Answer: 6 months
Explanation:
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States uses Rule 144 to control and regulate sales transactions involving restricted, unregistered, and control securities.
When an unaffiliated investor to a company whose stock falls under Rule 144 wishes to sell them, they are indeed not bound by volume limitations if they sell after the holding period requirement of 6 months has been met.
This means that from the day the unaffiliated investor purchases and fully pays for the shares, they cannot sell them until 6 months from that very day have elapsed.
Answer: contingency approach to leadership
Explanation: As per the contingency approach of leadership theory the effectiveness of the team depends upon the style that the leader of the team uses as per the situation.
Autocratic leadership style refers to the situation when the leader of the team exercise individual control over the operations, this style is usually used when the members of the team are not experienced enough but in this case the members of the team are quite experienced, therefore we can conclude that Ayan is not contingent in his leadership.
Answer:
Has an opportunity cost
- Having a "lazy afternoon" VS Working an 8 hour shift VS
- Cooking dinner VS Eating out
- Reading you favorite book VS Catching up with an old friend
Explanation:
Opportunity costs refer to the extra costs or benefits lost associated with choosing one activity or investment over another alternative. In other words, every activity that you carry out includes the opportunity cost of not doing something else. No matter what we do, we could be doing something else.
Answer:
Three part test.
The outcome: if the three requirements are not met, then there is not point the Government should interfere.
At the end, the law will be held.
Explanation:
In some cases, the courts are allowed to protect individual, company or business organization from Government interrupting with these individuals or business organization "fundamental right" and this is the "substantive due process rights " of insurance companies as mentioned in the question above.
The test that the United State Supreme Court can use to determine whether the regulations they want to enact would violate the substantive due process rights of insurance companies is what is known as the THREE PARR TEST.
THE THREE PART TEST has its root from cases such as that of Pasgraf V Long Island Railroad co. The three part test involves three main subjects and they are;
=> foreseeability: are the policies in which insurance companies work going to affect the consumers in the future?
=> proximity: what kind of relationship do the insurance companies have with there consumers?
=> fairness: are these policies just and fair?
CONCLUSION: if the three requirements are not met, then there is not point the Government should interfere.
