Case Problem:
Daniel DeMarais is the former chief financial officer (CFO) of Apex IT. Through a Minnesota Department of Revenue investigation, it came to light that DeMarais had embezzled well over $400,000 from the company. DeMarais embezzled funds from Apex in part by using Apex’s corporate checks to pay the amounts due on a personal credit card account he maintained with Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. According to Apex, Chase had notice of Apex’s claims to these funds because the payments were “unusual, irregular, and large” and were made using business checks from Apex’s corporate accounts. Apex demanded that Chase return all funds it received from DeMarais, which Chase refused to do. Apex then sued Chase, seeking equitable relief. Chase contends that Apex’s claim must fail because Chase is a holder in due course. Does Chase meet the requirements for a holder in due course? Should Chase have taken more precautions given the unusual nature of the payments? [ Apex IT v. Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3917 (2005).]
Your answer must be, typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.