The regulatory process and its role in the legal system is a fundamental concept in business law. Federal, state and local governments received the authority to regulate activities from Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 also referred to as the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause dictates the enumerated powers of Congress in professional and private settings.
The regulatory process is performed by administrative agencies. Some commonly recognized administrative agencies are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The recent GlaxoSmithKline bribery scandal focused on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative agency. The mission of the SEC is to “protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.” (Securities Exchange Commission)
The SEC recently alleged that GlaxoSmithKline’s Chinese subsidiary had engaged in bribery activity for four years, 2010 to 2013. The SEC accused GlaxoSmithKline subsidiary of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. According to the SEC, GlaxoSmithKline’s subsidiary had been providing foreign officials and health-care professionals with gifts incongruous to the law. These gifts included shopping trips, cash, travel, entertainment, etc. for the purpose of boosting sales. Further, the SEC suspected that GlaxoSmithKline’s subsidiary deceptively recorded these payments as expenses. The bribery scandal investigation eventually captured the attention of a second agency, the U.S. Department of Justice.
GlaxoSmithKline has not admitted nor denied these bribery charges, but has agreed to pay $20 million to settle the matter. Nonetheless, this is not GlaxoSmithKline’s first bribery settlement. In 2014, the company paid $491.5 million and several managers were convicted with charges and suspended imprisonment for a similar matter. Since the 2014 bribery controversy, GlaxoSmithKline stated it “installed several reforms, including shifts to the compensation of sales representatives and the end of payments to health-care practitioners for advocating for Glaxo products to other prescribers.” (Minaya)
My opinion on the matter is that GlaxoSmithKline was rightfully accused by the SEC and DOJ, specifically for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Act has a firm anti-bribery provision that GlaxoSmithKline and its Chinese subsidiary had a legal and ethical responsibility to follow. The fact that GlaxoSmithKline and its subsidiary’s records were not a true representation of its payments is a clear piece of evidence suspecting its violation. In addition, having read the SEC order and learned that GlaxoSmithKline had engaged in this activity before, I believe that the company and the subsidiary did participate in bribery.
Melissa is a marketing major with dual minors in public relations and legal studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Joseph Locorriere.
The fundamentals of business, something that America has practiced for decades and which was proven to be the correct way of managing a business, include running an ethical business, such as taking proper care and recognition of employees and customers as well as the surrounding environment. However, as America continues to stray farther from these values, businesses continue to find themselves in situations which is tantamount to malpractice. It is no longer as common to see businesses acting ethically as it was like years in the past, mainly due to short run profit maximization. Morgan Stanley, one of the top banks in the country has once again acted unethically towards customers. Like many instances, this business was focused on volume of sales and not ethics, also considered short-run profit maximization, due to the sole fact of making as much money as possible without concern of the public good.
Similar to the 2008 occurrence of selling faulty loans such as NINA loans (No Income, No Asset) or sub-prime mortgages that intentionally fooled the buyer into thinking they would afford their mortgage, Morgan Stanley sold Security Based Loans (SBLs) to customers, allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty. Brokers were incentivized by a $5,000 bonus for meeting loan quotas, which was intended for boosting the companies’ volume of sales. By incentivizing the employees with a bonus they disregarded customers overall satisfaction; instead they focused primarily on volume. Although Morgan Stanley boosted their profits by $24 million in new loan balances, they are being taken to a court of law for business malpractice. Morgan Stanley states that, “The securities-based loan accounts were opened only after discussing the product with each client and obtaining their affirmative consent” (Zacks.com). Although this may stand true, it still violated Morgan Stanley’s fiduciary duty to customers of informing them of their investment.
It is unfortunate to see businesses continue to perform unethically towards customers, as well as employees. Longevity, reputation and long-run profit maximization are no longer commonly displayed. Morgan Stanley in this case should have stayed with giving a bonus, but should have not forgotten about the fundamental values they hold as a broker, which is to inform clients on investments, whether it be positive or negative news. Sadly enough, this is another example of America’s current business strategy that fails to be aware of the public good.
Joseph is a finance student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Ethan James.
There was a chemical spill into the Elk River, two years ago, that came from a storage tank owned by Freedom Industries. This spill caused a temporary shutdown of businesses within the region around the river, as well as many residents of the Charleston area needing to go to the emergency room with symptoms of rashes and nausea. The damages caused by the chemical spill hurt the local economy and people, so a class-action lawsuit was ensued.
