Posted by Azhanae Evely.

I am going to tell you about my first encounter with being inside of a court room.  I was given a ticket for “No parking in a handicap zone.”  Through this experience, I learned a lot about how to prepare for a court hearing and what it is like being in court.

I live in East Orange, New Jersey, and there is a requirement for the overnight parking.  In front of where I normally park are two handicap spots back to back.

I woke up one morning finding a parking ticket. The ticket stated, “Court Appearance Required: The undersigned further states that there are just and reasonable grounds to believe that you committed the above offense and will file this complaint in this court charging you with that offense.”

The very first thing to do if you get a ticket is read the ticket. I had never thought to turn the ticket over and read the print there. Had I not read the back of the ticket, I would have been missed these words:  “If you intend to plead not guilty, to the offense charged in this complaint and summons and have a trial, you must notify the court administrator . . . of your intentions at least 7 days prior to your scheduled court date. If you fail to notify the Court Administrator, it may be necessary for you to make 2 court appearances.” The original court date that was printed on the ticket was 3/3/16. However, when I called into the court’s administrator’s office 7 days prior to the court date, I learned that they had never set a court date. Had I not called, I would have gone on the date given to me just to have to come back because it was not scheduled.

The next thing I learned is how to fight a ticket. The first thing I did was take pictures of my car in the spot. I took multiple pictures from different angles. The weather also worked to my advantage because at the time it snowed a lot and the salt on the ground actually made a ring around where my car was which gave sufficient proof that I did not tamper with the car to make it look like I was never over the line.

I looked up the statutes on what is an offense to parking in a handicap zone. The New Jersey Handicapped Parking Law in (C.394:4-207.9) says, “Access to parking spaces, curb cuts, or other improvements designed to provide accessibility, shall be unobstructed.”  I found that having the information helped when going into court because it can aid you in determining whether to plead guilty or not guilty. I had decided that I wanted to plead not guilty.

In East Orange, they have everyone that has tickets for parking sit in one room, which I found weird because everyone could hear you.  I can see why they do it; it is about having an open trial. The first thing that is done is the roll call. After a little while, the prosecutor comes into the court room and calls everyone up one-by-one by last name.

The first thing the prosecutor asked me was why I was there. After telling him what kind of ticket I got, he asked me why I committed the offense. This threw me off because we learned in business law class that you are innocent until proven guilty; yet, he was taking the stance as if I was already guilty of the crime.  So, I told him I wasn’t in the spot. This is where I showed him the pictures that I had taken.

The pictures indicated where the signs began as well as that there was no sign behind my car. I also showed him that there was a car in that handicap spot, which means I was not obstructing the spot. After they hear from you, they either tell you the best plan of action, or like in my case, just tell you to sit back down.

While in court they do ask you to turn off your devices, so my suggestion is to always have hard copies. The judge was the one to read everyone their rights and even talked about how they could appeal. He even mentioned the fact that the court can decide whether to go to trial depending on the severity of the case. When it was my turn, they asked me to state my name for the court records which I did. Then at that point the judge let me know because of the sufficient proof I provided his prosecutor, the ticket would be dismissed. It is almost like depending on what you show the prosecutor in the beginning affects the judge’s decision.

So, because I took the time to actually make sure I had images of that moment really helped me. It was better going in knowing as much as you can about the system, because you do not ever know what can really happen.

Azhanae is a business law student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Justin Ihnken.

For many years, especially those who found themselves in an area of economic success, investors who succeeded because they worked with a financial advisor. The roll of the advisor is to assist individuals in asset portfolio management. Investments in both fixed market vehicles, and those driven with equity in the market, have [for the majority of advisors] been the number one and two sources of financial security investments. Both of these categories are tied together with the strategic planning and goal orientations of specific individuals. This theory comes primarily because “your advisor” would allocate dollars in a way that would ultimately secure monies for specific reasons and even more so, provide an aspect of future practical growth.

As time continues, there are still many individuals that work with advisors and insist that they do planning and individual investments on their own. Coming changes in investments will show that there is a driving need for RIA’s (Registered Investment Advisor). Unfortunatly, the traditional fixed income and equity allocations are rather lacking for specific individuals that wish to diversify their portfolios accordingly. A recent study done by Bridget Bearden, director of retirement research at fund industry consultant, Strategic Insight, went as far as to say many folks do not understand that the effects of falling short on their diversification strategy may have a serious impact in the long run.

“The fund industry generally advocates a 10 percent to 20 percent allocation to liquid alternatives for risk mitigation. But many off-the-shelf asset allocation portfolios seem to fall short of that.”

Many RIA’s are of traditional thought, however the coming realization of alternative investments is proving itself to be a more prominent tool to properly advocate clients. An example of a small and “up and coming” firm that shows its mindset is multiple footsteps ahead of the curve would be that of Circled Squared Alternative Investments. Circled Squared was founded in 2014, by Jeffrey Sica, CEO and President of Sica Wealth Management. With the changing times and ability to allocate dollars properly will prove to be a huge outlet for this small powerhouse. In an interview with a Berkshire Hathaway associated press, Sica spoke on his outlook and thoughts on the future for both Circle Square and alternative investments.

Add to this the inescapable conclusion that investors are growing increasingly dissatisfied with the stagnant performance and unacceptable volatility they’re getting from traditional investments like stocks and bonds, and you have a situation in which advisors have fewer and fewer ways to provide value to their clients.

As the stock market continues to be a murky water, few dare to try to understand the various inlets and outlets of the market. With the change of alternative investments slowly phasing themselves into our everyday planning as RIA’s, we must work above and beyond the curve and enable our’ clients and potential clients alike to take advantage of the various opportunities that alternative investments withhold.

**About Circled Square Alternative Investments

“Circle Squared Alternative Investments is a firm devoted to providing independent financial advisors with access to a range of innovative alternative investments previously available only to institutions and ultra-high net-worth investors. The suite of investment products will include real estate, private equity, private credit, natural resources, private placement offerings, entertainment and media.”

Justin is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Sources:

1. D’Allegro, Joe. “A Retirement Riddle Placing $1 Trillion at Risk.” Cnbc.com. CNBC, 10 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

2. Healy, Andrew. “Jeff Sica Launches New Alternative Investments Firm for RIAs; Unlocks Door to ‘Real Economy’.” Business Wire: A Berkshire Hathaway Company. Berkshire

Posted by Abier Mustafa.

Cell phone Company, AT&T, has agreed to pay back $105 million in what is being called ”the largest cramming settlement in history.” AT&T has been adding unauthorized charges to tens of thousands of customers’ monthly bills. The charges are usually for the amount of $9.99 per month, coming from third-party services, including trivia, horoscopes, and love tips.  ”AT&T is accused of keeping at least 35% of the fees, as well as obscuring the charges on bills and preventing customers from securing full refunds.”

There have been previous lawsuits against other cell phone providers besides AT&T.  For example, the Federal Trade Commission has filed a similar lawsuit against T-Mobile in the past also due to unethical charges to customers.  “For too long, consumers have been charged on their phone bills for things they did not buy,” Wheeler, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, said- “It’s estimated that 20 million consumers this year are caught in this kind of trap, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.”

AT&T has released a statement saying that they have provided customers with “Premium Short Messaging Services” in the past. However, they have discontinued third-party billing.  To resolve all claims, $80 million of the settlement has been set aside for customer refunds, along with $25 million in penalties due to regulators.

So if you’re an AT&T customer and have been wrongfully charged, you may be eligible for a refund!

Abier is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jessica Page.

General Motors Co. has recently been in the news for its faulty ignition switches in over 2.6 million of the company’s Chevrolet Cobolts and other models that were recalled in 2014. The faulty ignition switches were found to “slip out of the run position and disable features including air bags.” This product defect has been connected to over 100 deaths and over 200 injuries. In September, the U.S. Justice Department brought a criminal case against GM. They agreed to pay $900 million to settle and a $35 million fine for not reporting the defect.

On Monday, Judge Robert Gerber stated that it is possible GM will also face punitive damages to compensate consumers who were harmed by the defect, even though the company sought to block plaintiffs making these claims. Judge Gerber has suggested the punitive damages could amount to billions of dollars if the legal claims are settled or successful. This is partially due to the fact that GM admitted in the original settlement that they “[mislead] regulators about the defective switch and [failed] to recall millions of vehicles.”

Another interesting factor for this case is the bankruptcy restructuring GM went through. In the restructure, they assumed responsibility for “future product-liability cases involving older vehicles.” Since this is so broad, it is likely that GM could be held responsible for claims on both compensatory and punitive damage because of its knowledge of the defect and conduct, but only to the extent that the “New GM” holds. GM has agreed to spend over $500 million to settle these cases and over the next few months, the company is expected to face even more death and injury cases that have yet to be settled.

