***Please argue that Simon acted unethically and that they broke their Fiduciary responsibility towards Triple Five.***
1. What are the key facts of the case?
2. Did Simon behave ethically towards Triple Five in this case? Support your position with a discussion of fiduciary duties, other general ethical principles, and the specific key facts you identified. (Note: This assignment is not looking for legal analysis, or a review of the actual court case. We are looking for your thoughts on the ethical issues raised by the case.)
(1) identify all of the issues raised; (2) discuss any nuances of the issues; (3) review the timelines and processes involved and identify any anomalies; and (4) reach a conclusion supported by facts in the case. We do not need you to rewrite the case, but rather to cite facts from the case which support your position. You must take a position and defend it, rather than stating that there are several possible positions.
***Please ensure below is in paper;***
1) Emphasized the key facts which would be relevant to their determination of whether and how Simon acted unethically, rather than facts that provided general background or otherwise extraneous information. If you read your finished paper and you have included a large number of facts which arent relevant to your arguments (i.e. directly supportive of, or necessary to be explained away in order to defend, your conclusions), they are not key facts. Conversely, if the proof of your arguments depends on facts which dont appear anywhere in your paper, you are missing key facts.
2) Based their analysis about Simons conduct towards Triple Five on specific ethics principles and concepts, including fiduciary duties and at least one other ethical concept.
3) Supported their conclusions about Simons actions through reference to specific facts. As an example, Simon was unethical because it breached its duties by misleading Triple Five is a conclusion; I am not sure what specific acts lead you to believe this and have to take your word for it. Simon was unethical because it breached its duties by misleading Triple Five when Foxworthy indicated Simon was not interested in a deal with Teachers is a supported conclusion; I now have a basis to see for myself that you have identified a specific act and it was indeed misleading.