The lawsuit was against Eastman Chemical and West Virginia American Water Co., as through the actions of both companies lead to damages against the people of the Charleston area. “The suit alleged the water company was unprepared for the spill and that Eastman Chemical didn’t advise Freedom of the dangers of the coal-cleaning agent,”(Michael Virtanen). There is a fear that Eastman did not properly warn the water company of the damage to others or how to properly contain it. In addition, the water company was said to be “unprepared for the spill”(Michael Virtanen), in both the damages that were inflicted on the tanks and how to proceed with the consequences of the spill.
The U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver approved a $151 million dollar settlement that involved both companies, splitting the settlement. West Virginia American Water Co. is going to pay $126 million, while Eastman Chemical will proceed to pay $25 million. “The money will be distributed to affected residents and businesses through an application process to be determined later,”(The Associated Press). There has been an update to proceedings within the water company in order to avoid a repeat of the damages that occurred, while the chemical company has placed new regulations on inspections in order to better advise companies of their products.
Ethan is a management, finance, and ITM Majors and legal studies minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Posted by Matthew Cassidy.
In 1988 the Video Privacy Protection Act was passed by Congress to prevent private information about tape rentals or sales records from being released to the public. The case involves a man named Mark Ellis who downloaded the Cartoon Network Application on his Android smartphone in order to watch shows on that network.
The app is able to track viewer history and an Android phone I.D.; it then sends the information to an analytics company named Bango. Bango is a very advanced organization that can not only monitor customer behavior, but also link user’s information about the user through the Android I.D.
Cartoon Network’s third party partner, Bango, violated the Video Privacy Protection App by gathering personal identification from the Android user’s I.D. The court weighed its opinions on another case called Re Hulu Privacy Legislation that involved the Privacy Protection Act. This case helped Cartoon Network by providing the true definition of a subscriber to just visiting a website. Therefore, Ellis was not “committed” to the application, so therefore the Privacy Protection Act did not apply to him.
Matthew is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Matt Gilbert.
PepsiCo is beginning to take its health push seriously, stating last month that it plans to reduce the amount of sugar, salt and fat in its products by the year 2025. The company’s newest aspiration comes as a response to growing world obesity and its striving to be in better accordance with global health standards. It also comes in light of recent discoveries that Pepsi’s juice brand, Naked, was mislabeled to say that it included less sugar than it actually does. This was a massive roadblock in Pepsi’s success as it was marketing Naked juices as a healthy, low-sugar alternative, when in actuality it had extremely high levels of sugar.
This misinformation opens a larger can of worms as to the duty of companies to warn its customers of the dangers of its products and where the line of general knowledge and the withholding of information. Essentially where does the fault go from the customer to the company? This is not a straight forward issue by any means and both sides could be argued. If the business at fault knew the true information and knowingly withheld it from the customer, then that becomes a major issue.
It also brings up an interesting and complex discussion as to if Pepsi should be obligated to improve the overall health of their products. The general public knows and acknowledges the fact that soda as a whole is not good for one’s health, so is it really Pepsi’s obligation to attempt to make it healthier when the nature of the product is to be unhealthy? What it really comes down to is where the legal responsibility of the company ends and where its moral obligation to the well-being of its customers begins. The law places baseline guidelines on the standards that need to be achieved, but in many cases that simply isn’t enough. For example, Samsung began testing their batteries internally after the debacle with their batteries even though the law doesn’t require them to go to such lengths.
Pepsi’s commitment to reduce the amount of sugar in their drinks comes at a time when the social norm is with low-calorie healthy alternatives. That being said, the legality of the situation comes into play with whether or not Pepsi needs to make such a change and where the line between customer knowledge and company deception is drawn.
Matt is a marketing and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Michael Ragone.
Recently, McDonalds workers have opened up explaining in detail, sexual harassment incidents that they have experienced while at work. Until last year, under the law, McDonald’s could not be held accountable for labor violations in franchise owned stores. With that being said, McDonalds still ignored all serious instances. Most of the incidents, had to deal with employees being touched, grabbed and slapped, which of course is a clear violation of any moral values. In a video that was shared most of the statements were, “Grabbed my waist, tried to kiss me, touched my breast, grabbed my leg.” “Grab, touch, rubbing up, no, this is not okay.” Some workers were even shown pornographic images from their supervisors. Where in one case, a women’s boss offered her one thousand dollars in exchange for oral sex. This sparked an activist group, “Fight for 15” because of the 15 different claims.
