Posted by Tyquasia Yeshaya Bender.

I came across a case that interested me. A woman named Elaine Huguenin, who is photographer in the state of New Mexico, declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Her reason for declining the job was due to her religious beliefs. Photographing the event would have went against her religious beliefs about same sex marriage. Because of this, the couple from the ceremony filed a discrimination complaint against Elaine Huguenin’s business, Elane Photography. The business is also co-owned with her husband, Jonathan. However, on August 22, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission both ruled against Elane Photography. On November 8th, 2013, the business then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to review its case.

Elaine and and her husband Jonathan Huguenin are Christians. According to the their business policy, “The Huguenins will not create images that tell stories or convey messages contrary to their religious beliefs. For this reason, they have declined requests for nude maternity pictures and photographs portraying violence.” Elane Photography explains that the Huguenins have a “sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” In addition, the Huguenins believe that “if they were to communicate a contrary message about marriage—by, for example, telling the story of a polygamous wedding ceremony—they would be disobeying God.” For these reasons and beliefs, Elaine declined the job.

This story started in 2006, when a woman named Vanessa Willock inquired whether Elane Photography would be willing to photograph her commitment ceremony, which happened to be same-sex. At the time, same-sex individuals were not permitted to marry in the state of New Mexico. However, the law has changed since then. The Huguenins’ business declined the request because “they did not want to create images expressing messages about marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs,” as stated before. Elane Photography has explained that it “does not refuse customers because of their sexual orientation” and the Huguenins will “gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

Vanessa Willock filed an administrative complaint alleging that Elane Photography had violated the state public accommodations statute by discriminating based on sexual orientation. The complaint resulted in proceedings before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which ruled against Elane Photography.

The First Amendment states that the government may neither establish any religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religious practices. The first part of the amendment is the Establishment Clause and the second part is the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause is the provision in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits Congress from creating any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Free Exercise Clause is the provision in the First Amendment preventing Congress from making any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. (Cross, F., & Miller, R. (2015). Chapter 5: Business and the Constitution. In The Legal Environment of Business Text and Cases (9th ed., p. 643). Canada: Cengage Learning).

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Elane Photography’s free speech claim it may allow the Huguenins to operate their photography business without violating their religious beliefs about marriage.

Tyquasia is a business administration and retail management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016/2017.

Posted by Luca Aufiero.

In the article, “Dealing with Fraud in Your Building – Forensic Accounting,” Steven Cutler discusses the types of fraud among co-ops and condos, the possible red flags, as well as how it may be perpetrated and deterred. Some signs of fraud from higher management could entail sudden lifestyle changes and lavish expenditures such as new expensive cars, residences, and exotic vacations. As there isn’t as much fraud today as there used to be, back in the 90s, there were two years where roughly 140 managing agents and 25 management companies were indicted for kickbacks. “Still, even today, there are enough instances of fraud to keep busy forensic accountants, real estate attorneys, and district attorneys” (Cutler). The more common type of fraud in a company is the misappropriation of cash. For example, management may use funds from the company to pay for personal expenses or use forged bank records to run multiple books.

More often than not, fraud is perpetrated by a member of the staff. This is all starts with the fraud pyramid: motive, rationalization, and opportunity. Some employees might not be monitored as much as they should or have certain access to records, giving them an opportunity to commit fraud. The motive is most likely to reside from a personal standpoint. Possibly drug related, family problems, or more commonly, financial problems. The rationalization behind the act might be that the person “deserves it” (sense of being underpaid), or “just borrowing money temporarily” (even though it isn’t). Some red flags among the financials might include: large number of unrelated transactions, unexplained changes to reserve funds, and missing accounting records.

If fraud does occur, it is recommended to create a paper trail to document items not only for attorneys, but for forensic accountants to investigate the damages. The forensic accountant looks at the banks reconciliations, statements, canceled checks, and bills paid to have to total admission to the records. This will then result in whether the damages were from gross negligence or fraud. At that point in time, the attorney will decide if it should be a crime (especially if fraud is involved) and therefore be reported and prosecuted. Some deterrent procedures include monthly reviews/reconciliations of the financials, control over collections (lockbox), and monitoring the work of others.

