Posted by Gen Nagai

A law passed on 2015 that eggs sold in California have to come from hen that have enough room for them to stretch in their cages. This may also be known as “free-ranged eggs”. The purpose of this is to not only let the hen live a better life but studies have found that not giving them the ideal way of living increases the chances of getting salmonella from the eggs that they produce.

This may sound good, however, bad news come with it. Firstly, consumers will have to expect prices of the eggs to rise. Secondly, there may be a shortage of eggs may occur as 90% of eggs come from places where it is not acceptable to sell according to the California Law.

Today, over a dozen states have filled a law suit directly to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (Dec.04, 2017) to block this law as it violates the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and are pre-empted by federal law. Although, a similar case has been rejected 6 different times by 6 different states, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley is confident in the new lawsuit as he has economic studies to back his case up.  He has mentioned that California’s egg law has cost consumers nationwide up to $350 million annually as a result of higher egg prices.

States that are backing up this case include Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Gen is a business information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04/the-associated-press-the-latest-13-states-challenge-to-california-egg-law.html

In February 2016, a jury awarded a woman $10 million in compensatory damages and $62 million in punitive damages in a suit against Johnson & Johnson for causing her cervical cancer.  She died in 2015 after prolonged use of baby powder made by the company.

In its ruling vacating the judgment, the appeals court cited a recent Supreme Court ruling disallowing lawsuits in states where the plaintiff is not a resident and where the injury did not occur.  The plaintiff in this case is from Alabama and sued in Missouri.

“Jim Onder, who is representing many plaintiffs in the lawsuits, has argued that Missouri is a proper jurisdiction because Johnson & Johnson packages and labels some products in Missouri.”  According to the article, most research indicates talc, which is a soft mineral, has a minimum correlation to ovarian cancer.  In other lawsuits, jurors awarded plaintiffs more than $300 million combined, and the company intends to have all these rulings overturned.

Posted by Ashley Hellmers.

The New York Times published an article reporting that the Supreme Court has decided to hear Samsung’s appeal over how must be compensated for the replication of Apple’s designs.  Samsung violated Apple’s design patents for the iPhone in the creation of their S7 smartphones. Design patents are created to protect how a product looks, while a utility patent is created to protect how a product operates. Utility patents are much more common than design patents especially in this technological age. This case is monumental because the Supreme Court has not heard a case surrounding design patents in the last hundred years. The key question the Supreme Court will determine is “Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?”

Originally, Apple was to be awarded $548 million dollars by Samsung’s due to their infringement on Apple’s design patents. Three elements were declared to have been replicated from Apple’s iPhone: “a particular black rectangular round-cornered front face”; “a substantially similar rectangular round-cornered front face plus the surrounding rim”; and “a particular colorful grid of sixteen icons.” If a design patent is infringed upon, all profits made by the infringing company for the product are to be granted to the patent’s owner. According to the article, “even if the patented features contributed to 1 percent of the value of Samsung’s phone, Apple gets 100 percent of Samsung’s profits.”

Samsung is appealing to the Supreme Court because they believe design patents and this profit rule should not be applicable in this technological era. Many companies, such as Google and Facebook, are speaking out on the side of Samsung that the design patents are out of touch with the digital era. In terms of technology, a products function is more important and more profitable than its design. Therefore, Samsung believes that the profit rule associated with design patents is outdated. Samsung is seeking to pay only $149 million to Apple after the appeal. Apple was pushing for the Supreme Court not to hear the case.

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

Posted by Katie Kim.

In the technology industry, two leading companies may be heading to the Supreme Court over the design of smartphones. There is no confirmation of whether or not the case will be accepted, but the Supreme Court has not taken a design patent in over a century.

A few weeks ago, Samsung agreed to pay Apple $548 million in damages over a design patent but did not agree to it as part of a settlement. Apple took Samsung to court on the grounds that Samsung intentionally and knowingly copied Apple’s iPhone designs. Apple prides themselves on their innovation and when the threat of copycats infringe on their innovations it takes away from their profits. Apple submitted evidence that showed the evolution of the Samsung product increasingly resembled the Apple iPhone

At trial, Apple convinced the jury that some of the designs Samsung used on their smartphones, like the rounded rectangular corners and touch screen made of smaller icons, were taken from and patented by Apple.

On the other hand, Samsung argued that the law under design patents was misapplied. The law is meant to protect “ornamental” features that are not part of the products intended function. Samsung lawyers feel that this should have been made clear to the jury.

On Monday, Samsung filled an appeal to the Supreme Court. The company argues that the legal framework behind designed patents is flawed and out dated for the modern digital world. “The law was written for a time long before the smartphone was invented,” said Mark A. Lemley, a law professor and director of the Stanford University program in law, science and technology. If Samsung is left to stand with a sweeping rule against it then it will “lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies.”

Katie is an accounting and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Catherine Caldwell.

The trendy new and convenient company, Uber Technologies Inc., is currently enduring a legal battle for its illegal classification of freelancers. Uber was founded in 2009, as an application that acts as an electronic link from individuals who have cars to individuals who needs rides. The company has received a reputation of convenience to its customers and an easy way to make profit for its drivers. However, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, a powerful attorney in the state of California, disagrees with the classification of Uber drivers.