In a recent study, “two in five women working in fast food reported experiencing some sort of sexual harassment ” which is an extremely high percentage. Men and women should be able to work in a safe environment with rules and codes of conduct. In a statement, McDonalds tried to distant themselves from their franchises trying to make them look independent. Fight for 15 is planning protests nationwide over McDonald’s handling of sexual harassment. When women employees went to speak up and report the incidents they were punished with their hours and pay being cut. One of the managers said, “You shouldn’t have flirted with him.” Not in any way is it the employees fault and they shouldn’t have to work in hostile working environments. When you have to live pay check to pay check and barely make enough to get by, speaking up means putting your job at risk.
If McDonalds ignores these harassment claims, their long term reputation and profit maximization will deteriorate. In order to make the work environment safer, there should be people who employees can report problems to right away. The employees affected by this harassment “aren’t seeking monetary damages” and only seek for “McDonald’s to enforce its publicly stated no-tolerance policy for sexual harassment.” This would of course mean that anyone who was proven to be harassing employees in any way would no longer be able to continue employment. When natural law is considered, these workers should all have equal rights to earn a living without worrying about a possible threat to them. This problem is even worse for “immigrant workers” says the Fight for 15 because they are not fully aware of their rights and thus leaving them more vulnerable for exploitation. It is also common that women did not want to speak out in fear of losing their jobs, and of course this would mean not being able to support themselves and possible loved ones. By re-enacting the zero tolerance policy, women will be able to go to work feeling like they are equal to everyone because harassment rates will plummet.
Michael is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Nick Mitwasi.
Throughout the years, there has been numerous lawsuits towards Johnson & Johnson for their use of talcum power in their products, specifically baby powder, for women have been suing the company on claims that it is the link to their ovarian cancer. In this year alone, the company was forced to give up $55 million in May to a woman in St. Louis, Missouri and $72 million to another family also in St. Louis. In addition, just a couple of days ago, a woman was awarded $70 million in California against Johnson & Johnson. Yet, in all of these cases J&J has continued to defend that their product is completely safe.
Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder has dominated the market in the past, and thus is the main reason as to why it is going to defend its products in the mist of all these lawsuits they are being slammed with. In the first case in which Johnson & Johnson was involved, they were sued by Diane Berg for gross negligence and fraud; she was a frequent user of the product and never was informed that long term use of the product can cause cancer. After she sued, the company offered an “out of court settlement of $1.3 million” (Huffington Post); however, she declined and simply wanted to inform the public through her suing the company that this is something people must be informed about.
The main problem, though, with all these lawsuits is that there is no scientific evidence that the product does indeed cause cancer; it is the fact that Johnson & Johnson are not informing their customers that there is a possibility that their product will do harm. This has been damaging the company’s reputation as more and more lawsuits are being filed to different law firms about the same situation. This is still an ongoing situation and time will only tell to see how Johnson & Johnson reacts to the overflow of negativity towards one of their mainstay products.
Nick is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3882192/Cancer-patient-contracted-disease-using-Johnson-Johnson-talcum-powder-wins-70million-payout-company.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-nwazor/the-talcum-powder-lawsuit_1_b_10609474.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baby-powder-cancer-lawsuits/
Posted by Joe Casey.
In the business world the line to remain ethical and make profit is thin. In the recent months Samsung has toed the line with the ethical standards of business due to their latest smartphone repeatedly catching fire all throughout the world. Samsung acting as swiftly as possible called for a quick recall of 2.5 million units of this phone however, the recall has gone anything but quick.
While Samsung seemed to be gaining ground on Apple in the smartphone business, they have produced their newest phone the Samsung Galaxy Note 7; the issue that has risen is that these phones are beyond unsafe and yet people still seem to be using them even after the initial recall. Due to the recall, Samsung has seemingly alleviated the possibility to be liable for any lawsuits that will come after the recall has been issued but the harm that was done prior to the recall has in estimate, “further dented Samsung’s reputation and shaved as much as $14 billion off its market value” (Times). One of the many issues that face Samsung is that it seems they have wavered from government recall protocol and instead are trying to “save face” by venturing out on their own and advertising to bring the devices back for a change of battery when the issue is much more complex. The first recall while slow had seemed to stop the issue of their exploding phone as soon as October 1st.
