Posted by August Pimentel.
President Donald Trump recently had a libel case against him dismissed in the Supreme Court of New York on the basis that his tweets were spreading opinion rather than fact, and therefore could not be held accountable for libel.
The conflict began in February 2016, when Cheryl Jacobus, a Republican strategist who had previously been recruited by the Trump campaign, went on CNN attempting to expose a political action committee which allegedly was partly funding the campaign. Trump responded to the broadcast via his personal Twitter account, saying “Really dumb @CheriJacobus. Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!” Jacobus sued the then presidential candidate and his then campaign manager Corey Lewandowski for defamation, pursuing damages of $4M. Jacobus stated that after the tweet, she received no more offers to speak and no employment opportunities.
Barbara Ross of the New York Daily News covered this case with an article in October 2016 on the suit, and another released in January 2017 when the case was dismissed.
“Jacobus had appeared 141 times on CNN to discuss the presidential race before the dust up,” said Ross. “But only once on another station after his tweets.”
The hearings in front of Justice Barbara Jaffe of New York revealed that the Trump campaign had indeed recruited Jacobus for a job and discussed terms of the employment, but rejected her after receiving a request for $20,000 per month in salary. Jacobus’ attorney, Jay Butterman, claimed Jacobus’ entire career was destroyed by those tweets, and the Trump campaign lied about her “begging for a job” and “[acting] hostile.” Trump’s attorney, Lawrence Rosen, claimed Butterman and his client to be engaging in “hyperbole” stating: “To a large extent, Twitter is the wild wild West. People say the darnedest things. Everyone understands that when tweets are made, you take it with a grain of salt.”
Justice Jaffe ruled in favor of President-elect Trump and Lewandowski just ten days before inauguration day. In her decision, Justice Jaffe stated that “professional misconduct, incompetence or a lack of integrity may not be reasonably inferred from being turned down from a job.” The judge also commented on the nature of tweets themselves, similar to Rosen’s argument in the case.
“His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as ‘loser’ or ‘total loser’ or ‘totally biased loser,’ ‘dummy’ or ‘dope’ or ‘dumb,’ ‘zero/no credibility,’ ‘crazy’ or ‘wacko’ and ‘disaster,’ all deflecting serious consideration.”
Butterman and Jacobus plan to appeal the ruling, claiming it a “sad day for free speech.” Reflecting on this case, there may have been some small falsity in President Trump’s tweet in that his campaign did not turn Jacobus away twice. This was not enough, however, to make Trump guilty of libel. That tweet over a year ago, made by the then prominent presidential candidate, can be interpreted as vague. However, if it is true that Jacobus has lost speaking opportunities for which she would have gotten paid because of a crude tweet, it shows that those companies and media outlets did not take Trump’s tweets “with a grain of salt.” The president has recently boasted about the ability of his tweets to obstruct others, citing that no NFL team has signed Colin Kaepernick because they are afraid to get “a nasty tweet from Donald Trump.” Unfortunately for Jacobus’ case, this appears to be an ethical issue rather than a legal one.
August is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.
Sources:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/manhattan-judge-tosses-libel-lawsuit-donald-trump-article-1.2942831
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cheryl-jacobus-trump-destroyed-career-4m-suit-article-1.2818683
Posted by Anna Fajnorova.
On March 26, a gate agent decided to deny two teenage girls from a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were traveling on a company travel pass and their leggings were a violation of the airline’s dress code. United Airlines defended the gate agent’s decision and it led to an uproar with many people on social media after the incident was reported. Now does United, being a privately-owned company, have the right to do what they did?
United Airlines allows customers to fly in leggings, but these girls were “pass rider” users. “Pass rider” is a benefit United Airlines employees receive for working for an airline. Employees are able to travel the world and extend their privileges to relatives or friends as long as they use an airline that follows that policy. Employees and “pass rider” users are considered representatives of United and have a dress code to follow. Because the girls were wearing leggings, they went against the dress code and were denied to fly. Other airlines follow the same policy as United and have a set dress code for relatives and friends that receive benefits from their airline. Southwest Airlines has a “relaxed and casual” dress code, but does not allow “low-cut, skimpy, revealing clothing, short shorts, or gym shorts.” JetBlue also does not allow leggings but finds jogging suits acceptable. Besides leggings, low-cut, revealing attire, and sweats of any kind are not allowed. Employees and pass rider beneficiaries must also have clean shoes as well as cover up their tattoos. Another question that should be asked is does United have the right to tell employees and their families what to wear, especially during their leisure time?