Shannon Liss-Riordan is no stranger in her attack on large billion dollar industries such as Uber. She has made cases against Starbucks, Harvard University and FedEx, to name a few. Ms. Liss-Riordan thinks that Uber drivers are unlawfully “on-demand workers” with no benefits. Instead of freelancers, Uber drivers should receive employee status, which would include drivers receiving reimbursement of their transportation expenses among other employment protective benefits.

As a software intermediary in the transportation business, Uber Technologies Inc. claims that they do not need grounds for titling their drivers as employees. Uber does not have a “fleet of drivers” waiting to pick up the next customer, but is based on convenience for both the drivers and employees. Uber does not plan on settling the case and has begun their approach by assembling 400 statements from drivers saying they were content with the flexible labor opportunities. However, in retaliation, Liss-Riordan took 50 of those statements and found that those drivers stated they would like to have official employment status.

In September, the case won class action status in San Francisco and will continue in federal court. Valued at $51 billion and is willing to fight for their case all the way to the Supreme Court and are unwilling to settle.

This case will create a precedent in the industry of software application employment services, and therefore needs to be handled very tactically. The basic labor protection laws should not be ignored due to new forms of introducing a business such as Uber. However, each Uber driver participates to make profits on their own agenda. Some use the service for extra cash, where others, in the grueling unemployment climate, use Uber as full time opportunities. In my opinion, the court should require Uber to create employment contracts with Uber drivers who can prove that it is a major source of income.

Catherine is a finance and information technology major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Ilse Narvaez. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works-cited

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

Web. .

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

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

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

Posted by Shakil Rahman.

Americans pride themselves on the idea that their country is the land of the free, where people of different parts of the world could have the equal opportunity to live as they wish, pray freely, and be free to live without being persecuted for their beliefs. It is stated in the constitution and laws are created to make sure people’s rights are not infringed upon or people are discrimination for their beliefs. But there are times when the people seem to be discriminated against because of their beliefs and it spills into the national spotlight.

Abercrombie & Fitch are multimillion dollars clothing store and in one of their stores a Muslim woman named Samantha Elauf applied for a job but she was rejected. When inquired about why she was being rejected, the company replied that the company’s dress code is “classic East Coast collegiate style” and since she wore head scarf, a headwear named Hijab that Muslim women wear, which went against the dress code, she was not hired. Ms.Elauf filed a discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch and the case went to the Supreme Court after being going through trial court and appeals court. The defendant claimed that since the plaintiff did not specifically state that the head scarf was worn for religious reasons they did not discriminate the plaintiff. The Supreme Court justices voted 8-1 for the plaintiff stating that the company should have understood that the head scarf had a religious significance, since it is of common knowledge and therefore the plaintiff was being discriminated and that is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit against the company is based around the claim that the company rejected the applicant’s application for a job due to dress code violations knowing that it had religious significance. The reasoning given by the company was that the applicant did not specifically ask for religious accommodation, therefore there was no discrimination. While it is true that the applicant did not request religious accommodation, head scarves are commonly used for religious reasons in various religions and being ignorant of the fact is not valid argument. Therefore, when the company rejected Ms.Elauf’s application due to her wearing a head scarf, they were discriminating her based on her religious practices. Being ignorant of law is not sufficient excuse either, since the company is supposed to know the laws of the land it is conducting its business in.

In the modern world where globalization has brought the world, and the business world, laws are created to make sure that people are not discriminated for their personal life choices. But sometimes the laws are not interpreted in the same manner by people. For instance, for this lawsuit, the trial court granted the Plaintiff $20000 for the lawsuit, but the appeals court saw the same case and decided that there were no signs of discrimination and overturned the ruling, only for the ruling to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Interpretation of the law is an important part of the business world that must be done in a prudent manner by the courts but also by companies and individuals in order to avoid situations where a wrongdoing does not occur due to ignorance.

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

Posted by Michael Habib.

Many people today always hear about the search warrant and are police required to have probable cause to search a suspect’s cell phone. Recently, a case was heard in the Supreme Court regarding a robbery and police accessing information from the cell phone carriers that lead to Mr. Quartavious Davis’s arrest in Florida. Mr. Davis was convicted of a string of robberies in 2010 and was sentenced to approximately 162 years in prison, without parole. Mr. Davis challenged and argued that police did not access a search warrant when seeking information from his cellphone carrier MetroPCS Communications Inc. The information provided resulted and provided evidence of the approximate location of Mr. Davis during the time of the string of robberies. According to Lawrence Hurley, in May, the “11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the failure of obtaining a warrant did not violate Davis’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” This lead Davis to seek Supreme Court review and the result was the same as the 11th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals. The big question here that is constantly brought up by many people is how much privacy people and business have? Specifically, the four main cell phone carriers Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint, should they fight to keep their customers information private? According to Lawrence Hurley, this information is requested by law enforcement tens of thousands times per year. Many lower level courts have similar cases regarding business protecting the privacy of their customers and infringement of privacy.

