In your responses, be sure to use IRAC $($Issue$,$ Rule, Analysis, Conclusion$)$ whenever instructed to do so$.$ Cite relevant laws and cases from the textbook readings where applicable. This is an opportunity to practice applying the legal concepts we have learned to realistic hypothetical scenarios. I look forward to reading your analyses!Set AJohn is an entrepreneur who has developed a new mobile app called "SecureChat" that provides end$-$to$-$end encryption for instant messaging. He forms a corporation called SecureChat Inc. to market and sell the app. John is the sole shareholder, director, and officer of the company. In the rush to get the app to market, John fails to observe some corporate formalities like holding regular board meetings and keeping detailed records.Meanwhile, it is discovered that the SecureChat app has a major security flaw that allows hackers to easily access users' private messages. Several SecureChat users have their identities stolen as a result, and they sue SecureChat Inc. for negligence. The plaintiffs seek to pierce the corporate veil and hold John personally liable for their damages.Prompts:Analyze whether the court should pierce the corporate veil and hold John personally liable, based on the factors courts consider when deciding whether to disregard the corporate form.Discuss what steps John should have taken as the sole director and officer to better observe corporate formalities and maintain the liability shield provided by the corporate form.Set BMicroBrew LLC is a popular craft brewery. Its best$-$selling beer is called "Hoppy Hare," which features a logo of a rabbit holding hops. MicroBrew holds a registered trademark on the name and logo$.$One day, MicroBrew discovers that a new competitor, Hops & Robbers Brewing Inc., has begun selling a beer called "Hoppy Rabbit" with a very similar logo featuring a rabbit and hops. MicroBrew sues Hops & Robbers for trademark infringement.During the litigation, MicroBrew subpoenas documents from Hops & Robbers related to the development of the "Hoppy Rabbit" brand. Hops & Robbers' CEO orders employees to shred documents showing that the company intentionally copied MicroBrew's logo in order to siphon away customers. An employee reports this document destruction to the authorities.Prompts:Analyze MicroBrew's trademark infringement claim against Hops & Robbers. Discuss the likelihood of confusion factors courts use to determine whether trademark infringement has occurred.Discuss the CEO's potential criminal liability for ordering the destruction of evidence. What crime$($s$)$ may have been committed, and what are the elements that must be proven?