SHANDI ERIKA C.

PITAO BSA 2 GOV -CB1

CASE STUDY

CASE STUDY # 3
1. There is clear evidence of a conflict of interest in Kurtz's dual roles as the president of Dover
Corporation and a member of the Board of Directors at Hassan Corporation. While Kurtz may
possess the authority as a board member to support the distribution of dividends, the ethicality of
her actions hinges on her underlying motives. In this particular scenario, she falls short of fulfilling
her fiduciary duty, which requires her to act in the best interests of all stakeholders.It becomes
apparent that Kurtz has acted with her own personal gain in mind, exploiting her position on the
board to advocate for a dividend that could potentially jeopardize the financial stability of the
company. This can be perceived as a breach of her fiduciary responsibility. Moreover, her
advocacy for a substantial cash dividend, primarily to bolster the income of Dover Corporation
and subsequently enhance her personal bonus, without taking into consideration the broader
consequences for Hassan, Inc. and its shareholders, raises ethical concerns.Such unethical
actions primarily harm Hassan Inc., especially given that advocating for a sizable cash dividend
during a recession can undermine the financial stability and future prospects of the company. This
approach might curtail the company's ability to invest in growth, settle outstanding debts, or
withstand economic downturns. Shareholders, in particular, may bear the brunt if the financial
health of the company is compromised due to excessive dividend payouts. This could result in
declining share prices and a reduction in the value of their investments.Finally, the actions of
Kurtz may tarnish the reputation and effectiveness of other board directors who do not share her
perspective or perceive her actions as self-serving rather than genuinely benefiting the company.
This could lead to their being labeled as self-interested and unethical, further eroding the overall
trust and cohesion within the board.

CASE STUDY #4
1. Hazel's approach to overhead allocation is both unethical and unjust. Her method of assigning
overhead costs to the government for reimbursement goes against the terms of their contract,
particularly if it lacks proper disclosure and prior discussion.From the details provided in the case,
it's evident that Hazel is manipulating the terms of the contract to her advantage, exploiting the
situation to maximize her own profits at the expense of the government.
2. Hazel Manufacturing stands to gain significantly from this unethical practice, as it reduces their
financial burden by transferring manufacturing and additional overhead costs to the government
for reimbursement. This could potentially boost Hazel's profitability when it comes to government
contracts. However, while this benefits Hazel, it has a detrimental impact on the government's
finances. The government ends up paying more than originally budgeted, as additional costs are
allocated to them. This not only harms the government but also has repercussions for the general
public, as it is taxpayer money that the government uses to fund these contracts and projects.
SHANDI ERIKA C. PITAO BSA 2 GOV -CB1