A counter-argument can be for purpose where businesses and law enforcement may want to have the availability of this information to quickly solve cases such as Mr. Davis’s robberies. Business owners may support this for the purpose to protect their business from these robberies, however other business such as the cell phone carriers may argue that this is infringement of privacy towards their customers and hurts their business.

Michael is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Ashley O’Connell.

An article from the New York Times named, “Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice,” caught my attention in regards to the companies American Express and Citibank. Recently, American Express and Citibank have emphasized their beliefs of how customers can no longer use class action, but in fact use individual arbitration instead. Located in the fine print of American Express’ contract it states, “You or we may elect to resolve any claim by individual arbitration. Claims are decided by a neutral arbitrator.” By doing so, it is causing uproar between consumers and the company for numerous reasons: it is cheaper to use the approach of class action, the customers are more comfortable utilizing class action, and arbitration clause have far worse consequences.

By forcing customers to use arbitration, the freedom of the people is not being recognized and their right to make their own decisions and go to court is no longer available. American Express is not the only company doing this to customers; Citibank is another targeted company. It was noted that two-thirds of customers from Citibank had dealt with credit card fraud and did not receive any monetary awards throughout the arbitration process. The arbitration clause consequences, “can be seen far beyond the financial sector,” and are also made even between private schools and funeral homes.

There are a few cases, on the other hand, that the Supreme Court allowed class action to take place in regards to fraud. It states in the article that the customers who were allowed to use class action were one’s who, “the lawyers represented clients that had paid billions of dollars to resolve class actions over the years.” These are lawyers who are making millions of dollars, and that is the reason why the class action is allowed to take place.

I disagree and believe that customers should have the right to fight on what they believe. Whether is through class action or arbitration, consumers should be allowed to do that they are comfortable with. The statistics in the article show that there is a significant difference between people who take action through arbitration versus class action. Class action allows consumers to work in groups and defend themselves against a company.  This is more favorable and certain companies did not want that to happen. I would advise consumers to read the contracts of the companies in which they are involved; they are signing away their rights every time a contract is signed that is not read thoroughly, and the use of individual arbitration is a pattern that is spreading throughout companies.

Ashely is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Danielle Lindsay Feoranzo.

In the United States, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. It is a prized right and the courts have protected this right to the fullest extent. As Americans in a democratic country, we have the power to speak our minds to ensure we can voice our political opinions and criticize government actions or policies. Thus, as citizens we hold great authority for which could either positively and or negatively influence our country’s future.

In today’s world, social media has made a strong precedence in our community and the functionality of our world. This includes Twitter, Instagram, Tumbler, and the heavy-weight, Facebook. These outlets of social media can be used by famous celebrities to endorse a product, or politicians to promote themselves and their campaigns. Social media is an outlet that can connect one with the world, therefore in essence is a huge stage to express oneself and one’s opinions.

It was on June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania man who posted many violent messages on Facebook (the Court raising implications of freedom of speech). However, prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case, the man was convicted under a federal threat statue and sentenced to jail time of forty-four months. The man appealed this judgment, stating the government should have been required to prove he actually intended to make a threat. The Pennsylvania man argued he was exercising his freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. He also mentioned he was inspired by the artist Eminem and his lyrics for which is recited and had no intention to threaten anyone.

The Supreme Court ruled in his favor and stated, “It was not enough to convict the man based solely on the idea that a reasonable person would regard the communications as a threat” (Ariane de Vogue, CNN). What is important to take notice is the “reasonable person” standard was rejected by the Court. This is because the government needed to prove the defendant’s intent.

To conclude, the Pennsylvania man expressed himself on Facebook, whether it was crude to some or not, it did not uphold in court as a threat. This case is another example of how the Court will go out of its way to protect speech under the First Amendment.

Danielle is a business administration major with a concentration in management information and technology at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Matthew Rachek.

One of the biggest issues that industries of all kinds deal with constantly is being able to filter out counterfeits from their marketplace. Counterfeits and other forms of knock-offs are not good for the market because they drive profits away from those that deserve the reward and often times fund criminal organizations.

The music industry has dealt with counterfeits since its existence. With the continued growth of technology and new ways for consumers to listen to their favorite artists, it has become harder and harder for the in the industry to regulate how the money is coming in. In fact often times, counterfeit CDs or knock-off streaming services do not compensate the artist at all.

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on October 30, 2016, it explained how these music “pirates” have been flooding online retailers such as Amazon.com, “with counterfeit CDs that often cost nearly as much as the official versions and increasingly are difficult to distinguish from the real goods.”

The good news is that Amazon.com has recognized the problem an is making the right ethical decision by making sure that their stakeholders all receive the product they are expecting to receive at checkout. By doing this they are also trying to ensure that the artist and producer of the music receive proper compensation for their work so that the money does not make its way into the hands of the music pirates.