Luca is a BS and MS student in accounting with a certification in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:
Cutler, Steven. “Dealing with Fraud in Your Building – Forensic Accounting.” The Cooperator. Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. http://cooperator.com/article/forensic-accounting

Posted by Robert Santos.

Usually when people go on vacation, they come home with a souvenir of some sort such as a hat or refrigerator magnet. Lauren Guerra will be going home with a little more than a silly souvenir–in fact she will be going home with 3.5 million dollars. This will be a trip to remember for Guerra but not in the way one would want. Although Guerra will be going home a very rich woman, the damage that has been done is something that all the money in the world couldn’t fix.

On October 27, 2013, Lauren Guerra was one of the many passengers on the Star Line Tours of Hollywood bus giving a tour to passengers of Hollywood. These buses are popular and very well known for they give tours of the famous locations in California, and are known for the unique design of not having a roof but a open deck level for tourists to have a better view of sites and take better pictures. Unfortunately this would be Guerra’s biggest regret, for while aboard one of these buses, a tree branch flew into her face leaving her permanently disfigured. She immediately sued the company after hearing of another death on the same type of bus under the same company. In July 2014, and has been in a back and forth battle since then.

The court battle was vigorous and both sides seemed to have fair arguments. Mark Cunningham who is the attorney for the Starline Bus Company argued that Guerra was at fault because she was standing while the bus was in motion and also was drinking prior to being on the bus. Brian Kabateck, who is Guerra’s attorney, responded by admitting his client did indeed have a drink or two before entering the bus. But there was no way anyone could of avoided this injury, sober or not. Guerra’s attorney argued Star Line could have done more to prevent the situation such as having a worker on the second level of the bus, and also having individuals scout to see what type of environment the bus routes consisted of before actually allowing the buses on them. After a day-long discussion among jurors, the court finally awarded Guerra a settlement of 3.5 million dollars.

Something says that whether you weigh the negatives or the positives, Guerra will never forget this vacation.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Robert Santos.

Usually when people go on vacation, they come home with a souvenir of some sort such as a hat or refrigerator magnet. Lauren Guerra will be going home with a little more than a silly souvenir–in fact she will be going home with 3.5 million dollars. This will be a trip to remember for Guerra but not in the way one would want. Although Guerra will be going home a very rich woman, the damage that has been done is something that all the money in the world couldn’t fix.

On October 27, 2013, Lauren Guerra was one of the many passengers on the Star Line Tours of Hollywood bus giving a tour to passengers of Hollywood. These buses are popular and very well known for they give tours of the famous locations in California, and are known for the unique design of not having a roof but a open deck level for tourists to have a better view of sites and take better pictures. Unfortunately this would be Guerra’s biggest regret, for while aboard one of these buses, a tree branch flew into her face leaving her permanently disfigured. She immediately sued the company after hearing of another death on the same type of bus under the same company. In July 2014, and has been in a back and forth battle since then.

The court battle was vigorous and both sides seemed to have fair arguments. Mark Cunningham who is the attorney for the Starline Bus Company argued that Guerra was at fault because she was standing while the bus was in motion and also was drinking prior to being on the bus. Brian Kabateck, who is Guerra’s attorney, responded by admitting his client did indeed have a drink or two before entering the bus. But there was no way anyone could of avoided this injury, sober or not. Guerra’s attorney argued Star Line could have done more to prevent the situation such as having a worker on the second level of the bus, and also having individuals scout to see what type of environment the bus routes consisted of before actually allowing the buses on them. After a day-long discussion among jurors, the court finally awarded Guerra a settlement of 3.5 million dollars.

Something says that whether you weigh the negatives or the positives, Guerra will never forget this vacation.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Robert Santos.

Usually when people go on vacation, they come home with a souvenir of some sort such as a hat or refrigerator magnet. Lauren Guerra will be going home with a little more than a silly souvenir–in fact she will be going home with 3.5 million dollars. This will be a trip to remember for Guerra but not in the way one would want. Although Guerra will be going home a very rich woman, the damage that has been done is something that all the money in the world couldn’t fix.