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Brianna McCoy. 

In the very end of August of this year, 2018, a court ruling involving the FCPA could potentially limit the government’s power to go after foreign companies and individuals in bribery cases. This type of court situation is dealt within the U.S. appeals court. The appeals court supported a ruling that tightens and limits the jurisdiction under which prosecutors can bring foreign bribery charges. Attorneys involved in this ruling recognize that “affirming a lower-court ruling that dismissed conspiracy charges against a foreign national accused of facilitating a bribery scheme could have a significant effect on future enforcement,” (WSJ Samuel Rubenfeld). This statement demonstrates the limits of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The FCPA was passed in 1977, with the primary purpose to prohibit the payment of bribes, in any form, to foreign officials in order to secure or retain business. It is interesting how this act is for business purposes by American individuals, companies, and issuers of American stock, yet if a foreigner is involved in a corruption scheme while in the U.S. they are also subject to the law.

However, now that there is a narrower view of this statute, the Justice Department is going to see a drawback on their ability to go after foreign companies and foreign individuals. You may wonder where this idea is coming from… This appellate decision is focused “on an individual’s challenge in the foreign-bribery case involving Alstom SA. The French transportation manufacturer agreed in December 2014 to pay $772 million to settle the case, which involved allegations in several countries,” (WSJ Samuel Rubenfeld). Several other people have been charged, one being Lawrence Hoskins, a U.K. national. Hoskins was probed because while he was working for a French unit of Alston, it was alleged that he approved payments to third-party consultants related to a bribery scheme in Indonesia. Luckily for Hoskins, he wasn’t subject to the FCPA because he “didn’t work directly for the U.S.-based unit of Alstom and didn’t participate in the bribery conspiracy while physically in the U.S.” However, the appellate court revised this lower court ruling because prosecutors can argue that Hoskins colluded with the Alstom’s employees while they conducted bribery acts in the U.S., even though Hoskins wasn’t physically in the U.S.

Now, the Justice Department is “reviewing the ruling and considering next steps.” By doing this, questions may come up about whether the U.S. has jurisdiction in an FCPA case earlier in an investigation. In the past, it has been uncommon for an individual to challenge the U.S. government’s affirmation in jurisdiction in an FCPA case, but the appellate decision could provoke more attempts to do so. Because in the past these FCPA settlements have relied on conspiracy theories, now prosecutors will turn toward developing evidence regarding conduct in the U.S. by foreign nationals to bring its FCPA cases. In addition to this, the government may continue its tendency of using money-laundering statue where necessary.

Brianna is a management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Posted by Jasmine Lightburn.

In this law suit, a content moderator is suing Facebook for causing her post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Content moderators are responsible for sifting through often criminal and disturbing posts that users all over the world upload and removing them from the web before the general public sees. She claims that the violent images and other brutal content she viewed caused immense trauma and led to this disorder. The former moderator, Selena Scola, viewed the harshest material ok the web. This included rape, suicides, and other killings every day and claims that she was not protected fairly. According to Scola, the correct psychological services were not in place.

In order to protect other content moderators, Scola urges Facebook to implement effective psychological support services to ensure that employees are receiving the necessary help. She also wants to incorporate mandatory medical testing on a regular basis to further guarantee on site medical attention. She believes that this will reduce the amount of workers who suffer from extreme disorders like herself and other issues that do not get reported or addressed.

In my opinion, Facebook should offer Scola a package deal to cover any medical costs associated with her diagnosis of PTSD. I do not think the company should have to pay any other money other than those costs related to her individual psychological appointments. Moving forward, I agree that Facebook should take deeper measures to monitor the content moderators. In the job description, the company should also include possible health effects that may result from the work that needs to be done. I don’t believe all of the blame can solely be put on Facebook, but they should be responsible for some of what happened.

Jasmine is a business management major with a non-profit minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Article:

Posted by Marisol Ramirez Ugarte.

In the recent years there has been an upheaval in the legal profession. Legal services, more than ever, are being required by the population. In the rise of employment for attorneys comes the need to manage legal firms in a manner which exploits the large increase in demand.

In fact, speculation on whether legal firms should adopt the structure of corporations has become prominent. According to Frank Carone, executive partner at Abrams Fensterman, “Law firms that are able to consistently bring in high-quality business and ensure that a sizable portion of the revenues go to the bottom line are the ones that will seriously excel” (Prince). He concedes that while the best interests should remain on the clients, the firm should pay attention to growth through the introduction of new legal matters, as well as a focus on profitability. A firm would do well to systematically reach out to potential clients, and referral sources through business development activities. Firms would be able to benefit their client as much as possible, which would in turn provide the greatest profitability for the firm.

Provided that a firm’s management decides to manage the firm like a business, they must consider a key element. The ability to develop and use metrics. The firm’s management would need to clearly identify which areas of law were most profitable, as well as which lawyers participated in the largest monetary gains. Inversely, those areas and attorneys seen as underperforming would need to be identified. In concert with the law firm’s strategic vision, metrics could aid the firm to reach the highest profits through the pursuit of a business model.

Given the success of those firms who have already chosen this path, many others should soon follow suit. I suspect that upon realizing they can continue to serve their clientele to their greatest potential leaders in management will rise to the task with vigor. I find most curious that most firms do not view themselves are businesses; in providing services, albeit legal ones, they are participating in a commercial transaction. Thus, I believe it only natural for the firms to manage as businesses for the benefit of its customers, and the sake of the legal firm.

Marisol majors in finance and philosophy at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/russalanprince/2018/01/29/how-to-dramatically-increase-law-firm-profitability-by-running-the-firm-as-a-business/#5fc6a2d2bd61

Posted by Deana Curis. 

Mattress Firm has been known as the largest mattress chain in America for several generations. However, it seems that this time is coming to an end. Traditional means of purchasing mattresses are slowly diminishing as online shopping has become more and more popular. Consequently, Mattress Firm has run into the need to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Mattress Firm claims that they will still have timely deliveries and continue to pay suppliers in full, as Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows for companies to keep businesses active while they pay back creditors. The filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy will ultimately allow Mattress Firm to try and fix the downfalls in their company that had previously prevented them from success.

Again, the availability of online shopping has caused several companies to file for bankruptcy. Brookstone, Nine West, and now even Sears have needed to file for bankruptcy due to “online culture”. In terms of the mattress industry, online platforms, such as Amazon, have put Mattress Firm and other mattress companies at major risk. However, Mattress Firm faces many more issues that prevent them from prosperity. The existence of multiple locations in close proximity to one another is a large matter in question for the company. Luckily, Chapter 11 bankruptcy is frequently used to “reorganize” a corporation, and this is exactly what Mattress Firm plans to accomplish by filing it as well. For example, the company plans to reorganize by closing down seven hundred locations that are in close proximity to others by the end of this year alone. The company also claims that they will use the money that is saved by closing locations in order to overall improve the brand as a whole.

Universally, it is evident that more and more physical stores will be obligated to shut down due to online trends in today’s society. The mattress industry began to plummet with the closing of Sleepy’s, and is now continuing with the filing of bankruptcy from Mattress Firm. Yet, it is not solely the mattress industry that is being damaged by online shopping, but retail and other corporations as well. It is interesting to think about what this may propose for the future of shopping as a whole, and the amount of companies that may also need to file for bankruptcy as a result.

Deana is marketing major, pre-dental track at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Works Cited
“’A Wake-up Call for Traditional Mattress Chains’: Mattress Firm Files for Bankruptcy.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Oct. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/05/wake-up-call-traditional-mattress-chains-mattress-firm-files-bankruptcy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c16972a2522b.

Posted by Leigh Ann Rofrano.

In 2003, a class action lawsuit was filed against Ticketmaster, entitled Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster. The lawsuit claimed that Ticketmaster “failed to fully disclose to consumers all aspects of its UPS and order processing fees” (Ticketmaster). Ticketmaster settled the case in 2013, but the courts did not grant the final approval of the settlement until early 2015. The settlement includes all customers who purchased tickets on Ticketmaster’s website between October 21st, 1999 and February 27th, 2013.

As a part of the settlement, all class members were eligible to receive discount codes or ticket vouchers. Each class member was given a discount code worth $2.25 for every purchase they made during the class period. Class members who used UPS delivery during the class period were provided with a $5 UPS discount code for each purchase that included UPS delivery. Additionally, each class member was given one ticket voucher (which was redeemable for two tickets for an event at a Live Nation venue) for every purchase made during the class period on Ticketmaster’s website.

