints, the manager should begin by carrying out proper building analysis to ensure that the space is ample for its operations. On the other hand, the company can obtain funds from various sources that are appropriate and obtain a building with enough space for all the workers.With the losses incurred in mind, everybody within the organization should direct their efforts towards restoring the finances lost during the transition period. Moreover, costs may be cut by minimizing trivial expenses as a way of reinstating the company’s financial position. All departments under finance should be given a role in the activity to ensure that high interconnectedness between the departments is achieved. In this way, it will be easy to eliminate the constraints bit by bit until the system is realigned as desired.Case lawThe law in this case involves intentional deception or ‘Antitrust’ business law, which highlights that the finance department needs to be entrusted with honest personalities. In this case both parties are involved in fraud because they cohere to personal motives mired with dishonesty. Application This law is applicable in that the company employs somebody who refused the job previously hence mistrust arises like in the case McNally v. United State. According to (Clemency, 2002), it is notable how fraud leads to losses in the hands of a ‘competent manager.’ Additionally, the investor is known to be deceitful and an irredeemable social climber who uses any tactic for selfish gains consequently, the company experiences losses that may be avoided. Advice The company should carry out employment procedures appropriately to obtain an employee who is experienced and has adequate expertise to commit to the job. The person should be trustworthy, honest and selfless in order to strive towards achieving organization objectives. In this manner, the person in charge will be able to manage the organization appropriately especially in following up any small inconsistence especially in the finance department. This is for the sole reason that the losses involved are greatest and thus the need to control and prevent fraud as soon as any suspicions are made. Before making any legal move, a fraud examiner should be involved to follow up the inconsistencies keenly in order to establish a strong basis of evidence in regards to the nature of fraud in question. The little indicators identified may lead to greater realizations of fraud masterminds within the organization that may have operated for a long period without suspicion. Therefore, a small indicator should not be ignored because it is a guideline to more evidence when closely examined (Dyson amp. McKenzie, 1996). 3. Case The case presented is poor human resource management. The scenario is between Casati and the Gosia’s business strategy analyst. Law The law applicable is such a circumstance is ‘Foreign Workers amp. Employee Eligibility’ law. The analyst in this case is careless. This circumstance is likened with the case of Brown v. Kendall. Application The law relates to the organization since negligence is observed in the situation where the business strategic analyst fails to read the entire report hence leaving out the conclusion and forecast