On October 27, 2013, Lauren Guerra was one of the many passengers on the Star Line Tours of Hollywood bus giving a tour to passengers of Hollywood. These buses are popular and very well known for they give tours of the famous locations in California, and are known for the unique design of not having a roof but a open deck level for tourists to have a better view of sites and take better pictures. Unfortunately this would be Guerra’s biggest regret, for while aboard one of these buses, a tree branch flew into her face leaving her permanently disfigured. She immediately sued the company after hearing of another death on the same type of bus under the same company. In July 2014, and has been in a back and forth battle since then.

The court battle was vigorous and both sides seemed to have fair arguments. Mark Cunningham who is the attorney for the Starline Bus Company argued that Guerra was at fault because she was standing while the bus was in motion and also was drinking prior to being on the bus. Brian Kabateck, who is Guerra’s attorney, responded by admitting his client did indeed have a drink or two before entering the bus. But there was no way anyone could of avoided this injury, sober or not. Guerra’s attorney argued Star Line could have done more to prevent the situation such as having a worker on the second level of the bus, and also having individuals scout to see what type of environment the bus routes consisted of before actually allowing the buses on them. After a day-long discussion among jurors, the court finally awarded Guerra a settlement of 3.5 million dollars.

Something says that whether you weigh the negatives or the positives, Guerra will never forget this vacation.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

This article “Injury on Weight Bench Results in Lawsuit But Ruling for Club,” discusses a lawsuit, which was filed by a fitness facility member at the gym center where he routinely exercised. The plaintiff, La Fata, filed a lawsuit towards the center, LA Fitness International, because he claimed that his injury was due negligence by the defendant, LA Fitness International. As stated in the article, “the member contended that the facility was negligent and responsible for what the member claimed was a willful injury.” This quotation alludes to La Fata’s perspective that LA Fitness International was responsible for his injury and believed that he was morally and ethically entitled to monetary compensation in this civil case in order to make the defendant compensate him for what he contended was significant injustice in which he was victimized.

Contrary to La Fata’s assertions, there was significant evidence omitted from what he claimed was a vindictive, immoral, and an unjust situation in which he was harmed and expecting compensation for the wrongdoing. This evidence significantly neutralized his claims for wrongdoing and negligence by the defendant LA Fitness International. The defense completely destroyed his argument in the statement, “At the time the plaintiff joined the defendant’s facility he signed a double-sided membership agreement which contained a release/waiver of liability. The release contained the usual language including a provision that the facility was relieved from any liability for injuries suffered “in, upon, or about LA Fitness premises or arising at LA Fitness facilities, services or equipment.” A bold face typed provision of the release indicated this member had “read and understood the entire agreement.” This quote indicates that the plaintiff knowingly signed a waiver for liability in the event of getting injured on the premises of LA Fitness, and most importantly, signed the contract that he had read and agreed regarding the rules and regulations. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed on summary judgment because La Fata knowingly signed this contract, which shields LA Fitness from liability. The clause defends the corporation from lawsuits such as these that could result in a significant financial award for damages.

Conclusively, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, LA Fitness International. Perceiving the deciding factors in this case, the judge placed significant importance upon the evidentiary support and the notion (as was taught in class) that it is not necessarily about who is right or wrong, but what one can prove. Within the domain and the rules of the law, it is more important who can provide more evidence to support a claim. In the end, it is about whichever party can ascertain more concrete and factual information to provide justification to decisively conclude who is righteous in the perception of the law. That will separate which individual, or party, is morally and ethically innocent by contemporary societal norms and beliefs.

Herbert, David L. “Injury On Weight Bench Results In Lawsuit But Ruling For Club.” Exercise Standards & Malpractice Reporter 23.6 (2009). Web. 14. Feb. 2015.

Fadi is a double major in nutrition food science and exercise science at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Posted by Romelia Argudo.

Usually when an employee of a certain company works there for a long time, it is to their advantage as they have most likely gained experience for another upcoming job. Except in this case, Arthur Valdez was out of luck when he acquired a new job as Target’s chief supply chain and logistics officer. Having worked for Amazon.com for 16 years, Valdez has left his logistics position in this company and was sued for a breach of a “noncompete agreement.” These agreements ensure that an employee of a company, if they quit, will not compete against their business.