I choose to research and discuss this case because it is extremely relevant in my life. I am a frequent Ticketmaster and Live Nation customer, as I attend many events every year. The lawsuit was filed against Ticketmaster due to its ridiculously high order processing fees that are tacked onto every ticket. As a Ticketmaster customer, I agree and can attest to the fact that when browsing tickets for events, the magnitude of the order processing fees in not clearly outlined; it is not until you are in the checkout process that you are fully aware of the fees. I was notified through email this past summer about this lawsuit and the discount codes and vouchers in which I was entitled. Many customers were quick to complain that Ticketmaster acted unjustly in notifying customers about the settlement and the class members’ potential benefits. I agree with this argument on the basis that I too was notified of my voucher and discount codes after all of the eligible tickets had been already claimed. I feel Ticketmaster should have notified customers of their vouchers and discount codes sooner, in an attempt to give all class members a fair chance at receiving free event tickets from their vouchers. Overall, I do appreciate the small compensation that was provided to me from the lawsuit, since it is extremely rare to receive discounts on Ticketmaster.com, but would have liked to have been notified earlier and provided with more details about the settlement sooner.

Leigh Ann is a marketing and management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Article Links:

https://insider.ticketmaster.com/frequently-asked-questions-schlesinger-v-ticketmaster/?_ga=2.76895829.1994249424.1539478038-1512211698.1510348971

http://www.ticketfeelitigation.com/

Posted by Thomas DeFrancesco.

South Dakota has a state tax for sales of goods and services that are made by retailers of the state. Out-of-state retailers were making sales to customers in the state of South Dakota and not collecting and remitting sales tax in South Dakota. However, these retailers are allowed to do that based on the ruling made in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753. The state was worried they were losing funding due to out-of-state retailers not collecting and remitting the South Dakota’s sales tax. To solve this concern, South Dakota created a law that commanded out-of-state retailers who make more than 200 sales transactions and at least $100,000 in revenue from those sales to collect and remit sales tax as if they were located in South Dakota. Companies who met those requirements failed to follow the newly made law so the South Dakota legislature brought the issue to court.

Should the respondents have to register for licenses to collect and remit the sales tax regardless if they are physically present in the state or not?

South Dakota law is permitted to tax sales from sellers who are outside of that particular state as long as the seller collects at least $100,000 in sales revenue or more than 200 sales transactions.

The court derived its reasoning from other cases including Quill v. North Dakota and National Bella Hess v. Department of Revenue of Ill. The court explained how the physical presence rule in Quill v. North Dakota is “unsound and incorrect.” Since the internet has such a great impact on business, retailers who do business through the internet must pay taxes in that particular state of the sale. Therefore, the Quill v. North Dakota reasoning is no longer relevant.

Thomas is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Source:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

Posted by Justin Cunha.

The federal government’s rollback of many different rules has been a highly discussed topic throughout media, however one of the topics that is truly standing out currently is net neutrality. Net neutrality is a principle in which internet services have to treat all data equally and not charge consumers for any specific data. This was put in place by the Obama administration but was removed last year. The event created a lot of outrage as “more than 20 states” have challenged this decision in court (Kang). On Friday August 31, 2018, California lawmakers passed a bill that guaranteed full and equal access to the internet and is the fourth state to create a new net neutrality law.

The state put the bill in place in order to block internet services from slowing down, blocking, or charging for specific services. The bill not only reinstates net neutrality, but it is also even stricter than the one put in by the Obama Administration. The bill would prohibit promotions of free streaming for apps, something that telecommunication companies are pushing to endorse. Prohibiting the promotions would put businesses on a more even playing field, as there are many business who simply do not have the resources to put out these promotions. The change would also ensure that streaming websites all put out the same speed and quality without charging an extra price. These changes are all in an attempt to restrict the amount of power these services have over consumers and the industry. This would be California’s second major internet law in the last year, recently creating a privacy law that allowed users to ask companies such as social media platforms what data they are collecting on them. California is very influential to the rest of the world, with New York already considering a bill similar to this one. One example of the influence the state has was its auto emission laws which inspired many other states to follow in their direction, and in turn giving telecommunication companies worry that something similar will follow.

Though telecommunication companies are attempting to challenge this decision. The companies feel that having these strict rules put on them would hinder their ability to grow and develop. For example, the strict rules will hinder these companies from trying out different business models and thus hurts innovation. Such is the example with the promotion of free streaming for apps, as this was one major experimentation that these businesses wanted to try out. President of US Telecom even argues that, “The internet must be governed by a single, uniform and consistent national policy framework, not state-by-state piecemeal approaches” (Kang). This quote emphasizing that these telecommunication companies want to flow the singular federal law and that these states are simply complicating their business. The companies even went out to promise that they would not slow down or block any websites, a major concern that many consumers had. Telecommunication companies, just like California, do have a lot of influence and power that could possible stop this bill from being implanted. In 2017 they blocked a state broadband privacy bill and are looking to do the same with this bill.

Governor Brown has until the end of September to make his final decision on the matter, and sign his name on the bill. The bill is heavily consumer friendly attempting to give everyone equal access to the internet. This does restrict some freedom of these telecommunication companies, however some restrictions need to be put in place. Power can corrupt and promises can be broken, thus giving these companies too much power can be a scary prospect. So even though there are some flaws with this bill, since it is one of the strictest net neutrality bills, I do believe that California is making the right decision.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/technology/california-net-neutrality-bill.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

Justin is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Posted by Samantha Staudt.

One in five Americans have reported that they have skipped medicine doses or failed to fill a prescription each year because of the cost of the medicine.  This statistic is outrageous and states have to start doing something about it because the federal government will not.  Certain states, like Nevada, have passed a new law that manufactures must disclose more information about why drug prices are rapidly increasing.  In the past few year, prices in Nevada have increased as much as 325 percent, so this law will help regulate the prices of prescription drugs.  Maryland provides another example of steps that must be taken in an order to regulate drug companies.  The attorney general sued generic drug manufacturers whose prices rose more than fifty percent in a year.  States are partly responsible for the funding of the Medicaid program, spending more than 20 million dollars a year on prescription drugs for public employees and prisoners.

Drug manufacturers have recently pushed opioids while denying and misunderstanding their addictiveness.  This may be enough to cut the political power of the pharmaceutical industry.  This statistic is not settling well with anyone and more than 100 states have filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies related to tobacco.  This is in an effort to recover the costs of dealing with the epidemic of addiction and overdoses.  Oklahoma’s attorney general, Nolan Clay, is making strides to fixing this rising issue by refusing to accept donations from drug companies.

Of course, pharmaceutical companies fight the big changes that would affect the company.  The industry has been at the top of the lists for lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions at the same time managing to block reform proposals.  During Nevada’s fight to lower drug prices, drug companies hired more than seventy lobbyist to descend on the bill.  When state drug pricing bills pass, the drug industry challenges them in court.  There have been several lawsuits filed, but none have succeeded yet.  In order to prevent drug companies from overpricing prescription drugs, states must enforce regulation laws immediately.

Samantha is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Elizabeth Win.

Dollar bills might as well be worth as much as computer paper now. Cryptocurrency has been on the hot seat for the past few months because of its financially growing nature and easy accessibility. Now, as we are starting to see a slow downfall of people investing in Bitcoin; the I.R.S. is starting to detect serious problems with the millennial choice of currency. One of their main concerns is that this cryptocurrency fad has created another giant, financial bubble. If this bubble were to burst, this Bitcoin “bust” could wipe out millions of spectators leading to a huge loss in tax revenue.

A main contender to this potentially huge loss is Bitcoin’s anonymity. For those unaware, Bitcoin’s underlying technology, blockchain, thrives on anonymity. When a person makes a transaction, the transaction only links through an electronic address, making blockchain more attractive to buyers. Now, the I.R.S. has many problems with this missing identification of creative transactions. The anonymity fuels the underground economy, a significant factor in the source of lost tax revenue. Most of the underground economy is conducted through cash transitions; however, what the I.R.S. fears is that cash will slowly transition to cryptocurrencies because of its convenience. An anonymous buyer of bitcoin can easily pay fewer taxes by cheating the cryptocurrency system – also known as major tax evasion. The solution? The government might have to accept the hardships of directly taxing cryptocurrencies and raise tax rates in order to offset the loss of revenue. Understand that the public would highly disagree with this solution, they generated a smarter response: a switch from taxing income when it is received to taxing income when it is spent. Although this switch would require a “major overhaul of the tax code,” many economists support this decision and believe it is future of the economy.