In a statement released by Amazon.com they wrote, “We are constantly innovating….to improve the ways we detect and prevent counterfeit products from reaching our marketplace. We work hard on this issue every day….” One of the ways they ensure that customers, a stakeholder, is satisfied with their product is by offering refunds for any product that is not as advertised. While this may initially hurt Amazon.com’s bottom line this is an essential moral decision because in the long-run consumers will be more likely to trust Amazon.com and buy other products off the site.

As technology continues to find new innovations it is almost certain that counterfeits and pirates will new be completely taken out of the market place, especially in the music industry. However it is very reassuring for a large company like Amazon to take nope of the issue and try to take steps to solve the issue.

Matthew is an accounting student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-struggling-to-keep-counterfeits-off-market-retailer-says/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/boost-in-online-pirated-cd-sales-deal-another-blow-to-music-industry-1477867243

Posted by Deane Franco.

In a recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal, I read about General Motors being charged with punitive damages due to a defective part causing multiple deaths. General motors had been in the process of recalling millions of vehicles, when a defective ignition switch caused 100 or so deaths.

The punitive damages will be limited to the extent of a lawsuit based on claims and knowledge that GM had of a new company auto maker’s 2009 restructuring. GM attempted to prevent plaintiffs for bringing punitive damages based on personal injury or wrongful death. Unfortunately for GM, Robert Hilliard who is representing all those injured by GM feels that punitive damages “are the only way to properly compensate victims who have been harmed by defect.” This is because punitive damages are meant to be a large enough punishment to the corporation to send a notable message with the intent of assuring the corporation understands its wrong doing.

Although GM tried to fight the punitive damages, the plaintiffs won outright. What this means for GM is that punitive damages could reach millions or even billions of dollars awarded to those affected, depending on the ruling, previous defective GM part cases may also be included.

GM has already paid $935 million in damages and has also agreed to $625 million in compensation for the victims. But we will see if the court will stop there. Moreover, GM is being considered for additional charges because they had acknowledged that they mislead regulators about the defective car parts and still put them into production. The hairy part, however, comes in when GM addresses their bankruptcy filing, because technically, “Old GM” filed for bankruptcy and would be responsible for all these defective parts liabilities and, “New GM,” the product of the bankruptcy reorganization, is a new company separate from the actions of the old.

This article relates to the discussion post this week in class where we discussed the hot coffee spill in Liebeck vs. McDonalds. In that situation, punitive damages were used not necessarily as a fair compensation to the victim, but to ensure McDonald’s knew of its intentional wrong doing and would be more likely to halt such procedures.

The pricing of the punitive damages was said to be very important for Mr. Hillard because he knows that those damages tend to run very high and would lead to fair compensation for the victim’s losses. This is a little different from the Liebeck case, because in that case, there appeared to be dual responsibility as to   both the temperature and the spilling of coffee; in this GM case, all responsibility falls on the manufacturer for selling a defective car which caused death to numerous victims. It does not matter that GM has rebranded itself after going through bankruptcy filings.  At this point in time, there may be products on the market that have not been recalled, which caused injury and or death to numerous victims. For these reasons, the punitive damages should be high to balance out the victim’s loss and GM’s punishment.

Deane is a member of the The Gerald P. Buccino ’63 Center for Leadership Development at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, and a finance and information technology management major, Class of 2018.

Posted by Deane Franco.

While reading the Wall Street Journal, I found an article that deals with insider trading and why certain charges were being dropped. A year ago, SAC agreed to plead guilty to securities fraud and wire fraud and pay a $1.8 billion penalty and take responsibility for the actions of their employees, including Mr. Steinberg. Mr. Steinberg is a senior employee at SAC Capital Advisors LP who was charged with insider trading, along with 6 other analysts. The charges has since been dropped because Prosecutor Mr. Bharara said holding the accused any longer would be a form of injustice, since no information can be found incriminating the accused on their chargers. Before this came to light there were a few preceding facts. First, SAC’s founder Mr. Cohen has been on the radar of the SEC for years, as they try and gather proof that he used insider trading to boost his success. Also, Mr. Steinberg is a confidant to SAC founder Mr. Cohen, so this might have been the prosecutor’s way into discovering information about Mr. Cohen. Whatever the reason may be, after the public attention SAC Capital Advisors LP has now rebranded itself to be Point72 Asset Management LP. With all these facts being known, Mr. Bharara has still dismissed the charges against Mr. Steinberg and the case is currently in the process of being assessed by the SEC to see if they will accept the dismissal.

This case raises huge ethical flags to me because although prosecutors have not found any evidence to charge SAC capital Advisors with penalties, I think all its actions to this point have proven him guilty. A company has a moral duty to take responsibility for the actions of its employees as its own wrong doing. For that reason, employees conducting insider trading means the company also conducts insider trading and should be penalized for such. SAC Capital Advisors felt the heat of the media and SEC pressure to the point where they “rebranded” themselves as a new company, and now only manage Mr. Cohen’s fortune and no outside clients. An innocent company has no reason to hide behind the act of rebranding if their company truly acted in an ethical way. I would be curious to see if the SEC turns up any wire fraud charges or some procedural error in the way SAC Capital Advisors conducted their insider trading business.