This can get a little tricky when switching positions at Amazon.com and moving to Target which is one of their biggest competitors. Amazon says they wish to prevent him from using the “confidential strategic knowledge” he possess from working in their company in his new job at Target. Because of this, Amazon has sued Valdez for the breech of noncompete agreement that binds him “to an 18-month timeout in which he cannot compete against his former employer.” It is said that over the span of 16 years, Valdez has gained knowledge on “’exact title and topics’ of a top secret meeting dubbed ‘Holiday Lessons Learned,’ which is ‘one of the most confidential aspects of Amazon’s analysis and planning’ and included ‘confidential analysis of Amazon’s competition against Target.’”

Amazon is not happy that Valdez has not specified his new roles he will be playing in Target which can harm Amazon. Most cases like these would settle before they are taken to court or with a lawyer, but until this point, nothing is being resolved and an agreement has not been reached yet. Apart from this, Amazon states “in the filing that Valdez’s 2015 compensation exceeded $1 million.”

Until something is settled for sure, Valdez will start his new position as a logistics executive.

Romelia is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Romelia Argudo.

One of the biggest setbacks for a company can be when they are hit with a lawsuit – especially one that involves settlements for 34 million dollars. Philips Respironics, Inc, known for their sleeping masks given to treat sleep apnea patients, was hit with a 34.8 lawsuit for violating the Anti-Kickback Statute. This “prohibits the knowing and willful payment of any remuneration to induce the referral of services or items that are paid for by a federal healthcare program Medicare. . .” In essence, this statute prohibits any exchange of value to reward the referral of healthcare program business. The United States alleged that Phillips Respironics, Inc. violated this law through means that allowed them to make a bigger profit.

The company sold their machinery to durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers. The deal was if DME suppliers would purchase Philip Respironic’s products, they would get free customer support for their clients to cover any of their needs. But instead, DMEs were charged monthly fees in accordance to the amount of patients that were using products from Philip Respironic’s competitors. So overall, these suppliers were being charged with fees if they supplied patients with products that were competitors of this company. This would drive DME suppliers to purchase more products from this specific sleep mask manufacturer.

US Attorney Bill Nettles says that “this office has made a substantial commitment to combatting fraud.” Not only has this move influence a consumers decision in what to purchase, but other companies as well. This was clear to Dr. Gibran Ameer who brought attention to this case. As a DME supplier worker, he noticed this and is now considered a “whistleblower” for informing US Attorneys of this wrong doing. As a result, Ameer is being rewarded $5.38 million for this moral act.

Special Agent Derrick L. Jackson of the Department of Health and Human Services says that “we will continue to investigate such business arrangements, which threaten the integrity of federal healthcare programs.”

In doing so, this encourages businesses to act as business ethically as much as they can as well as following business law.

Romelia is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Research project posted by Brian Kane.

In the digital age, the rights and laws regarding privacy are being contested now more than ever. Today personal privacy, both digital and physical, is being discussed. One of the earliest examples of privacy laws in the United States is the 4^th amendment. Under this amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). This and other laws, including the Federal Wiretap Law of 1968, are designed to protect the individual against unlawful searches of personal property by an unfair government. The individual right to privacy is held sacred in this country.

However, the laws of privacy protection are not absolute. Communications and interactions in general areas, such as online chatrooms, and digital communication used for work. Surveillance monitoring by employers has been contested by employees in courts in multiple cases. In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, for example, a search was justified because there were “reasonable grounds” and done “for a non-investigatory work-related purpose” (Ontario v. Quon).

Some argue that the privacy laws are for the best interests of individuals. Individuals and consumers are protected when the monitoring parties have clearly defined limits and barriers. When the government requires search warrants and the corporations are required to obtain consent, the best interests of those being monitored are kept in mind. The constant surveillance by powerful entities removes the right for individuals to act freely and live their own lifestyle. Gratuitous monitoring dehumanizes the employee and implies guilt without any evidence.

