Pickett Group Project: Based on the burns vs prudential securities case help analyze the case from the investors perspective and the result with the goal of concluding whether the result was ethical, based on your SIMAC-developed abilities, including whether your client bears moral blame in any relevant respect. Your analysis should consider the overall issue, i.e. was your client ethically at fault or not, by reviewing the Stakeholders and Issues, and applying the standards to that analysis to reach your conclusion (as if you were doing a SIMAC). If you conclude the result as relates to your client was ethical under one standard but not under another, explain that conclusion. Or perhaps your client was entirely to blame. If so, give me your analysis that gets you to that conclusion. But remember, there is potential blame and ethical responsibility to go around: the investors delay in complaining about Pickett's actions; the possibility that Pickett's actions were in the investors' best interests and if so was a large punitive damage award fair; did Pickett's actions cause damage to Prudential that he should bear; did the composition of the jury and the rulings by the judge compromise defendants' ability to get a fair trial; was the government statutory "system" rigged to favor investors over brokers and brokerage firms? If so, why, i.e. what ethical imperative justified the government's actions (which includes judge, jury, SEC/FINRA) In the final analysis, you need to present whether the result was ethical and fair as against your client or should blame have been spread around so as to reduce your client's damages or blame? Is your client entitled to be indemnified by other parties to the case. Or could your client be responsible to indemnify others? Make the arguments from an ethical standpoint and conclude whether your client deserved the result it got, or whether the standards of ethics and morality you find relevant would place blame on others (including all governmental entities involved.