Five days had passed since the recall seemed to fully become effective, until October 6th when the first report of a replacement phone being defective hits the news. This stream picks back up and again Samsung is forced to stop producing the phone all together making it the largest smart phone recall to date. Finally, on October 11th “Samsung announces it is stopping all sales of the phone while it investigates the problems.”(BBC). While Samsung at first was able to stay ethical, they decided to find an immediate solution due to the money they would lose and are now dealing with a larger problem all together.
This hit is only the beginning in the repercussions after this will be seen further in the court system yet their ethical standing to act as quickly as possible even though it went against the governments wishes on how to handle the recall was best for their business. Instead of staying unethical and ignoring the problem they chose to deal with it head on.
Joe is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37615496
Posted by Victoria Gencarelli.
Product liability is a prevailing issue and concern for companies and businesses who are marketing and selling their products. It is a company’s duty to take the liability for manufacturing and selling a product that is defective or damaged. By creating and issuing a defective product to the public, it increases the risk for dangers, damages, or harmful occurrences to take place with the use of the product. If in the case that a product is defective and capable of any danger, it is the company’s responsibility to issue a warning or a recall on the product. In this way they can they attempt to protect themselves from any legal issues and also protect the general public from encountering danger while using their products.
POM Wonderful is a company who produces fruit juices and fruit extracts, but is most commonly known for the produce of pomegranate juice. The Coca-Cola Company introduced a new “pomegranate blueberry” juice product, but POM wonderful believed the product to be false advertising to consumers. The juice was actually a blend together of apple and grape juices and only consisted of 0.2% pomegranate juice in it and also included the phrase “from concentrate with added ingredients and other flavors” in small typing. POM Wonderful presented this to the court in compliance with the Lanham Act because they believed that the name of the juice and the false advertising of the Coca-Cola Company’s “pomegranate blueberry” juice was misleading and contributing to a loss of sales for POM Wonderful.
In California federal district court, they deliberated the case and had not found POM successful in proving that the Coca-Cola Company was misleading their consumers into thinking that their “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” did not actually contain a high percentage of pomegranate juice. When the case reached the highest court, they disregarded POM Wonderful’s claim against the Coca-Cola Company and stating that Coca-Cola was not violating the FDA guidelines on product labeling. The POM Wonderful Company did lose out on millions of dollars in revenue and sales, but it was not seen as unfair competition and the jury ended the case in favor of the Coca-Cola Company. All in all, an issue such as this one has an overall impact on the food industry to be careful when labeling, marketing, and advertising their products to the public. It is always important to keep product liability in mind when generating products and selling them in order to avoid any potential problems in the long run.
Victoria is an accounting and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Posted by Michaela Jerkowski.
In recent events, McDonald’s Restaurants settled a labor lawsuit pending from 2014, and was ordered in federal court to pay $3.75 million dollars to about 800 employees in California. The lawsuit states that Smith Family LP, who franchised five restaurants in California, “violated California law by failing to pay overtime, keep accurate pay records and reimburse workers for time spent cleaning uniforms.” (Fortune 6). The case was the first time in history that McDonald’s settled a class action law suit that was filed by franchise employees.
Over the past couple of years, McDonald’s has dealt with multiple different problems involving franchise employees. Aside from this multi-million dollar lawsuit, they were also hit with a sexual assault lawsuit involving 15 franchise employees. The McDonald’s corporation has been in and out of court trying to find out whether or not they are considered joint employers with the franchise owners who are causing this backlash with employees.
Although you might think that this lawsuit isn’t much of a high profile case, considering McDonald’s is a billion dollar company, the reason it’s been brought so much attention is because it’s the “the first time the company has settled legal claims by a group of U.S. workers at one of its franchises.”(Time 1). This lawsuit could open doors for many more that may appear in the future, so it would not be a surprise if the company now gets hit with more lawsuits.
Michaela is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
http://time.com/4552835/mcdonalds-settlement-labor-law-california/?xid=IFT-Section
http://fortune.com/2016/11/01/mcdonalds-court-settlement-franchise-workers-california/