Even though there are critics saying several things such as “how would people know about the policy”, “the policy is outdated and strict”, and “it’s sexist because it singles out attire worn primarily by women”, what United Airplanes did was not wrong according to the article. Many “pass rider” users even agreed with United’s decision and believed the teenage girls were taking advantage of the employee benefit and should have known better. United regularly reminds their employees that when a relative or friend is given the benefits of becoming a “pass rider” user, they need to follow dress code. If this is the case, United only followed policy that employees are regularly reminded of and enforced that policy. Yes, the policy seems outdated because leggings are something that many people currently wear but “pass rider” users represent the company along with employees, so they must follow dress code as well.
Anna is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/03/27/united-airlines-your-leggings-are-welcome-as-long-as-youre-paying-for-your-flight/?utm_term=.31bfbcfaf365
Posted by Ailinulan Aihemaiti.
Politicians are always prone to controversy, and not even the current President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is exempt from any of it. In 2010, a class suit was filed against Trump University upon allegations that it defrauded its students. The allegations centered around Trump University engaging in aggressive sales tactics and spreading misleading information. Former students say the university promised to teach Trump’s insider secrets of the real-estate business, but after they paid $35,000 for an education, they said they received no such “secrets.” One such student, Bob Guillo stated the Trump University advertised tricks “included using the real estate website Trulia.com to search for properties and learning about tax deductions on the Internal Revenue Service’s website” (Time). Many others said they received a great education.
After a seven-year long battle, the Trump University lawsuit finally ended on March 31, 2017 when a federal judge declined the request from a Florida attorney to “opt out of the $25 million Trump University global settlement” (Courthouse News Service). The final settlement of $25 million will be a much better deal for the students, giving back 90 percent of what students invested in Trump University rather than the 50 percent of the November settlement. Class attorney Rachel Jensen provides even more good news, saying that the students should get their checks a few months from now if there are no appeals.
However, if an appeal is filed, the court battle could go on for years, and the settlement payments will also be held up. The prospects are still unclear as Sherri Simpson, former student who spent $20,000 on Trump University in 2010, has made movements to opt out in the March 30 hearing; she has expressed her desire to opt out to file her own fraud case against the University, despite filing an earlier claim to recover damages. Although Simpson’s proposal was rejected by a federal judge, she still has 30 days to file an appeal.
Ailinulan is a management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.
Sources:
http://time.com/money/4573705/trump-university-lawsuit/
http://www.courthousenews.com/judge-signs-off-25m-trump-u-settlement/
http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Trump-U-Settlement-FINAL.pdf
Posted by Alexandra Entrup.
In December 2016, the United States v. Nosal (Nosal II) case was heavily questioned. David Nosal worked at KFI, Korn/Ferry International, however, in 2004, he made the decision to leave the company. Despite leaving the company, he resumed working as a contractor under an agreement that forbade competition with KFI. Regardless of the agreement, Nosal among additional employees were in the process of establishing a competing business. The company utilized the database, Searcher, to hold “information about over a million executive search candidates” (Harv. L. Rev.). Though Nosal and his colleagues took information from the database for their own use using their own login information, their credentials were rescinded after their decision to leave the company. Upon noticing that their login information no longer worked, they approached Jacqueline Froehlich-L’Heureaux, Nosal’s assistant during his time at KFI. Froehlich-L’Heureaux remained an employee despite Nosal’s absence so they decided to ask her for her own credentials. She gave them her username and password and Nosal and his partners utilized this information on multiple occasions. The article suggests that they accessed the database using her credentials “on at least three discrete occasions” (Harv. L. Rev.). An anonymous tip was sent to Korn/Ferry International and an investigation ensued.
The defendant was convicted and Nosal was accused of “nineteen criminal counts, five of which alleged CFAA violations under the ‘exceeds authorized access’ clause of §1030(a)(4) while Nosal was a KFI employee” (Harv. L. Rev.). CFAA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, discusses computer use, specifically hacking. The act states that the invasion of a computer system is considered a crime. The article further discusses the CFAA and its application to the case stating, “the CFAA imposes criminal penalties on whoever ‘accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access’ to perpetrate a fraud” (Harv. L. Rev.). This statement is especially important to the case because it dismisses Froehlich-L’Heureaux’s decision to give Nosal and his partners her credentials. Instead, it blames Nosal for using this information in a deceptive manner, perpetrating a fraud. Throughout the case the term “without authorization” was referred to as “an unambiguous term with a plain meaning”, implying that there aren’t any alternate interpretations.
