The writ of error is to a judgment in favor of Receiver Marin of Theopold-Reid Company, an insolvent corporation heretofore existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The Receiver filed suit in the court below against Alfred W. Gieske and William Lentz as Executors under the last will and testament of Auguste Gieske, deceased, claiming damages in the sum of $8,000.00. Recovery was sought against the defendants based upon a stock assessment under the statutory liability of stockholders adj..

The writ of error is to a judgment in favor of Receiver Marin of Theopold-Reid Company, an insolvent corporation heretofore existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The Receiver filed suit in the court below against Alfred W. Gieske and William Lentz as Executors under the last will and testament of Auguste Gieske, deceased, claiming damages in the sum of $8,000.00. Recovery was sought against the defendants based upon a stock assessment under the statutory liability of stockholders adj..

Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC11-1106 _ THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. DAVID LEONARD ROSS, Respondent. [May 29, 2014] PER CURIAM. We have for review a referee’s report recommending that Respondent David Leonard Ross be found guilty of professional misconduct.1 The referee recommended a sanction of a six-month suspension. We approve the referee’s findings of fact and recommendations of guilt; however, we disapprove the referee’s recommended sanction. Based on case law and the Florida Standar..

Whether the School Board of Broward County's decision to award the contract in response to Request for Proposals, No. 210139V, for Group Medical Benefits, to Humana, Inc., Humana Medical Plan, Inc., and Humana Health Insurance Company of Florida, Inc. (collectively called "Humana") is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the request for proposal specifications.School Board decided to award contract in response to Request of Proposals, No. 210139V for Group Medical Benefits to Humana, Inc., and this is contrary to agency`s governing statutes, agency`s rules or policies, or request for proposal specifications.

Petitioner, PCA Health Plans of Florida, Inc. ("PCA"), has challenged The Broward County School Board's proposed award of the group health plan HMO contract pursuant to Request for Proposals 96-030S. The ultimate issue presented is whether the School Board's proposed award is fraudulent, arbitrary, dishonest, or illegal. PCA framed the following subsidiary issues in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation ("JPS"): Whether committee members were arbitrary and capricious in rating HIP and Humana Respondent, proposals as the only proposed products that exceeded current benefits (Criterion #3). Whether committee members were arbitrary and capricious by scoring PCA's mental health benefit package lower than Humana's (Criterion #5). Whether committee members were arbitrary and capricious by scoring PCA significantly lower than competitors in the area of willing- ness to comply with requested services, where PCA's proposal was either identical to or exceeded the proposal of the successful bidders (Criteria #10 and #11). Whether some of the voting was the result of bias for or against a particular proposer so as to affect the integrity of the RFP process to the damage of PCA. Whether the Board's vote on August 15, 1995 to approve the contracts with HIP and Humana, while PCA's protest was outstanding and unresolved, violated the terms of the RFP, School Board rules and Florida law, and tainted and poisoned the Board's hearing of PCA's formal protest. Whether committee members acted arbitrarily and capriciously by scoring PCA significantly lower than competitors in the M/WBE category, where the Board's own study suggested that PCA was at or near the top in this category, and was certainly superior to the successful bidders. One committee member gave PCA a zero. Whether some of the scoring was illegal because some of the insurance committee members had alternates. Whether some of the scoring was illegal because at least one of the insurance committee member's scores was collaborative. In addition, PCA filed a memorandum of law requesting a finding of fact that the School Board's M/WBE policy is unconstitutional.Evidence in bid protest proceeding was insufficient to prove that agency action was illegal, dishonest, fraudulent or arbitrary.