The reason why I think insider trading and other illegal investment activities like this should be penalized harshly is because the educated few, take nonpublic information to give themselves an advantage that will take advantage of those who know less about the markets. When it comes to investing, investors should feel safe that they have received adequate information to make an informed decision that could eventually lead to a return on their investment. These dishonest acts in trading tip the scale to make investors not feel secure and confident that their money will not be consumed by a cheating wealthy party; and then who really loses when investors stop investing? I understand that so far, no evidence has risen to provide factual evidence of wrong doing, but there must be some leadership member of SAC who will own up to SAC’s ethical responsibility to society.

Deane is a finance and information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Healthcare providers, small business, and individuals have filed antitrust lawsuits against Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They allege the 37 independently-owned companies that make up the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association are colluding to avoid competition, raise prices on premiums, and clamp down on payments to providers. Plaintiffs are seeking class action status.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield covers about a third of the nation. In the 1930s, doctors provided insurance under the Blue Shield name and hospitals used Blue Cross. Eventually, the names were trademarked and now companies that use the names operate within an exclusive territory–many in a single state.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, defendant says “its licensing deals simply codify trademark rights that date back decades and ‘do not constitute an agreement to do anything unlawful.’” They claim their model has been around for long time and has withstood government scrutiny. But plaintiffs contend this is cartel-like behavior. The model stifles competition and leads to inflated premiums.

The case will pit antitrust law against trademark rights. Plaintiffs may have a point, especially since at least in one area, California, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans “compete directly against one another . . . where Anthem Blue Cross battles Blue Shield of California.” That fact appears to cut against defendants’ contention that the deals among licensees are only made to protect trademarks.

A district court judge has declined to dismiss the case, ruling plaintiffs “‘have alleged a viable market-allocation scheme.’”

Posted by Ovais Ahmed.

An article posted by the Wall Street Journal talks about the time it takes for high courts to actually hear a case. The average time runs around 6 years, and since 2009 that time period has been extended. There has been a case involving two businesses that are battling about who gets trademarks rights to screws they use. The article states,

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider a business battle over trademark rights for screws that has been in the courts for more than 16 years, an extreme example of how cases headed for the high court can be matters of endurance. . . . The average age for a high court case is nearly six years, but 37% of cases have taken longer since 2009. In most circumstances a case can spend at least three to four years in the courts before resulting in a high-court ruling.

The process to get a case heard at the high court is a true test of endurance, and the willingness to wait the time period in order to get the issue resolved in these courts.

The cost of legal fees overtime can add up to high numbers, and is one of the reasons people involved in the case can get emotional. The article states, “ Given the time and money litigants put into cases, emotions can run high by the time the Supreme Court gets involved. That is true in the long-running trademark case before the court this week.” There isn’t a specific reason that cases take so long to be heard in the Supreme Court, but it’s just that some rulings for appeals happen to take a while. Criminal cases are considered more important, and so if a civil case arises during the same time as a criminal matter, the civil case will have to wait.

The Supreme Court only sits 9 times out of the year, and if a case lands on the right timing of when the court sits, that case is likely to be heard quicker than if it landed during off season. If one needs a case to be heard in Supreme Court, I suggest he or she has the time, money, and endurance to wait his or her turn.

Ovais is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Posted by Nicholas Andreula.

Three major U.S firms along with one German company are currently being investigated for possible price manipulation. “Goldman Sachs Group Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, Standard Bank Group Ltd. and a German chemical maker” are being accused of working together in “manipulating platinum and palladium prices.” It is believed that this price manipulation has been going on for many years and has had a considerable impact on investors and individuals within the industry.

“Modern Settings filed the suit as a class action on Tuesday,” with what the firm believes to be substantial evidence in support of the case. This incident has caused a great deal of speculation regarding “price rigging” both within and in other unrelated industries. Companies such as Modern Settings are requesting the implementation of regulations to prevent similar incidences from happening in the future.

The firms involved have “refused to comment on the lawsuit when contacted by the Wall Street Journal.” Although the case has initiated the investigation of price manipulation within the industry, many believe that the “the changes have come too late.”

Nicholas is a business administration major with a concentration in finance at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Nicholas Lillig.

On October 20^th, a judge tossed out a $417 million jury award to a woman who claimed that she developed ovarian cancer by using Johnson & Johnson talcum-based powder for feminine hygiene. The lawsuit is continuing even after the woman, Eva Echeverria, has died. Her attorney released a statement saying, “We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product.” Under clear scrutiny for their product, Johnson & Johnson has most recently been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson granted the company’s request for a new trial, saying there were errors and jury misconduct in the previous trial that ended with the award two months ago.” She also ruled that there was not enough convincing evidence that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice and that the award for the damages was far too excessive. This was the fourth time that Johnson & Johnson had to go to court in order to address this matter.