In the Nosal I case, the CFAA nineteen criminal counts previously mentioned were dismissed. However, following the dismissal of these counts, further counts were filed. “In 2013, the government filed a superseding indictment with three CFAA counts resting on accomplice liability for the three times Nosal’s partners, without authorization, accessed Searcher with FH’s credentials after they had left the firm. The government also indicted Nosal on two trade secret misappropriation counts under the Economic Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy. A jury found him guilty on all counts” (Harv. L. Rev.). All arguments that Nosal proposed were rejected by the court. Looking at previous cases, it was certain that authorization much be approved by the computer owner. Nosal was obviously not given authorization, evident through the revocation of access to the system. The importance of authorization is common knowledge which is evident in the article’s statement, “the majority’s view that only the owner of the system has authority to grant access undermines the authorization upon which many forms of commonplace computer access depend.” The article further explains this belief with a comparison to social media, “it could be a crime for an individual to log in to someone else’s Facebook account with that person’s permission, simply because the system owner prohibits it” (Harv. L. Rev.).
Alexandra is a finance and information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Source:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2017/02/united-states-v-nosal-nosal-ii/
Posted by Jayce Chavez.
Mark Moskowitz, a 48-year-old Short Hills New Jersey resident, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine Hayden to one charge of wire fraud. He admitted to fraudulently using investment money for his personal use. He ran a trading company and defrauded investors of more than $675,000 and used the money for himself. His company was called Edge Trading which was created in 2012, he, “told his investors that the company invested in equities and contracts and was growing even though it was not.” Moskowitz was fined, separately by the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, for$1 million in civil penalties for the sale of fraudulent unregistered securities and misusing investor’s funds. He will be sentenced July 5, 2017 and could face a maximum of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine.
Joseph Meli, a 42 year old Manhattan New York resident; and Steven Simmons, a 48-year-old Wilton Connecticut resident were arrested in late January this year, “on charges alleging they enticed wealthy individuals to make multi-million-dollar investments.” These gentlemen were caught by a civil complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission, claiming that this Ponzi scheme led people in 13 states to invest $81 million. This scheme included investments in businesses that would purchase large sections of tickets for concerts and musicals. The SEC says that at least $51 million of the $81 million was used to pay off other investors and for personal expenses for Meli, Simmons, and other coconspirators. Only Meli was charged with the civil complaint but both men were charged criminally with conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud. Both men were then freed on a $1 million bail after a prosecutor’s request for them to be held without bail was rejected.
Both of these cases are similar not only because they were both people scheming investors of their money but large sums of the money were used for personal expenses. These cases had criminals who fraudulently used investors’ money for everything but what they had promised the investors. In the first case, Moskowitz had used most of the $625,000 for himself, while on the second case, the 63% of the $81 million was fraudulently split amongst Meli, Simmons, and other co-conspirators. Moreover, this shows that there are Ponzi schemes that range between hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Thus, we must be careful when investing into corporations which are not well-known or established.
Jayce is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2017/03/short_hills_man_admits_to_675k_ponzi_scheme.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/28/2-men-allegedly-raised-81m-in-hamilton-ponzi-scheme.html
Posted by Michael Martin.
Six former executives and managers of the pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics Inc. were arrested “on charges that they led a nationwide conspiracy to bribe medical practitioners to unnecessarily prescribe a fentanyl-based pain medication and defraud healthcare insurers” (Dep. of Justice). The spray drug, named “Subsys,” is a strong opioid that is typically prescribed to cancer patients suffering from breakthrough pains. Insys bribed doctors to prescribe their drug to patients, many of which did not even have cancer, in high doses. Insurance companies became skeptical of the drug, because it was not prescribed to cancer patients, which resulted in the former executives of the company to mislead providers with the ““reimbursement unit” which was dedicated to obtaining prior authorization directly from insurers and pharmacy benefit managers” (Dep. of Justice). Employees of this unit were pretending to call insurers from a doctor’s office. “Insys also set up its phone system to block the origin of the calls” (Thomas).