Privacy law is not completely virtuous, however. Like all laws, some may seek to exploit privacy law and use it to shield unproductive, immoral, and unethical behavior. When employees use corporate email accounts for personal business, they often claim a right to privacy when investigation begins. Many act recklessly online in this digital age, assuming that the right to privacy is absolute and unbreakable. There are instances where there is legitimate reasons to investigate an individual. When there is probable cause, public good supersedes individual privacy.

The issue of privacy and surveillance laws raises many ethical questions. The rights of individuals and the definition of individualism is put into question when anyone is monitored by a third party. There is concern for the maintenance of human dignity, as some see these searches dehumanizing and distressing on private lives. Pope Leo XIII spoke out against increased surveillance, saying that it intruded and lead to control over individuals. In Catholicism, the holy sacrament of confession revolves around the private recounting of sins and transgressions. When discussing privacy, the matter common good is raised. Aquinas believes that law is created for the common good, “made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” (2 Bix).

Privacy and Surveillance Law is a widely contested issue in the catholic faith and general ethics. It has its advantages and disadvantages, as any other issue in law, but it will continue to be contested as new innovations shape the information age.

Works Cited

Bix, Brian H. “Secrecy and the Nature of Law.” October 2013. University of Pennsylvania School, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. Web. 3/3/2016. Avaliable: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2418-bixsecrecy-and-the-nature-of-law-full

City of Ontario v. Quon. 560 U.S. 746. Accessed 3/3/2016.

Posted by Luis Ferreira, Jr.

Volkswagen, who recently met the goal of becoming the world’s biggest car making company, has gotten themselves into some legal troubles. The accusations stem from excessive amounts of pollutants caused by their cars and using emission cheating software to cover it up. The company has installed the software into 11 million engines worldwide. The software is supposed to limit the amount of a toxic nitrogen oxide that is released from the car, however, the company’s device instead lets the vehicle release pollutants about 40 more times the legal amount. Volkswagen did this because it lets the car have better acceleration and fuel economy. This device is illegal in the United States and in many other countries.

The court gave the company until April 21, 2016 to fix all of their cars. The court told the German car company that if the cars were not fixed by this specific date, then they would a breach trial. The company is also getting fined in all of the countries it sold the cars in and facing many legal suits from car owners that are very upset over this dispute. Everything, including cars fixed, payments to unpleased customers, and timing, must be resolved by April 21^st or the company will be going to trial.

Volkswagen has said they are “’committed to resolving the US regulatory investigation into the diesel emissions matter as quickly as possible and to implementing a solution for affected vehicles.’”

The company has said they are going to follow all of the orders by the judge to be able to avoid trial and get the company out of these legal troubles.

Luis is a business law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Emily Nichols.

On November 5, 2015, six men were convicted on felony charges of fraud and conspiracy in the sale of vending machine business opportunities. All six of these men were from New York, and they were just six of the 22 individuals convicted with this vending machine scheme. Two of the men were convicted with conspiracy and six counts of fraud and one count of false statement to federal agents. The third man was convicted on conspiracy and mail fraud. Two of the men were convicted of conspiracy and wire fraud and the final man was convicted of conspiracy and two counts of wire fraud.

They were convicted following the six week trial where some of the men will be in jail for 40 years according to their maximum sentence for conspiracy, fraud counts and false statements. These six men, were the last of the 22 convicted for the entire Vendstar scheme.

The company not only advertised nationwide on the internet and in newspapers, but they also promised to have the full package for the customer, saying that they would provide everything to operate the vending machine including the initial supply of candy for the machine. Once the machines were ordered, they dropped the machine off to the businesses wherever and however they could, not placing the machine in any certain place, and many businesses requested immediate removal of the machine. The men attempted to sell vending machines to businesses and promised them that they would make loads of money off of the machines and the customers would pay tens of thousands of dollars to invest in the machines. Between the five years of the operation of the scheme, it cost consumers a total of around $60 Million. If the customer paid an average of $10,000, then there were about 6,000 victims of this scheme once it was all said and done.