The product, Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder, uses a talcum based powder in which is used to treat diaper rashes. It is commonly found in soap, antiperspirant, toothpaste, makeup and even bath bombs. Many people use this powder to fight inflammation on their skin or for personal hygiene. The reason as to why this company is brought under the microscope is to debate whether the talc based powder can cause ovarian cancer in women. There is evidence on both sides of the argument for how it can effectively cause ovarian cancer. A report that was released in May of 2016 determined that 63 percent of women with ovarian cancer had used talc. Another previous study reports, “In 1971, four OB/GYNs found talc particles in more than 75 percent of the ovarian tumors they investigated”. Scientific studies and the juries involved point to yes, this product is liable to cause ovarian cancer. Evidence against the case states that the exact relationship is unclear as tumors can develop regardless of whether talc is applied in the situation.

The issue is that for over 100 years, Johnson & Johnson has been marketing their baby powder to treat diaper rash and as a daily feminine hygiene product. In the most recent cases, juries are pointing towards the evidence that it does cause ovarian cancer. Eva Echeverria and her attorney believe Johnson & Johnson failed to warn the public about “talcum powders potential cancer risks”. A spokeswoman for J&J said, “Ovarian cancer is a devastating disease – but it is not caused by the cosmetic-grade talc we have used in Johnson’s Baby Powder for decades. The science is clear and we will continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder as we prepare for additional trials in the U.S.” The company has decided that it will continue to fight for their product in further trials.

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

Sources:

Posted by Nick Mitwasi.

Throughout the years, there has been numerous lawsuits towards Johnson & Johnson for their use of talcum power in their products, specifically baby powder, for women have been suing the company on claims that it is the link to their ovarian cancer. In this year alone, the company was forced to give up $55 million in May to a woman in St. Louis, Missouri and $72 million to another family also in St. Louis. In addition, just a couple of days ago, a woman was awarded $70 million in California against Johnson & Johnson. Yet, in all of these cases J&J has continued to defend that their product is completely safe.

Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder has dominated the market in the past, and thus is the main reason as to why it is going to defend its products in the mist of all these lawsuits they are being slammed with. In the first case in which Johnson & Johnson was involved, they were sued by Diane Berg for gross negligence and fraud; she was a frequent user of the product and never was informed that long term use of the product can cause cancer. After she sued, the company offered an “out of court settlement of $1.3 million” (Huffington Post); however, she declined and simply wanted to inform the public through her suing the company that this is something people must be informed about.

The main problem, though, with all these lawsuits is that there is no scientific evidence that the product does indeed cause cancer; it is the fact that Johnson & Johnson are not informing their customers that there is a possibility that their product will do harm. This has been damaging the company’s reputation as more and more lawsuits are being filed to different law firms about the same situation. This is still an ongoing situation and time will only tell to see how Johnson & Johnson reacts to the overflow of negativity towards one of their mainstay products.

Nick is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3882192/Cancer-patient-contracted-disease-using-Johnson-Johnson-talcum-powder-wins-70million-payout-company.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-nwazor/the-talcum-powder-lawsuit_1_b_10609474.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baby-powder-cancer-lawsuits/

Posted by Kristen Czerepusko.

Recently, General Motors has been facing some lawsuits stemming from defective ignition switches in millions of their vehicles. This defect has led to over 100 deaths and 200 injuries. General Motors has decided to block those who are suing for personal injury and those making punitive damage claims. The defective car models were recalled in 2014 and were further proven to have been equipped with faulty ignition switches. With this defect, the switch can disable safety features including air bags which are vital to safety when operating a vehicle.

To make matters worse, not only did General Motors know they had a defective product, they acknowledged the fact that they mislead regulators about the defect altogether. To cope with this, General Motors invoked upon a “bankruptcy shield” to limit legal exposure on account of their defective switch. Today, there are over 1,385 individuals with death or injury claims who didn’t receive anything from General Motors. The company still faces hundreds of cases that have yet to be settled.

Punitive damages are something that should never be limited when dealing with defective products. There should never be a cap on the amount of money somebody should be allowed to receive from the careless act of a company manufacturing and selling a defective product. What makes it even worse is the fact that General Motors knew their products were defective and did not care enough to try and prevent further injuries. They acted very unethically and inhumanely with how they handled their cases by using a so-called “bankruptcy shield.” If punitive damages were ever to have a limit, companies would not care to try and make their products better but would instead continue to make harmful products. It is not yet clear how much will be awarded to the individuals who have had serious damages or to the loved ones to those who lost their lives but I hope justice is served to all who deserve it in this case.

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

Posted by Cody Wimmer.

Recently AstraZeneca made a statement warning Britain that pharmaceutical companies may be moving out and away from Britain due to their low-funding and exit of the European Union. In Britain, funding for clinical drugs goes through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), “which is based on how cost-effective a drug is.” The issue lies in the fact that many of these drugs are very expensive and serve only to help a few patients with very rare diseases or cases. Nice is not as interested in funding those projects as it is in funding projects that could help more people.

Not only is there a lack of funding from the UK, but since they left the European Union the market in which to sell the products has become much smaller. Before the exit Big Pharma companies could freely trade between the EU with a very little extra cost, but that cost has grown substantially to the point where they might have to look elsewhere.  Lisa Anson notes “England spends £6,500 a head on medicines per person. By contrast, in France and Germany it is £12,000 to £13,000.” This shows that not only is the market much smaller in terms of the people that could potentially need the medication, but also that the UK is less willing to spend money on the research and the medication itself.