Insys was writing off the bribes and kickbacks to the doctors as speaking fees. The issue with the speaking fees is that the “events” held by Insys were usually entirely fabricated on paper, and were really just a few Insys members having dinner with a “speaker” doctor at a fancy restaurant. On one occasion, Alec Burlakoff, the former vice president of Insys, texted a sales representative about the communication skills of the doctors saying “They do not need to be good speakers, they need to write a lot of” prescriptions for Subsys. In the case of an Alabama doctor, after becoming a paid speaker, his prescription count increased from two a week to about eleven (Thomas).
The actions of the Insys executives are not only illegal, but are also highly unethical. Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said “[Insys] contributed to the growing opioid epidemic and placed profit before patient safety” (Dep. of Justice). Michael L. Babich, 40, the former CEO and President of the company, “is charged with conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Law.” Burlakoff, Richard M. Simon, 46, former National Director of Sales; and Regional Sales Directors, Sunrise Lee, 36, and Joseph A. Rowan, 43 “are charged with RICO conspiracy, mail fraud conspiracy and conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Law.” And former Vice President of Managed Markets, Michael J. Gurry, 53, “is charged with RICO conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy” (Dep. of Justice).
The charges for RICO and fraud crimes are “no greater than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000, or twice the amount of pecuniary gain or loss.” Plus a mere $25,000 fine for violating the Anti-Kickback Law, with a maximum of five years in prison.” This minimal punishment becomes even more disturbing when you realize that the “actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties” (Dep. of Justice).
Michael is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.
Sources:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/pharmaceutical-executives-charged-racketeering-scheme
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/business/insys-therapeutics-arrests-fentanyl.html?_r=0
Posted by Nicole Boodhoo.
About 6 years ago, Apple first sued Samsung over the design of their Galaxy S series. Apparently, the designs of the phones infringed on a patent that was created over the design of the original iPhone. The court closed the case in December of 2016, ruling in Samsung’s favor saying they did not need to pay the $399 million to Apple, but it is now reopened. The court case is not going to be about whether Samsung did or did not infringe on the patents created by Apple but rather how damages will be calculated. Originally, Samsung would have had to pay Apple a percentage of each sale. However, the justices disagreed and stated that they only needed to pay for the components that were claimed to be infringed upon.
According to the article written by Julian Chokkattu, he stated,
“In delivering the court’s majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “article of manufacture” — the legal term that refers to both a product sold to a consumer and a component of said product — has a “broad meaning,” and that an “article” could refer to “a particular thing.” In Samsung’s case, an “article” could be an infringing smartphone’s appearance, for instance, or software feature” (1).
The design patents are at question in this case. A design patent is what protects the look of the product and what makes the product unique. In 2012, the court sided with Apple stating that Samsung did copy the design, featuring “the black rectangle shape and rounded corners, the bezel, and a patent that covered the graphical layout of icons of the iPhone” (Chokkattu 1). The law states that whoever applies the patented design, without license of the owner, is liable to said owner “to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties” (1). Samsung and all the supporters believe that total profits should not be included in the reward since smartphones are filled with hundreds if not thousands of components that are patented from neither of these two companies.
Apple feels that everything within the phone, as well as the looks of the phone, is what sells the smartphone and states that, “removing the need to pay total profits would hamper legal protection for new products and designs” (Chokkattu 1). Although Apple agreed that “article of manufacturer” could represent only specific features of the product and not the whole thing, financial damage would prevent people in the future from pocketing designs of other products. As the discussion goes on, the design on the Beetle is brought up as a reference stating that one may not buy the car for just its looks, but might be a primary factor into driving sales up. The article states that, “the infringement wasn’t found on the whole phone,” Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan said after the hearing. “It asserted three narrow patents. The patent doesn’t apply to the internals of the phone, so Apple doesn’t deserve profits on all of Samsung’s phone” (Chokkattu 1). She also states that if they do win and are awarded total profits that it would devalue all of the other patents within the smartphone, which roughly has about 250,000 patents. Apple states that this is the 11th time Samsung has copied an idea and they have been found guilty of it. They believe that if this continues it will pose risks to future designs. In the last 100 years, a design patent case has not been ruled on in the Supreme Court.
Nicole is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.