On the contrary, the I.R.S. understands cryptocurrencies offer major reductions in the cost of financial transactions, making it very appealing to the lower classes. There would also be less reliance on banks, which would increase the power of the Federal Reserve to control money. However, the opportunities are too great for tax evasion and illegal operations that the I.R.S. cannot continue to allow it. Although the cryptocurrency economy is growing steadily, it will need to find a way to prevent tax evasion while preserving anonymity in order for it to survive and stay attractive to buyers. For cryptocurrencies to be successful, societies will have to learn to trust the government, a very difficult task for many to grasp. With the rise of extremely advanced technology, it is inevitable that the economy will eventually transition to the cryptocurrency movement. Figuring out how to smoothly transition from worthless green pieces of paper to slick, glassy pieces of technology worth thousands of dollars each, the challenge to adjust will be difficult by eventually necessary.

Elizabeth is a marketing and information technology major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Hailey Arteaga.

One of the biggest businesses in America is college sports.  Men’s Basketball is the second highest grossing sport of colleges across the nation.  According to Business Insider, a Division 1 Men’s Basketball teams alone drive-in an average yearly revenue of $7,880,290 (Gaines).  With this much money being streamed to a school each year for a single sport, some critics of the NCAA believe that Division 1 players should receive a salary.  However, some schools took this idea to the next level.  In a recent scandal, the FBI uncovered around 25 D1 colleges committing acts of bribery and corruption in the sport of basketball in an article written by the New York Post (Masisak).  One college under fire for violating the NCAA rule is Seton Hall University.  Recently though, the University has argued that they “have nothing to hide” (Braziller).  So, who is in the wrong?  This post serves as an analyzation of Seton Hall’s past and the basketball allegations that might hurt the business of the athletics department.

The NCAA defines an “eligible” athlete as one that does not accept outside payments because of their athletic status.  This extends to a professional agent bribing players with food, rent, cash, etc.  (Athnet).  Seton Hall was named as one of the schools by the FBI. They reported that the university was paying now New York Nets player, Isaiah Whitehead, extra money to play for the Pirates.  Agents discovered a spreadsheet with players past and present from multiple universities indicating the amounts of money they were being paid to attend and play basketball at their schools.  The spreadsheet revealed that Whitehead in particular received $26,136 his freshman year and was “setting up a payment plan” (Braziller).  This would go against the NCAA rules of amateurism as stated previously.  In more recent news however, The Hall came out and stated that they will be bringing in New York City law firm, Jackson Lewis P.C. to disprove the corruption scandal (Braziller).  Kevin Willard noted regarding the development that “I have a lot of confidence in my staff and ourselves in what we’ve done in the past.  I’m glad the school moved quickly on this so we can move on from it.”  With such a strong assurance of the team’s actions, Willard and the university should be expected to move on from the situation unscathed.

If Seton Hall were to be found guilty of the corruption, it would greatly affect the basketball team and success of the athletic department.  It could potentially risk the Hall’s ability to compete in the NCAA tournament.  The payout for the 2017 NCAA tournament that Seton Hall earned for the Big East Conference last year was $1,711,784 (Kesselring).  This means that not only would an inability to compete in the tournament affect the university itself, but also it would affect the entire Big East Conference.  Some even argue that Seton Hall could risk their 2016 Tournament Champion Title or even Kevin Willard’s position as head coach.  In the end, Seton Hall is risking a lot putting their name in the forefront of one of the biggest, recent scandals to rock college basketball.  If found that they have been giving players money under the table, the university will immediately face heavy financial cuts due to their disobedience of NCAA rules, hurting other sports, other schools, and the entire conference.

Hailey is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2020.

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-2016-10

https://www.athleticscholarships.net/ncaa-loss-eligibility-payment-agent.htm

https://nypost.com/2018/02/24/analyzing-how-scandal-will-affect-ncaa-tourney-coaches/

https://nypost.com/2018/02/24/seton-halls-plan-to-prove-innocence-in-fbi-corruption-probe/

https://herosports.com/ncaa-tournament/how-much-money-ncaa-tournament-earned-conference-2017-basketball-fund-a7a7

Posted by Dan Lytle.

David Ganek, the former owner of a hedge fund in Greenwich, Connecticut, had lost his business in 2013, three months after an FBI investigation took place for alleged insider trading. Two years later, in 2015, Ganek attempted to sue the FBI for $400 million, citing “lost income and lost business reputation.” The reason Ganek went through with the lawsuit is because he did not believe it was fair to investigate his office when he was not involved with insider trading. However, the Second Circuit panel disagreed, saying, “there was at least a fair probability to think that his office was a place where evidence of an insider trading scheme would be found.” While some evidence was found to hold against Ganek, he was not ultimately charged for anything. Ganek still does not believe this was right to do, since it cost him his business. He said of the situation, “’this is a dangerous day for private citizens and a great day for ambitious, attention-seeking prosecutors who are now being rewarded with total immunity even when they lie and leak.’” Just recently, it was announced that Ganek had lost this case against the FBI.

In my opinion, the FBI was acting both legally and morally in searching the office of David Ganek for insider trading evidence. From a legal perspective, the FBI searched the office because they had reason to believe there was evidence present in order to uncover a larger insider trading scheme. Furthermore, morally, the FBI acted correctly, as their search aimed to crack down on insider trading. While I do believe that it is not right that FBI agents can be rewarded with immunity when investigating businesses, this is an exception, as the investigation of this “hedge fun and others sent shockwaves through Wall Street’ and led to the indictment of investment bankers and traders.” Therefore, while Ganek was not necessarily guilty of insider trading, the FBI was able to use information found throughout the raid of his hedge fund that led to the arrests of others, which is a crucial factor as to why Ganek lost this lawsuit.

Speaking legally, the FBI was protected under Amendment IV of the Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, in this case, the FBI had probable cause to search Ganek’s hedge fund, as they believed that Ganek’s hedge fund was involved with an insider trading scheme. While the Fourth Amendment states that nobody can be unreasonably searched, it also mentions that “upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, persons or things [can] be seized.” In short, while Ganek did not agree with the ruling because he believed the FBI was granted “immunity” for searching his office and causing his hedge fund to fall apart, the reality is that the FBI acted legally according to Amendment IV.

Dan is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/53ca32d894c44c5ea64185ab462b6e72

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Posted by Brennan Smith.

A judge, a deputy constable, and a supervisor of all police, fire, and emergency operations walk into a bar…

Although a common play on the setup of a hysterical joke, the indictment of John I. Waltman, Robert P. Hoopes, and Bernard T. Rafferty is not something the members of Bucks County and Lower Southampton Township are laughing about. The three men named are the judge, supervisor, and deputy constable—respectively—referenced above, who just got indicted for money laundering.

Here’s what happened: “The trio conspired to launder about $400,000 in funds represented by investigators to be the proceeds of health care fraud, illegal drug trafficking and bank fraud, according to a federal court indictment unsealed Friday morning, a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. The men allegedly took laundering fees of $80,000,” (theintell.com). In order to launder the money, the trio went through a series of processes. One source of revenue, and by far the most prominent one, was through Raff’s Consulting LLC—a company with which Rafferty had full control—with which the three used “bogus documents” in order to turn a profit.

To understand how they did this, the facts of the case must be examined. Per the research done by theintell.com, Robert P. Hoopes would arrive to an office building in an unmarked Lower Southampton Township Police car, exchange the false documents for $100,000 cash, and bring the money back to the car (where John I. Waltman and Bernard T. Rafferty would be waiting). From there, Waltman and Rafferty would go to the Philadelphia Credit Union to deposit the money—after paying Hoopes and pocketing their own cuts—into the Raff’s Consulting LLC accounts. The operation lasted from June 2015 to November of 2016 with the trio laundering $400,000 between June and August of 2016—earning $80,000 in laundering fees (Philadelphia.cbslocal.com).

Because of their crimes, the FBI was forced to get involved and finally caught them in an undercover sting. The three will each face one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and three counts of money laundering. District Judge John I. Waltman has been suspended without pay, with the other two removed from their positions.

Brennan is a sports management and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://www.theintell.com/news/crime/bucks-county-district-judge-constable-lower-southampton-public-safety-director/article_f23e17b6-f07a-5e1b-8abb-6edf11a47ecc.html

(Article)

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/12/16/authorities-judge-director-of-public-safety-deputy-constable-charged-with-conspiracy-money-laundering/

(Article)

Posted by Michael Del Piano.

