GM Acquiring Ford Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

GM Acquiring Ford - Research Paper Example General Motors Company is a classic car manufacturing brand present in US since 1931. The brand is popular with its classic distinctions in both car and truck sections. Its network is present worldwide, covering Europe, Africa and United States. It is one of the leading competitors of Ford Corporation since 1980s, when both brands introduced new classic models into the market regions (Salamie & Stansell, 2006). With such massive global network of automobile, Ford Corporation has been facing a lot of challenges in its internal divisions (New York Times, 2012). Alan Mulally the CEO of the company has talked about several challenges the company has faced in the recent times, which if it gets merged with any company like General Motors, will add several risk factors in the organization system (New York Times, 2012). It has been seen in recent years that Ford Corporation is facing big time challenges in both American and European markets, while GM decisively focusing on the European section because of its fallback in the Central Europe since 2008, will expect Ford Corporation to support its European region (New York Times, 2012). If Ford gets merged with General motors, probable chance is that it invites uncertainties of General Motors prevailing in the European market. (New York Times, 2012) According to New York Times, due to lack of efficiency and operation, GM has lost its entire position in the Central Europe market segment. The company has received big time debts and bankruptcy cases which has deprived company’s dominating position in the Central Europe. More investments are made on the European side as the formal CEO Rick Wagoner of the company suggested restructuring of the company in that region. On this node if Ford gets along with such present situation of General Motors, it will have to invite challenges of European market carrying risk of sales regression, brand devaluation or deflation of the brand culture. According to New York Times (2012), Ford

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. ___ (2011) - Essay Example Acker & Malatesta (2013) highlights that the Fourth Amendment grants each person’s right to security at home in contradiction of irrational searches and seizures with no violations. The State Court’s ruling intended at eliminating instances where police created exigent conditions to avoid obtaining a warrant. The respondent appealed his sentence for possessing drugs as stated in a police search of his apartment (Doyle, 2011). The unwarranted search to Mr. King’s home was the belief by the police that there were drugs in his apartment. Then, the police had knocked on the respondent’s door and revealed their presence upon which the respondent’s room smelt burning drugs as detected from the door. According to the police, the situation called for urgent measures that prompted entry into the apartment to avoid further evidence demolition. Consequently, the Kentucky Supreme Court held to the illegality of the police search as founded on the Fourth Amendment and that the police developed the urgency. However, the U.S Supreme Court approved certiorari to investigate this decision. In November 21, 2005 at Fayette County Circuit Court, a bench accused Mr. King with trafficking marijuana, first-degree precise substance handling, and second-degree tenacious crime. The grand jury’s decision held that marijuana smoke prompting further investigations but did not vindicate warrantless search. Consequently, the respondent was granted the right to appeal. At the Kentucky Court of Appeals, Mr. King’s appeal occurred on March 14, 2008 maintaining that the police created the exigent conditions and that there was no exception to possessing a search warrant. However, the court supported the need for immediate action to prevent evidence demolition. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted Mr. King’s discretionary review on January 21, 2010 reversing the decision