These men, I feel, were convicted correctly of their crimes and deserve to be in jail for what will most likely be the rest of their lives as the men were all above the age of 40, three of them being over the ae of 55. In the entirety, just 22 people cause a loss of $60 Million to consumers and businesses.

Emily is an accounting and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Michael DeCandia.

The people support our government. The FBI is trying to keep our country safe from the terrorists that surround the world.  The FBI was trying to work with Apple to get the shooters phone so that the FBI would be able to access the password/information they needed to find where the shooter might be going next or where his next target might be. In the article, Why Apple vs. FBI Might be the Worst Cybersecurity Dilemma Ever states, “Apple argues that the FBI is imposing unfair burden on the company and is violating its right to freedom of speech.” In Apple’s eyes it may be an unfair burden, but the FBI is irritated that Apple will not work with them to stop an event from happening against the United States. Silicon Valley was scared that the FBI would over rule the tech industry and companies would not be able to protect their future products.

Individual devices and our national security are very important things when helping protect in the United States. The NSA and other organization like the CIA or the FBI are designed to keep the nation safe from any attacks. If this event were to happen in the future with a more serious group of dangerous people how would the people feel about their safety? In the article Why Apple vs. FBI Might be the Worst Cybersecurity Dilemma Ever states, “The US government has helped develop and spread user-friendly encryption technologies for precisely this reason.”

Criminals may feel safer that they will never get caught communicating, but for right now this is the best option for the people. By working together with technology companies the government can stop more criminals lurking on the Internet today. The more the people in our country work together, the more we can accomplish to make our country a safer place.

Michael is a marketing major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Natalie Dorley.

The case of Sherman v. United States looks like a case of entrapment. Entrapment is when a “law enforcement official” forces another individual to perform an illegal activity that they would not normally do (if they were not under forced pretenses).

The defendant ended up being charged with the sale of narcotics. “A government informant and defendant initially met in a hospital where they both were being treated for drug addiction.” Since both the defendant and the government informant were very vulnerable due to their drug addiction, it is no surprise that one of the parties looked for a way to fulfill their addiction.

The government lured the defendant by expressing how he was suffering and continuously “pressed the issue.” The defendant eventually gave in to the informant. He got in contact with his drug supplier and gave the drugs to the informant. At trial, the defendant claimed entrapment as his defense. The main issue in court was whether or not if the conviction should be based on entrapment at all.

In my opinion, I feel as if this case was a case of entrapment. It is the law enforcement’s job to protect the public from crime. The fact that the official pressed on forcing someone else to get drugs for them is in violation of their duty.

The holding stated this, “The informant clearly induced the crime in this case. The informant attempted multiple times to create the crime after multiple rejections and did so in the context of a recovering drug addict, whose ability to refuse was comparatively reduced.”

The informant was well aware of their actions. The defendant had every right to claim this as entrapment.

Natalie is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Alexa Christie.

In Frankfort, Kentucky, Attorney General Andy Beshear sues Volkswagen claiming the automaker’s diesel emissions cheating scheme violated the state’s consumer protection law. There were 3,800 vehicles registered in Kentucky with this defect. The lawsuit was filed in a state court. “”We have a very strong law that is meant to prevent companies like this … from making an outright lie that they then use to sell what’s a pretty expensive product,” Beshear said at a state Capitol news conference.” Beshear thinks that Volkswagen should be held accountable for this scheme of false advertisement. Last year, 600,000 cars were sold in the United States with software that was designed to cheat on required emissions tests.

Volkswagen was trying to advertise that their customers, who wanted a “green” car were getting one, when in fact they were not. A Volkswagen spokeswomen announced that the company, Volkswagen, was working with federal environmental regulators to resolve this problem. Texas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and West Virginia were also filing separate lawsuits against Volkswagen. The company has received more than $20 billion in fines from state and federal regulators. In September, Volkswagen admitted to using illegal software installed in their “clean diesel” engines.

Alexa is a business administration major with a concentration in management at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

The President signed into law a bill passed by Congress banning U.S. imports of “fish caught by slaves in Southeast Asia, gold mined by children in Africa, and garments sewn by abused women in Bangladesh.” The law closes a loophole in an 85-year-old tariff law which allowed these products to be sold.