If the UK does not soon change the way they look at and fund medical treatment they will start to greatly fall behind the rest of Europe, if not the world. They no longer can rely on their European Union trading nor their outdated government health care spending to keep them afloat and keep them ahead in terms of research. If they want to have a chance to keep the pharmaceutical companies in the UK they are going to have to make some major changes in their health care system.

Cody is an information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

Volkswagen, one of the European auto giants, admitted to “installing defeat device software in 11 million cars.” These “defeat device software” lets carmakers to change performance settings of the engines before a pollution test. These software would not only switch the performance settings of an engine but also detect when “they were being tested for nitrogen oxide emissions.” The installation of such defeat device rose a huge debate as to whether or not Volkswagen’s “emissions-test trickery” is a violation of European testing rules. The question at hand as described by Paul Willis, top Volkswagen official in Europe, was “whether the software officially constituted a defeat device” under European Union regulations.

The Volkswagen scandal, not only questioned whether Volkswagen is cheating or not, but questioned strongly Europe’s permissive testing practices and the compatibility of American and European auto regulations. This scandal led to Trans-Atlantic trade talks to rapidly increase so the United States and European nations can agree to a mutual auto regulation rules. In Europe “the setting of the engine and of the vehicle’s controls shall be those prescribed by the manufacturer;” making Volkswagen alteration of engine settings not a clear cut violation of European rules. But what makes the debate become such a big issue is that roughly 11 million Volkswagen vehicles carry the software, which about 500,000 are in the United States alone. This can cause Volkswagen to lose billions of dollars despite the penalty enforcements by auto regulators in Europe are very passive and rare.

Volkswagen came out by stating they are “committed [themselves] to fixing the vehicles.” Volkswagen is being comprehensible and trying to fix the issue that they commenced. As stated by Ms. Caudet, “European legislation implies that a vehicle must use the same engine setting during the regulatory emission test and in real driving,” which would make Volkswagen’s actions a violation against European auto regulations. The situations at hand continued to cause tension when the Environmental Protection Agency discovered that Volkswagen used another defeat device in some larger cars and sport utility vehicles that had not previously been implicated” making the cost to fix the issue grow substantially. In the end, the European system is known for its loopholes, for “allowing automakers to test preproduction vehicles that will never be sold” but actions need to be done so auto regulation rules in Europe and the United States, through the Trans-Atlantic agreement, can become more enforced. The “phony system of testing” as described by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, must be improved and by “simply making the road emission tests easier to pass,” is simply not the right step by the European government.

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Wing Sze Yu.

In this article, Facebook intends to appeal a data privacy ruling in Belgium. This privacy ruling forces social media to stop collecting digital information from people who are not its users. There is a tough line about how American technology companies, such as Facebook, gain access to, manage and use people’s information on their website even for the European Court of Justice, as well as the European Union’s highest court. In Monday’s ruling, a court in Brussels states that Facebook has no right to collect person information in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network.

Prior to the data privacy rule, Facebook had collect data from people’s online activities, both Facebook users and non Facebook users through digital cookies. Facebook responds that it had been using digital cookies to collect information without facing complaints, so it would appeal the ruling. Yet, Facebook promised to stop collecting online information from people in Belgium who do not have a social media account.

Wing is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Stephanie Ramos.

Like no other company, Google has revolutionized the way we conduct web searches over the last ten years. However, in the years after it went public, Google’s increasing market dominance was generating both “sky-high profits and unwanted regulatory attention.” In April 2015, the European Union’s antitrust chief formally accused Google of abusing its dominance in web searches, bringing charges that could “limit the giant American tech company’s moneymaking prowess.” This is the first case that antitrust charges have been brought against Google, despite a years long faceoff between the company and regulators in the EU. Most importantly, it “will almost certainly increase pressure on Google to address complaints that the company favors its own products in search results over its rivals’ services.” In addition, a formal antitrust investigation into the company’s Android smartphone software is underway.

Regulators have focused on accusations that Google “diverts traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site.” However, Google has defended its business practices, by stating that “[P]eople can now find and access information in numerous different ways—an allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide of the mark.” In today’s modern world, privacy laws and consumer protection laws have come under intense scrutiny. Big companies, such as Amazon and Facebook, have become subjects of investigations in matters such as low-tax arrangements and protecting people’s online data. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission investigated “antitrust complaints against Google, but closed that inquiry in 2013 without reaching a formal finding of wrongdoing” in the way it arranges its Web search results. In addition, the investigation into Google can increase political tensions between the European Union and the United States.

Antitrust laws are statutes developed to protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring that fair competition exists in an open-market economy. In this case, the EU is accusing Google of abusing its powers by “diverting traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site. This case raises the issues of corporations and ethics. In this case, Google is a big company that generates billions of dollars in revenue. However, whether these revenues are generated through ethical practices is an ongoing question that EU is trying to solve. “Google will have [ten] weeks to make a formal response to the charges.” It “can also request a formal hearing during a procedure that commonly takes a couple of years and often results in companies’ eventually making appeals at the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

Stephanie is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by ZaAsia Thompson-Hunter.

