Resolved: Telling Stewart about Waksal is unethical.
The key parties of this situation would be Stewart and myself. Even though I think telling Stewart about Waksal is unethical, following Baconivic’s orders and telling her would put her at an advantage because she would be able to sell her ImClone stocks before the rest of the shareholders could. Even though she could use the Waksal information for her advantage, she would be putting herself in jeopardy with the law. Following Baconivic’s orders would also make me look better in front of him and he could possibly help me get a higher positioned job in the future. For myself, if I know telling Stewart is unethical and I still do it, I am going against my own moral values. By doing so, I am complying with Albert Carr’s way of thinking about business and personal ethics being separate. I would be complying with Carr’s thinking because I would be following Baconivic’s orders even though it goes against my own values. If I don’t listen to Baconivic, I could risk losing my job at the company. By doing so, it could put a halt in my career. 2.
My main argument to Baconivic would be that telling Stewart would give her an unfair advantage compared to the other shareholders and that it is illegal to do so. Since he is my boss, I would try taking a respectful approach by stating that his orders are illegal and that this could put all of us in jeopardy with the law. Even though he is the senior broker at Merrill Lynch, the law does not change for anyone and he would also be questioned and tried if we got caught. 3.
My main leverage point would be that trying to get rid of those stocks at a lower price than you originally wanted to is not worth getting investigated and tried by federal officials. In this case, the FDA did not refuse the drug; they simply said they needed more information about it before they could release it to the public. So even though Stewart and Waksal would lose money during the waiting period,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document