Due to high demand of certain products, the previous law allowed these goods to be sold in the U.S. regardless if they were produced by slave labor. Sen. Sherrod Brown has pressed U.S. Customs to make sure the law is enforced.  He said, “It’s embarrassing that for 85 years, the United States let products made with forced labor into this country, and closing this loophole gives the U.S. an important tool to fight global slavery.”

Posted by Dan Udvari.

On December 3, 2015 Donald L. Blankenship – the CEO of Massey Energy, Co. – was convicted of a single misdemeanor for conducting a conspiracy to violate safety rules in his coal mines just before the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster that occurred on April 5, 2010.

Massey Energy was the fourth largest publicly traded coal extractor by revenue ($2.69 billion) in the United States. It was founded in 1920 by the Massey family and operated in Richmond, Virginia. The company consisted of approximately 5800 employees right before Alpha Natural Resources acquired the company for 7.1 billion dollars. Interestingly, 99% of the shareholders voted in favor of the acquisition, which shows how poorly the company was governed by management. Don Blankenship took control over the company in 1992 and created a culture that favored profits over safety. In total, the coal extractor giant had around 369 citations and orders, which totaled a staggering 10.8 million dollars.

On April 5, 2015 a massive explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia occurred that killed 29 people. This tragedy was the worst since the 1970 Hyden disaster. Massey Energy operated the Upper Big Branch Mine and later turned out that they operated the mine in a manner that was against several rules set up by the MSHA. The investigation later determined that the ventilation system in the mine did not work properly and failed to get rid of the toxic gases that caused the explosion. Massey intentionally neglected all the safety rules and citations issued by the MSHA for the purpose of increasing profits. However, this case goes deeper than one thinks. According to reports, Massey Energy is very influential on political figures and officials in West Virginia. Using this power, they were able to bribe and manipulate MSHA regulators so they look the other way when inspecting the mines.

In November 2014, Don Blankenship, was indicted by a federal jury on four criminal counts including conspiracy to violate safety laws, securities fraud, defrauding the federal government, and making false statements to the SEC. Even though he was charged with these, he was only found guilty of one on December 3, 2015. Had he been convicted of all four, he could have been sent to prison for approximately thirty years. Now, he is only serving one year in jail.

I do not believe that Blankenship should only serve one year in jail. It seems unfair to those who had lost their lives because of profits. It baffles me that people as greedy as him get away with conspiracy and murder charges. It seems that money can literally buy your freedom in the United States. All you need is a good lawyer or lawyers.

Dan is a graduate accounting student with a certificate in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Melissa Nomani.

Farmers across the United States are filing suits against Syngenta. As stated in the article, “The lawsuits allege the biotechnology company’s genetically modified Agrisure Viptera and Duracade seeds contaminated US corn shipments, making them unacceptable for export to China.” China does not allow the importation of GMO products that it has not tested. In February of 2014, China learned that the corn shipments from the U.S. contained Viptera. Agrisure Viptera is a seed that is genetically modified (known as MIR162) to prevent damage to crops by earworms and cutworms. As a result, China has rejected corn imports from the U.S.

Over 1,800 suits have been filed. Lawsuits filed against Syngenta state that the company put seeds on the market even though there was no approval from foreign markets. This has led to some farms having great financial losses. Even farmers who do not use GMO seeds could be affected due to accidental contamination from other fields. Syngenta has tried to refute the lawsuits by stating that they are not responsible for protecting farmers from GMO seeds. This arguments were rejected in September by Judge Lungstrum, who refused to dismiss the suits.

It has been estimated by The National Grain and Feed Association that as of April 2014 almost $3.0 billion worth of losses were caused by Syngenta’s Agrisure Viptera MIT162 corn seed.

The first of the lawsuits are expected to go to trial in June 2017.

Melissa is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Ilse Narvaez. 

A conspiracy occurs when two or more parties agree to commit a crime. The crime is complete when the agreement is made. The four elements of conspiracy are an agreement, unlawful object, knowledge and intent, and an overt act. The prosecution has to prove there was knowledge of the conspiracy and the target of the conspiracy. The Hobbs Act prescribes criminal punishment for “whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce by extortion” (Justice.gov 7).