When people hear the word CPA, they think of an accountant that is normally behind a desk working on some taxes. However, this was not the case for Ronald L. Durkin. Durkin was not your ordinary accountant. Instead, he was an FBI agent that was working undercover to establish a business relationship between a crime ring and Durkin’s fake accounting firm. Durkin came into the face of danger early on in his investigation. When he was undercover eating dinner with some of the criminals, he accidentally pulled out his personal credit card to pay the bill. Luckily for him, he was able to get out of it by yelling at the waiter and accusing him of incorrectly charging them. This would not be the last time that Durkin would find himself in danger. On another occasion, Durkin was on SWAT duty and engaged in a fire-fight. After a great carrier, Durkin left the FBI to work in the private sector. Durkin worked for Arthur Andersen and then later was the partner in charge of fraud and misconduct for investigation for KPMG.

Another individual that did not follow the traditional path of traditional accountant was Letha Sparks. Sparks is well-known for her work of investigating a $100 million fraud involving life insurance policies. A&O Resource Managements Ltd.’s owners did not pay the premiums on the life insurance policies. Instead, they used the money to buy fancy cars and multimillion dollar homes.

Generally, people do not see accountants as crime fighters. However, forensic accounting has been widely used to catch white collar criminals. Accounting is one of the five “FBI Special Agent Entry Programs” that qualify an individual for possible employment. In fact, the FBI employs around 700 CPAs as special agents. They even have 600 forensic accountants employed. Another interesting fact is that not all of these forensic accountants that work for the FBI are CPA’s.

CPA’s and accountants greatly help the FBI catch criminals. I personally believe that it is important to let other people know the different kinds of roles that accountants can play. You do not always have to follow the traditional path of accountants and sit behind a desk doing taxes. There are other options available and the world needs forensic accountants to help catch criminals.

Michael is a graduate student in accounting with a certification in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Ismail Surakat.

This is a case between Southern District of Georgia and Vania Lee Allen, a native of Jamaica, who committed a fraud and falsely impersonating a United Sates FBI special agent in connection with an international lottery fraud arrangement based in Jamaica. According to the indictment, 30-year-old Vania Lee Allen was charged for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and also, impersonating United States employee. Allen and her co-conspirator from Jamaica illegitimately enriched themselves through fraudulent lottery plan, targeting elderly residents of Evans, Georgia.

According to this case, Allen traveled from Jamaica to United States in May 2015 and presented herself as an FBI special agent in order to convince her victim. Though, before getting to this stage, Allen had made some movement such as informing the victim by phone that they had won money in a lottery game and instructed them to make some certain payments to her co-conspirator in Jamaica for them to collect their lump sum winnings. She also discussed with a co-conspirator in Jamaica on how to impersonate an FBI using a fake law enforcement badge with the “FBI” logo and the words, “Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Upon arrival at the victim’s place, Allen presented as an FBI special agent and asked the victim to speak on-line with her co-conspirator in Jamaica. All of this was made to look real; no doubt elderly citizens can fall victim to this type of  fraudulent act.

The case was investigated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Columbia County Georgia Sherriff’s Office, and is being prosecuted as well by Trial Attorney Clint Narver of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S.  Attorney Troy Clark of the Southern District of Georgia.

If Allen is eventually convicted, she faces up to 20 years in prison for the wire fraud, five years for the conspiracy count, as well as, up to three years for the false impersonation count.

Ismail Surakat is a pre business major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Renaldo Nel.

Judge, Sheri Pym, of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, recently ordered Apple to assist the FBI in an investigation involving the San Bernardino terror attacks. The Apple iPhone belonging to one of the shooters, Syed Farook, was recovered by the FBI. The FBI wants to gain access to the iPhone, but faces security software that will wipe the iPhone’s memory after 10 incorrect password attempts. As a result, the FBI wants Apple to provide them with software that will enable them to unlock Farook’s iPhone, as they believe there is possible evidence on the phone.

Apple has appealed the decision made by Judge Pym stating “writing code is like speech, and so the request is a violation of Apple’s First Amendment rights.” Apple also argues that the government should not have the power to order a private company to alter its product. Apple wants to protect their consumers as they believe that creating a backdoor in the software compromises the security of all iPhone’s, including, iPhone users’ personal information, such as bank accounts and medical records.

The Department of Justice’s argument is that “it a single request for a single phone, and doesn’t not create a back door for bad actors, but rather a front door for law enforcement only when it has a warrant.” The Department of Justice is basing its argument on the All Writs Act of 1789. Apple believes that this law can simply not be applied in modern times and is long overdue for amendment.

Many tech companies such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google have stated that they support Apple. I am also in support of Apple. Firstly, it is known fact that the FBI has been hacked in the past and the probability that the software that the FBI is asking for will be leaked is huge. It would be catastrophic if hackers could get their hands on personal information such as credit cards in the Apple Pay function. Secondly, one should also take into account that people place faith in Apple to protect their personal data and if Apple is forced to provide this “unlocking software” they could suffer huge financial losses. Furthermore, if Appel loses this case it sets precedent in the tech industry and companies would in future be forced “to modify their products, on spec, for the FBI in ways that are contrary to their core values.”

I understand that the FBI wants to solve the case and protect the country, however their proposal opens the door for many other evils.

Renaldo is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

Apple V. FBI Encryption Case Shows That Lawsuits Are Inherently Polarizing

http://www.abc-7.com/story/31521736/apple-vs-the-fbi-in-2-minutes

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 Andres Garcia.

Following the explicit shooting in San Bernardino, California, the FBI insisted Apple create a software that would aid them in their process of investigation. The proposed software would be inserted into the iPhone device belonging to one of the suspects in the mass shooting. The FBI asked Apple, Inc. after they could not guess the shooter’s password.

Apple, Inc. opposed the request and did not want to search their servers for the correct password. However, on Tuesday February 16, 2016, the court ruled that Apple must assist the FBI by handing out such private and confidential information. The decision enraged Apple CEO, Tim Cook, he stated that the verdict would invade the privacy of Apple customers.

I would definitely agree with Apple CEO, Tim Cook; the government ruling will greatly affect many personal lives. The decision may be unethical. I believe the government was in favor of the FBI. The court only looked at how the decision will positively affect the FBI at the moment. However, there can be harsher repercussion for individuals in our society. By granting the FBI permission to search someone’s data and information, the US government is essentially attacking a person’s privacy and security. The decision will sooner than later lead to more hackers infiltrating our personal devices.

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

Posted by Abul Hasnat Juned.

Apple Inc. and the U.S. government are headed to court because the government is trying to force Apple to hack into the iPhone of the dead San Bernardino attacker, Syed Rizwan Farook. The reason why the government’s wants to access Farook’s phone is that it may contain evidence regarding the San Bernardino shooting in which he killed 14 people.

Investigators are trying to find out what happened and also if there were any other collaborators from ISIS. Last month, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to create software to help the FBI disable security features on the phone. Also, the magistrate judge ordered Apple to make software that erases all the information from the phone if a password is wrongly entered more than ten times. If Apple creates such software, the FBI would be able to electronically run possible combinations to open the phone without losing data.

On the other hand, Apple risks losing business if they help the government in unlocking phones, because it would undermine the privacy of its customers. Apple wants to show that they are true to their customers. By taking a stand, they might bring in more consumers. There is also another risk for the Apple Company in unlocking the phone because phones could possibly be accessible to hackers and other countries. Companies, such as, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are offering their support for Apple and using it as a market strategy to gain respect from the public.

Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, “It’s too much for the government to conscript a company into writing code that undermines the security of the products they sell.” While the government says that Apple has helped them to extract data from such phones at least 70 times for law enforcement, Apple says the government is trying to force them to create a software that does not exist. Apple is arguing that the government is violating the company’s constitutional rights by threatening the privacy of its customers. Apple is taking a stand not only for their customers’ privacy, but also for the company’s profit because if they help the government to access the phone, their business profits would rapidly drop.

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

A district court judge has ordered Apple to unlock a cell phone used by one of the shooters in the California massacre. Apple is fighting the order, claiming that doing so could make it easier to for anyone to hack into phones.

Apple has secret keys that can open up the software that it will not give to the FBI. The FBI also wants Apple to create a program that will permit it to hack into phones at anytime. The problem lies with a toggle in “Settings” that will make the phone delete all information on it if someone fails to put in the right passcode more than 10 times. This would make it impossible for the FBI to use a program that can guess random codes.

The case has Fourth Amendment implications for various reasons, including conscripting a private entity to become a government agent.

Posted by Dan Mikrut.

