This short article is about the court decision between a financial advisor, a cohort of financial advisors and the investor. This decision concerns the so-called holder in due course or HDC. By being able to understand the court's decision and how the HDC works, we are able to decide whether it is right or not. I am also able to express my thoughts on the HDC, which are based both on this court's decision and on reading the text. The first thing to look at in this article are the facts surrounding the court's decision, which concern John Doe, a "financial advisor" and Pedro Urdemales, a cohort of John Doe, and investor Secundino Piedra. The original investment was carried out in the 1990s and involved Piedra investing $75,000 with John Doe and Urdemales, without getting any returns. However, in early 2000 John Doe called Piedra and convinced him to send a check for $10,000, which was to be made out to. Urdemales. This money was to be used for travel expenses in order to work towards a return for Piedra on the original investment (SNHU BB, 2009, p. 370). Piedra sent an additional check for $5,700 and is not clear to whom it was made out or what the use would be. Both checks were cashed at a Stuart Any Kind store by a woman named Michael and Joanne Kochakian (SNHU BB, 2009, p. 371). above events arises when Michael contacts the producer, Piedra, to get approval before the check for $5,700 was cashed. However, the $10,000 check was never mentioned, even though it had previously been cashed by Michael. Shortly after both checks were cashed by Urdemales, John Doe called Piedra to make him realize that Urdemales was a crook and a thief (SNHU BB, 2009, p. 371). This led Piedra to call his bank and block him… by paper… a necessity in everyday life. This court decision shows how, with respect to checks, addressing the issuer to ensure that the check is credible can help protect the holder or HDC of that item. This can help them in the future if the beneficiary turns out to be a thief, in terms of recovering the lost money from the beneficiary or the manufacturer. Finally, we are also able to get our individual opinions on how HDC works and how fair we may or may not consider it, based on cases like this or just everyday life. Works cited SNHU BB (2009). Negotiable instruments. (pages 370-371). Cengage Learning. Twomey, D. P., & Jennings, M. M. (2013). Transfers of negotiable securities and guarantees of the parties. In Business Law: Principles for Today's Business Environment: Southern New Hampshire University (4th ed., pp. 556-577). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.