Reed, a manager for XYZ Products, issued company checks to pay his personal debts. So that no one in the company would know what he was doing, he disguised the name of the payees. For example, to pay his American Credit Card bill, he issued the XYZ check to “American.” XYZ Products sued the recipients of the checks, such as American Credit Card, demanding that the funds be returned. The trial court ruled against XYZ Products concluding that the Defendant-Payee, American Credit Card, was a holder in due course and thus took the checks free of any claims or defenses. Was the trial court correct in ruling that American Credit Card is a holder in due course? Why? What law is applicable? Can Reed be held criminally liable for his actions? Why or why not? Can Reed be civilly liable for his actions? To whom might Reed be liable and for what? 4. What is the business lesson to be learned from this case? Is this a fair result based on public policy constructs applicable to property law?

Reed, a manager for XYZ Products, issued company checks to pay his personal debts. So that no one in the company would know what he was doing, he disguised the name of the payees. For example, to pay his American Credit Card bill, he issued the XYZ check to “American.” XYZ Products sued the recipients of the checks, such as American Credit Card, demanding that the funds be returned. The trial court ruled against XYZ Products concluding that the Defendant-Payee, American Credit Card, was a holder in due course and thus took the checks free of any claims or defenses. Was the trial court correct in ruling that American Credit Card is a holder in due course? Why? What law is applicable? Can Reed be held criminally liable for his actions? Why or why not? Can Reed be civilly liable for his actions? To whom might Reed be liable and for what? 4. What is the business lesson to be learned from this case? Is this a fair result based on public policy constructs applicable to property law?