Who knew that typing 280 characters could turn into a $40 Million dollar law suit. This is the cold reality in the case of the SEC vs. Elon Musk. On September 27, 2018 the SEC filed securities fraud charges against Elon Musk, the chairman and CEO of Tesla Motors. On August 7, 2018 Mr. Musk stated in a Twitter post “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” According to the SEC, his statement mislead the investing public that he could take the company back at a substantial premium during the current price of the company stock. The information was noted as misleading and false because they lacked any basis in fact. During the time of the tweet Musk had not received or secured funding for the proposed transaction. The stock price of Tesla ended up sky rocketing to $379.57 an increase in $37.58 a share within 24 hours of the tweet going public to Musk’s 22 million twitter followers.

Musk’s questionable actions lead to some serious consequences. The SEC and Musk had settled the case on September 29, 2018. Musk had to abide by 4 main points.

1. Musk must give up being Chairman for 3 years, but will retain a seat on Tesla’s board 2. Two new independent directors must be put on the Tesla Board 3. Musk & Tesla must pay $20 million each in fines

4. Musk must have a an oversight personnel on all his communications and social media accounts

On the personal note, I believe that the SEC went harsh on Musk and the whole ordeal is little obscured. While yes, I do believe Musk made a mistake and posted false information; he was quick to make sure it was known that his tweet was a joke for his wife referencing a 420 joke. This case is another perfect example of the American legal system taking advantage of American businesses and their profits over small legal incidents. I believe that the overpriced fine should’ve only been given to Musk and not the company, because Musk was the only person responsible for the tweet and not the company. As if the fine wasn’t bad enough, the SEC striped Musk of his position and responsibility in his own company that he helped cofound. While the oversight personnel on Musk’s accounts sounds like a good idea, it does also sound a little invasive and going against Musk’s freedom of speech. All in all, I don’t agree with the final verdict in this case because it was too aggressive over a small mistake that Elon Musk made, and shows how the justice system is a costly system that is failing America.

Dan is an IT management major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Posted by Surya Makkar.

Over the past few years, Tesla has emerged as a frontrunner when it comes to electric vehicle technology. Their technology packed, self-driving, vehicles have come with their fair share of problems however. Not only has Tesla faced legal obstacles when it comes to their various technologies they use in their products, but more recently, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Elon Musk was accused of committing fraud by publically making false statements, which could have impacted investors. To give some background, around a month ago, Elon Musk tweeted saying that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420. Something interesting to note is that the SEC did not sue Tesla as a whole, but rather only filed a suit against Elon Musk.

Elon Musk had never said anything before this to investors or shareholders about taking the company private, which is why everyone was caught off guard and was extremely shocked. After the suit was filed, Tesla shares fell more than 12 percent in after-hours trading. The SEC subpoenaed Tesla, financial institutions, and Tesla board members, to interview them and gather more information. The SEC found that Musk had been in a feud with investors who continued to say Tesla shares would fall.
A few days later, Musk and the SEC reached an agreement that required Elon to step down as Chairman of the board of Tesla and required him to pay a $20 million fine. According to the agreement, Musk does not have to admit any guilt and has 45 days to step down from the role of chairman. He will continue to serve as the CEO of Tesla however. This case goes to show how business professionals are being watched at every moment. One wrong move in the business world can lead to millions of dollars of legal action being taken against you, which is why it is imperative that people in the business world act as if they are being watched at all times.

Surya is a business law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/business/elon-musk-sec-lawsuit-tesla.html

Elon Musk settles SEC lawsuit, forced out as Tesla’s chairman but stays as CEO, $20 million fine and more

Posted by Aishwarya Rai.

Tesla, the Palo Alto-based automative and energy company, has been subject to much staggering lately, due to the conduct of its ex-Chairman and CEO, Elon Musk. Musk and Tesla have been subject to inquiries by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC), as a result of Musk’s conduct; Musk tweeted about taking the company private, stating that funding had already been secured and shares would be priced at $420. Additionally, Musk made reference to those betting on shorting Tesla stocks by mentioning them and the “burn of the century.” Further details showed that Musk had no such funding secured, all whilst Tesla stocks zoomed upwards and short-sellers did in fact face losses.

This led to the DOJ and SEC to inquire into Tesla’s conduct as the tweets seemed to show that Musk misled the market to believe that Tesla would undergo privatization and thus gain some greater market value. When it was revealed that Tesla did not have the required amount of capital to go private, the SEC deemed that Musk’s actions were done to increase stock value and to financially harm short-sellers, making it an act of bad faith.

Furthermore, Musk’s actions showed a lack of ethical consideration as he seemed hostile towards short-sellers. Musk has a responsibility to shareholders as a CEO and the accuracy and truthfulness in the information he disseminates falls under this stipulation. Other acts that put his ethics in question were smoking on a podcast with Joe Rogan, which may go against Tesla’s codes of conduct as it can be said that he was acting as the CEO of the company while on camera.

These incidents put into perspective the need for important business officials to be mindful of the ripple effects of their actions on their fellow employees, clients, and shareholders. The effects of bad conduct, whether intentional or not, can be harmful and put companies at risk of failure. Accurate information is what creates a safe market, legally and financially.

Aishwarya is an economics and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University,
Class of 2020.

Article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/tesla-falls-4percent-on-report-elon-musk-sued-by-sec.html

Posted by Kyle Greene.

The SEC recently filed a lawsuit against former Chairman and current CEO of Tesla Elon Musk because of a tweet he sent out earlier this year. The tweet stated that he had plans to take the company private when the stock price reached 420 dollars. He also included that he had funding secured for this, and he may have at the time of the tweet, but obviously was not able to see the deal through. After the tweet, Tesla stock increased quickly by about 9 percent. The SEC claimed that Musk had published “False and Misleading” statements and therefore had violated insider trading and market manipulating laws. Some believe the motive behind the tweet was to punish short sellers of the stock, but Musk has adamantly denied any foul play.

The SEC wasted no time in their attempt to force Musk to settle, threatening him by saying they wanted to have “a judge bar Musk from serving as an officer or director of a public company.” After the SEC took this action, Musk and Tesla ended up settling for an amount of 20 million dollars each in fines. The SEC has forced Musk to step down from his chairman position on the Tesla board of directors; originally they wanted to remove him from CEO as well, but were only able to remove him from the board. I feel as though the SEC used this case as an example to other high level executives of what happens when inaccuracies are so carelessly thrown around. And in an interconnected world, everyone finds out about everything very quickly, so if you decide to publish a statement about the company it better be accurate because you cannot take it back.

This case was never about the wellbeing of Tesla shareholders; the objective was to make headlines and send a message. On the other hand, Musk has not always been a shining example of how to act in the business world, with his recent stunt on the Joe Rogan podcast. The Tesla board of directors has actually set up a committee to monitor Musk’s communications moving forward, which is a smart move by them. Regulators have an eye out for Tesla and Musk especially, being that he is in the public eye so often. Although it is obvious that Musk acted irrationally and illogically, the nature of his work and the innovative mindset behind his companies is one of controversy and pushing the envelope. This careless mistake was just a mishap along the way, and no matter how serious the SEC may want to treat it, “Why would the SEC want to harm the company more than the tweet itself?” Whitehead said. “That would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

Kyle is a business management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/27/news/companies/elon-musk-sec-tesla/index.html?iid=EL

Posted by Paul H. Duffy.

Ever since Elon Musk tweeted on August 7th about the possibility of taking his company private he has been in deep trouble with the SEC. He made a series of tweets about the potential move saying funding was secured for $420 a share. After a few weeks, the SEC began to file a lawsuit against Musk after he backed out of the decision. The SEC claimed he misled investors and manipulated stocks. Initially Tesla and Musk were ready to fight the suit but a few days later things changed. “Elon Musk reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission that allows him to remain chief executive of Tesla Inc. but requires that he step aside from the chairman role for three years,” (Higgins and Michaels). The agreement also included a $20 million fine. Tesla also decided to make changes, “Tesla has agreed to appoint two new independent board members, establish a new committee of directors and create controls to oversee Mr. Musk’s communications, according to the SEC,” (Higgins and Michaels).

This isn’t the first time Tesla and Musk are in trouble with the SEC. Last year, the SEC began probing Tesla about misleading investors over the production of their newest model the Model 3. “As production started, he claimed about 1,600 cars would be made in the third quarter of 2017 before reaching 20,000 in December. Those forecasts were far below what he predicted roughly a year earlier, when he said as many 200,000 Model 3s would be made in the second half of 2017,” (Michaels, Glazer, and Higgins). While no official charges have been filed, the SEC has probed into Tesla’s manufacturing data. However, it will be difficult to prove Musk and Tesla intentionally tried to mislead investors. “Tesla already faces private litigation in a San Francisco federal court, where a group of investors alleged the company misled investors about how quickly it could ramp up Model 3 production,” (Michaels, Glazer, and Higgins). Tesla is fighting this saying they disclosed problems in a timely manner.