From May 2009 to February 2011, Samuel Ocasio, a Baltimore police officer, and approximately 50 other police officers were involved in a kickback scheme. During the scheme, police officers working at automobile accidents, encouraged people to use the services of Majestic Auto Repair Shop for towing and repairs (Reuters). In return, the owners of Majestic Auto Repair Shop, Hernan Moreno and Edwin Mejia, paid the officers between $150 and $300 per referral. Payments were collected the next day usually at Moreno’s home, an ATM, or a convenience store. The City of Baltimore already had contracts with pre-approved towing companies that did not include Majestic. In addition to his, officers were prohibited from accepting any compensation, gifts, or rewards without the Police Commissioner’s permission. The scheme was discovered when federal agents were wiretapping Majestic, and recorded scores of calls connected to the kickbacks (Chicago Tribune).

A grand jury indicted 9 police officers including Ocasio, and the Majestic owners, in connection with the kickback scheme. Ocasio was convicted of three charges of extortion and one charge of conspiracy and sentenced to 18 months in prison for his participation. Ocasio argued against the conspiracy charge, since he believed he could not be guilty if the money was obtained from Moreno and Mejia whom were co-conspirators. The court denied this because Majestic, not its owners were actually the source of payments. The court also mentioned that the government did not have to prove that the conspiracy was to obtain money from someone outside of the conspiracy.

After convicted, Ocasio appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit. His argument was that “conspiring to extort property from one’s own coconspirator does not contravene federal law” (Justice.gov 9). The court of appeals affirmed the previous conviction for various reasons. The court held that a person who actively participates in a conspiracy scheme can be prosecuted as a co-conspirator even if he is also a victim of the agreement. This relates to the basic conspiracy rule that mentions that a conspirator is responsible for his actions as well as for the actions of his co-conspirators. In this case, Ocasio may have taken money from Moreno and Mejia instead of customers, but he is responsible for the actions of the brothers as well. The court also disagreed that “the Hobbs Act’s ‘from another’ language requires that a coconspirator obtain property ‘from someone outside the conspiracy’” (Justice.gov 9). This simply means that someone other than the public official.

Due to the affirmation of the conviction by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ocasio decided to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to take the case that will only have an effect on the conspiracy charge. The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case before June.

Ilse is a graduate student in accounting with a certificate in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Works-cited

Justice.gov “In the Supreme Court of the United States.” Ocasio vs. United States of America.

Web. .

“U.S. Justices Weigh Baltimore Cop’s Kickback Conspiracy Appeal.” Reuters. Thomson

Reuters, 06 Oct. 2015. Web. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-usa-court-conspiracy-idUSKCN0S02LR20151006#7Kh5jkDcFhxjWb05.97

“At the Supreme Court, a Case for Fans of ‘The Wire’” Chicagotribune.com. Web..

Posted by Natalie Kenny.

The parent company that makes Old Spice, Proctor & Gamble, is being sued by Rodney Colley of Alexandria, Virginia because of a defect in the deodorant. The plaintiff shared photos of himself with burns under his arms which he claims are from Old Spice deodorant. The plaintiff says he suffered “severe rashes, burning, and discomfort” after he used the product and he had to stop using it. In the photo, the rashes look severe.

Procter & Gamble, the parent company that owns Old Spice said that the people who experience rashes and irritation from using the deodorant are in the minority and only make up a small fraction of the company’s overall users. After news broke of this lawsuit, several other individuals came forward with stories about how the Old Spice deodorant gave them rashes and scabbing. The five million dollar lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio and is awaiting trial.

In my opinion, it is not okay for this deodorant to be giving people severe rashes. Even though Proctor & Gamble stated that only a small percentage of users get burns or rashes from the product that is simply not good enough. Consumers should not have to be concerned whether or not they will have a severe reaction to a product that they use every day.

I think that Proctor & Gamble should have to pay for the medical bills of the people who got severe reactions from this product as well as punitive damages to stop them from doing this and to get other companies to make sure their products are safe before selling them to the public.

Natalie is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.