While Musk is a very famous and popular business owner, these problems seem to start adding up. Musk shows that tweeting business announcements on a personal account can create a grey area. Was his tweet an official business announcement or just a personal idea? Tesla is known as the company of the future and in the long run they will be stable and making profit. But with this increased production problems, Tesla could see their business really start going backwards. Time is of the essence especially as other established companies are moving into the electric car market. Time will tell if Tesla can right the ship.

Paul is business management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021. 

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-pressing-tesla-directors-for-details-on-communications-with-elon-musk-1534450010

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-can-remain-tesla-ceo-but-must-step-down-as-chairman-in-sec-settlement-1538257394

Posted by Yacheng Xu.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley “warned that investing in privately issued digital money such as bitcoin could end in big financial losses for those involved.” He opined, “There is a bit of a, I would say, speculative mania around cryptocurrencies in terms of their valuations, which I view as pretty dangerous, because I don’t really see what the actual true underlying value of some of these cryptocurrencies actually is in practice.”

The Fed’s vice chairman for supervision, Randal Quarles, said, “While these digital currencies may not pose major concerns at their current levels of use, more serious financial-stability issues may result if they achieve wide-scale usage.”

From my perspective, with the gaining popularity of cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, more risks such as hacking and scandals will in crease.  Bitcoin proves to be a highly speculative asset. Nevertheless, the Fed failed to enforce any rules, and the SEC merely issued some warnings regarding Bitcoin and future ICOs. The cryptocurrency is basically free of government regulations, which easily can trigger an investment bubble, illegal fund-raising, and undermining the market economy. Hence, in China, the government has shut down the cryptocurrency exchanges in September, 2017 and prohibit new ICOs.

It is indisputable that the virtual money is a great way to avoid the control by a central bank. Given the pros and cons of cryptocurrency, we should have a compromise solution, allowing the existence of exchanges but setting regulations at the same time.

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

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-dudley-says-puerto-rico-has-difficult-recovery-process-ahead-of-it-1519311605?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=8

Posted by Abigail Murphy.

A way to raise money, fund a project, or venture from a large number of people for a small startup in the earliest stage money sounds simple. Not so much. Every so often, there are crowdfunding campaigns gaining popularity via Facebook newsfeed, twitter feed, and emails. These campaigns come with issues of the right amount of regulation and increasing issue of inequality of funding portals.

After years of back and forth, in October 2015 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. JOBS allowed startup companies to safely use the internet to offer securities to investors. Prior to 2012, the internet could not be used to match investors and startup ventures due to the “general solicitation rule.” In a short 6 years, the SEC has developed their stance that the internet as a matchmaker for investors and startups is solicitation to a lacking concern for the inequality of funding portals.

A funding portal is the basic platform for the fundraising to take place and act as an intermediary. Both the funding portal pursuant and the broker-dealer must be registered through the SEC, however rising inequality have expressed that regulation is not enough. Concerns are expressed due to argument of crowds vs. expert’s wisdom, including liability. Wisdom for a crowd verses one single investor is never going to be definitive, while a single expert’s wisdom could be too specific. In addition, some are urging the SEC to reevaluate the liability of both parties in a crowdfund due to the easy loophole of fraud. If experts are considered the investors of crowdfunding, do their duties violate under the 1940 Advisers Act? Is crowdfunding an indirect security? This act set grounds for investors to follow and a guideline for compensations, economic activity, and other indirect securities. If the experts end up being categorized as investors, then they too are responsible for any fraudulent financial activity.

Personally, I believe that the overturning of the 2012 JOBS solicitation rule and the 2015 implementation of Title III of JOBS is all still very new. There are no past comparisons of any type of money exchange and investment to base crowdfunding off of. As this topic gains popularity and a crowd does flock to crowdfunding, there will be a need for heavier regulations on the liabilities and registration to create an ethical and financially stable funding portal. I was surprised to read about such an open ended definition when it comes down to the investor vs expert responsibilities in relation to the Advisers Act in 1940. Crowdfunding is an innovative way and already has several fundraising success stories. Over the next few years it will be interesting to see the investor return reports. As long as the finances stay in line, and both the crowdfund pursuant and the investors stay happy I see no issue in allowing the internet to play a role in matchmaking.

Abigail is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Source:

http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4958&context=nclr

Posted by Shahrani Bhatti.

On January 30th of 2018, U.S. regulators made it known that they feel Congress should expand regulation of the bitcoin as well as a growing number of other cryptocurrencies. Their reasoning being that the currency is not subject to investor-protection laws. The chairmen of the SEC and the CFTC told senators that the exceedingly popular cryptocurrency has surmounted state regulation. This is only one of a growing number of concerns, as U.S. banks are taking a step forward and stopping credit card purchases of bitcoin in addition to bitcoin prices dropping dramatically as governments in China, India and South Korea have placed restrictions on cryptocurrency trading.

The chairmen continued, saying that in order to regulate cryptocurrencies and protect investors, Congress would need to become involved as the SEC and the CFTC hold no power in regards to the market of products like bitcoin. At a testimony earlier this year, Christopher Giancarlo of the CFTC said that if they were given jurisdiction in this situation that it would be a, “dramatic expansion of the CFTC’s regulatory mission.”

Both market regulators have also halted illicit operations that have attempted to capitalize investors’ growing desire for returns similar to that of bitcoin’s skyrocketing $17,900 in only December of last year. The SEC has also stopped initial coin offerings, a fundraising method that has accumulated billions from investors in exchange for the issuance of new digital currencies like the bitcoin, as the demand for them continues to grow. Chief of the SEC, Mr. Clayton said that unlike the bitcoin, however, that these other issuances leave the issuer vulnerable to federal anti-fraud and investor-protection laws. Because of unregulated exchanges, Chief Clayton says, market prices can intensely rise.

While the bitcoin is still mainly unregulated, its derivatives are continually inspected. The CTFC has examined how these tokens should be allotted for trading. Mr. Giancarlo has come up with a new process for other duplicate tokens of the bitcoin, which consist of intensified information sharing agreements between exchanges and the CFTC, and agreements by exchanges to coordinate launches with CFTC’s staff.

I believe cryptocurrency regulation is a necessity at this time. Investors need to be protected from fraud. If the U.S. begins to regulate these currencies, then other countries may also follow suit. The cryptocurrencies may also grow and lead to an increased number of jobs which can only benefit the U.S. economy. If this benefits the U.S. economy, a larger standard of living will persist and the U.S. will become a more powerful country — as a high standard of living among people, high GDP and a good economy are the defining features of powerful countries. Cryptocurrency may give the current U.S. national currency a run for its money, but in the long run, the benefits will outweigh the costs as cryptocurrencies are easier to manage and track as the exchanges are basically exclusively carried out online.

Shahrani Bhatti is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Alexander D. Bakogiannis.

Earlier this year the SEC reported that a medical device company named Orthofix was being charged with improperly booking revenue and making improper payment to doctors and government owned hospitals in Brazil.

They improperly recorded revenues as soon as a product was shipped before securing payments. When a company makes revenues from its operations, it must be recorded in their ledgers and then reported on the income statements every reporting period. According to GAAP, there are two criteria the company must meet before it can record revenues. First there must be a critical event that triggered the transaction process, and the amount collected from that transaction is measurable within a certain degree of reliability.  These wrongdoings cost the company over $14 M to settle charges.

One specific instance involved Orthofix recording revenue even when they gave their customers significant extensions of time to make payment. A company can recognize revenue from a transaction when the buyer of the company’s good or service agrees to a purchase, and the amount that the customer is going to pay is determined. By giving their consumers all this time to make their payments, the payments are fully determined, thus all the revenues should not have been recorded yet. These accounting failures make the company misstate data on their financial statement from 2011 to 2013. “Their accounting failures were so widespread that it caused them to make false statements to the general public regarding their financial condition”.

Orthofix violated the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) when their associates in Brazil used high discounts and made improper payments through third parties to solicit doctors employed by the government to use their products; fake invoices were used to facilitate this. All of this could have been avoided or contained if Orthofix had the proper internal controls in place and to ensure that proper payments were being made on their behalf to the correct individuals, and the right data was being recorded at the times times. Unfortunately, this was not the case. As a result, their sales were inflated.

Alex is an MBA with concentration in Accounting, and a Forensic Accounting Certificate, Class of 2017.

Reference:

https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2017-18.html

Posted by Diego Henao.

During vior dire, potential expert witnesses’ credibility and expertise is assessed to arrive at a decision if they are properly qualified to give their opinion in court. In the State of Utah, Judge Paul Parker has disqualified Gil Miller, a forensic accountant, from taking the stand as an expert witness for the prosecution team in the criminal trial against father and son, Wendell and Allen Jacobson, and their company Management Solutions Inc. This decision came about after the Jacobson’s attorney’s presented their argument that Gil Miller had a conflict of interest due to his previous professional involvement with the Jacobson’s and their legal team.

Miller participated in the defense of the Jacobson’s and their company in the December 2011 trial in which the SEC sued them for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme involving the purchasing and selling of apartment buildings. Miller’s role in this case consisted of being the accountant for the Jacobson’s attorneys, and because of this, he participated in the analysis of private information, and therefore, he should not be allowed to participate as an expert witness for the prosecution in the current trial. This was the argument that the Jacobson’s legal team brought to the attention of Judge Parker; they also mentioned how Miller was exposed to private documents, legal theories, and information and this should discredit his qualification, since he would now be on the opposing side helping the prosecution against the Jacobsons. The lawyer for Allen Jacobson, Amanda Mendenhall, argued that “ (Attorneys) must be able to rely on the confidentiality of the consultants they hire to assist in providing legal services to their clients. Without these protections it is scary to think an expert could be privy to critical defense strategy and then turn around and deliver the information to a prosecuting agency” (Harvey). The Jacobson’s attorneys also stated how during that SEC trial, Miller had provided their legal team with false information in regards to the work he had conducted.

Aside from wanting Miller to not participate in the case, the defense attorneys also argued that since Miller had already been in contact with the prosecutors, and therefore, had offered some sort of insight, he had “tainted” the case, and therefore, they demanded that the prosecution team be removed and replaced from this case. If Judge Parker would agree to this second demand, then the prosecution would be able to appeal this decision. The judge’s decision to disqualify Miller as an expert witness remained and concluded with the fact that he could not participate as an expert, but that he could still be a witness in regards to the facts of the case. This trial, which accuses the Jacobson’s of 16 felony fraud involved counts of failing to inform investors about how their investments were being managed is still yet to be scheduled.

Diego is a graduate accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Works Cited:

Harvey, Tom. “Judge Says Prominent Forensic Accountant Can’t Be Expert Witness in Fraud Case Because of Conflict.” The Salt Lake Tribune. N.p., 19 Sept. 2017. Web.

http://www.sltrib.com/pb/news/business/2017/09/19/judge-says-prominent-forensic-accountant-cant-be-expert-witness-in-fraud-case-because-of-conflict

Posted by Divina Tanamal.

An unnamed telephone marketing company was recently brought to trial by the Department of Labor. The company was accused of unfair treatment of its employees for not allowing them to be financially compensated while taking breaks in between working hours. Although the sales representatives were able to log off their computers and take breaks in any frequency or duration that they desire, once they become inactive for more than 90 seconds, their wage hours are placed on pause. Essentially, they are not paid for their break times. The Department of Labor implicated that Title 29, Part 785.18 of the Code of Federal Regulations stated that, “rest periods of short duration, running from 5 minutes to about 20 minutes, are common in industry” and that they “promote the efficiency of the employee, [therefore] are customarily paid for as working time.” This portrays the company’s unwillingness to pay its employees’ break times as incompliant with federal regulations.

Nonetheless, the company retaliated by claiming that another segment of the Code of Federal Regulations (29 C.F.R. § 785.16) states that when “an employee is completely relieved from duty which are long enough…to use the time for his own purposes,” that time is to considered as “hours worked.” In essence, the company has a loose break time policy that allowed its employees to leave their computers whenever or however often they liked, liberating their employers from any obligation to pay for the breaks taken.

In my opinion, the company’s institution of its break times policy was merely a stratagem to minimize the employees’ incentive to take breaks. Since it is expected for most places of employment to allow their workers to take brief paid breaks, this company should not be exempted from that same expectation. It is only just for employees to be able to take breaks in between hours of working without the deterrent.

The case was brought in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. The court claimed that 29 C.F.R. § 785.18 is a more widely accepted rule compared to the more specific 785.16, illustrating its disagreement with the company’s appeal.

Divina is a business administration in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Gerald Wrona.

Interesting. That is one word to describe the NY Times report on the pre-trial proceedings of the Libyan Investment Authority’s (LIA) suit against Goldman Sachs (Anderson). Acting as broker-dealer to the sovereign wealth fund, Goldman established a relationship with the fund’s managers in 2007. A year later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was visiting Moammar Gadhafi in Libya’s capital to devise a “trade and investment agreement . . . which will allow the improvement of the climate for investment.” (Labbott). Shortly after that promising convention between the two political heads, Goldman and the Authority finalized the agreement and the bank sold derivative products totaling $1 billion to the LIA. Then the housing market “opened its mouth” and out came the demon of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Understandably, the LIA felt exploited. They bit the bullet. Their lawyers came to the London High Court armed with notions that those managing the sovereign wealth fund were ineffectual in understanding the investments presented to them by Goldman. To add insult to insult, they further asserted that the fund administrators were altered in their judgment by Goldman representatives’ leadership role in incidents allegedly involving the recreational consumption of alcohol and visits paid to what may have been brothels, or some other manufacturer of night entertainment, though a witness statement does not specify. Considering that it would never have been in Goldman’s interest to spend more time carousing then working on the deal with the authority, it is highly unlikely that the time spent in leisure outweighed the hours dedicated to the investigation of the necessary facts of the deal.

Though it is worth noting that Goldman has already been ousted for luring investors into crummy deals and then betting against those deals to increase revenue. This is how Goldman actually made money off the subprime mortgage crisis (Cohan).

Will evidence be disclosed that suggests Goldman dealt with the LIA in a similar way? It’s impossible to know. I believe the judge will find that the heart of the matter is whether Goldman conducted due diligence in their dealing with the LIA. For that reason, Robert Miles, one of the attorney’s representing Goldman, would do well to look to the Securities Act of 1933 for support. It states: “If a Broker Dealer conducts reasonable due diligence on a security and passes the information on to the buyer before a transaction, the Broker cannot be held liable for non-disclosure of information that was not found during the investigation.”  Securities Act of 1933, SEC §§ 38-1-28 (SEC 1933).

The trial is expected to start next year.

Gerald is a Business Administration and MIT major at Montclair State University, class of 2017.

Posted by Connor O’Reilly.

On October 15th California Governor Jerry Brown signed several employment related bills into effect. These bills have been crafted and designed to change laws regarding the state’s employers. “The newly-enacted laws address a range of topics, including criminal conviction history, salary history and sanctuary immigration policy.”

The governor’s first major law bans inquiries regarding salary history when applying for a new job. “California will now prohibit all employers from inquiring about or relying upon salary history information of an applicant as a factor in determining whether to offer employment or an applicant’s salary.” This law was created in order to deter pay inequalities in regards to gender, race and ethnicity. This bill adds a completely new section to the Labor Code which applies to employers on both a state and federal level.

Next, California just passed a “Ban the Box” law which prohibits pre-application questioning regarding criminal records. In an effort to thwart discrimination and promote equal opportunity employment, “California will now prohibit all employers with five or more employees from inquiring into or relying upon an applicant’s criminal conviction history until an applicant has received a conditional offer of employment.” Further, if an applicant has a criminal record, employers are required to conduct individualized assessments on the conviction history including severity of the offense, the time that has passed and the nature of position sought. Their decision must be calculated, explained to the applicant, and be in compliance with California’s Fair Pay Act.

Additionally, California now declares itself a Sanctuary State and will prohibit employers’ compliance with newly passed federal immigration laws. This controversial law makes it illegal for employers to voluntarily permit federal immigration agents from searching private workplaces without a warrant. There are also several other regulations regarding time requirements before searches and harder requirements to obtain Employment Eligibility Verification from already employed workers. The penalties are extremely harsh for disregarding these laws which range from $2,000 to $10,000.

Without a doubt, California is creating laws that give more power and rights to workers. By eliminating salary history in the application process, each applicant will be given a salary solely based on their skills. California’s “Ban the Box” laws also promote equality in hiring and negate discrimination towards people with criminal records. Yet the new law prohibiting businesses from complying with Federal laws is extremely concerning and shocking. This is clearly a backlash at President Trump and his harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants, yet it will prove to be very taxing on the business owners of California. Overall, I believe California is creating important laws to give rights back to the working class, but creating laws that go against federal law will cause issues down the road.

Connor is an business administration major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/recent-deluge-california-legislation-imposes-new-requirements-employers