The European Union isn’t happy with Honeywell and DuPont because they believe they are breaking antitrust rules. Honeywell and DuPont are the only two companies that produce the chemical R-1234yf. This chemical is used to produce the only car-coolant that meets the standards on the European Union’s greenhouse-gas emissions. By working together, the European Commission believes that Honeywell and DuPont are limiting the supplies of the coolant sold to other carmakers and furthermore reducing technical development. “The investigation, triggered by French company Arkema SA (AKE), also examined Honeywell’s alleged ‘deceptive conduct’ when the product was endorsed by a car-industry trade group, and whether it charges ‘fair and reasonable’ license fees to rivals who want to produce the product.” This investigation may lead to fines as much as 10% of yearly sales.

DuPont plans to fight against all accusations made by the EU because they feel they have not violated any policies and have been abiding by all the rules and laws that apply. In an e-statement, DuPont says they “will fight this every step of the way, as it has no basis in law or fact.” Additionally, in this ongoing case, Honeywell responded by saying the EU’s allegations were “baseless and conflict with the EU’s own laws that encourage collaboration on development,” according to an e-mailed statement.

ZaAsia Thompson-Hunter is a business administration/psychology major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Sheyenne Hurt-Lewis.

General Motors created millions of vehicles with defective ignition switches. This defect is linked to more than 100 deaths and 200 reported injuries. Many lawsuits have arisen from these defective switches which makes General Motors likely to face a large sum of punitive damages which, “could amount to millions, if not billions of dollars,” as stated by Judge Gerber. Punitive damages are those intended to punish the wrongdoer and deter others from similar wrongdoing. “GM had sought to block plaintiffs, including those suing for personal injury or wrongful death, from making punitive damages claims.” The recent defects ignited numerous other complaints of other GM cars recalled in 2014 that were “equipped with a faulty ignition switch that can slip out of the run position and disable safety features including air bags.” The effects of these defects have resulted in numerous injuries and lost lives.

Robert Hillard is representing nearly 1,500 plaintiffs suing GM for the injuries and deaths that are tied to the defective ignition switch. Hillard is confident that his clients are capable of being awarded the punitive damages they are seeking. GM has already spent $575 million to settle Hillard’s cases but there are still a large number of cases that remain unsettled. In September, GM agreed to pay nearly $900 million to settle a case similar to this. In addition to this payment, they were also forced to pay a $35 million fine for failing to report the defect themselves when they were first made aware of it. The company created a compensation fund of $625 million for victims.

GM attempted to restructure, and split into “New GM” and “Old GM.” Old GM kept all liabilities but agreed to be held responsible for “future product-liability cases involving other vehicles.” Judge Gerber wrote, “New GM may be held responsible, on claims for both compensatory and punitive damages, for its own knowledge and conduct” on the basis that workers were aware of the defective switch and related accident claims. However, it was made clear by Judge Gerber that punitive damages can only be sought against New GM if and only if it’s solely on the basis of the conduct or knowledge of New GM.

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

Posted by Nicholas Rizzi.

Product liability cases are far from straight forward; recently the Sinclair v. Merck & Co., Inc., 195 N.J. 51 (2008) celebrated its ten year anniversary.  Within this complex case, the court misinterpreted the product liability statute, in which it “decided that economic losses were barred by the act and, furthermore, ipse dixit that Consumer Fraud Act claims were likewise barred (Law Journal Editorial Board).

The court decided that the definition of “harm” was to be interpreted as physical injury or damaged property as opposed to being harmed economically.  The main reason this is brought up again, is because the case was being celebrated, when in fact it should be considered for reevaluation.

“The UCC’s warranty claims in non-“harm” cases still stand . . . numerous courts still apply the CFA, notwithstanding Sinclair” (Law Journal Editorial Board).  The courts left no explanation for their decision to define harm as they did, and for this reason, it should be reconsidered.

Overall, I believe that just like in this situation, product liability cases are not clear cut, but especially in this situation, courts should reevaluate cases as times change.  It’s unfortunate for those who may have been excluded from a fair ruling in the past, but it is better to reevaluate and get it correct, than to continue issuing unfair rulings.  People have the right to be protected from product liability, and in order for that to occur, the court should have to elaborate on what caused them to interpret the word “harm” in the way they chose to do.

Nicholas is an undecided major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.    

Posted by Emanuel Sanfilippo.

On Monday the 28^th, Diane Backis, a corporate accountant in New York, admitted to stealing at least $3.1 million from Cargill Inc., an agricultural business giant. In doing so, Backis caused $25 million in losses to Cargill’s grain shipping operations at the Port of Albany according to the Associated Press. Diane Backis pleaded guilty in federal court in Albany to mail fraud and a false income tax return. According to U.S. Attorney Richard Hartunian, Backis diverted customer payments to her own accounts over a 10 year period and caused $25 million in losses to Cargill Inc.

“Backis, 50, was an accounting department manager at Cargill’s Albany grain elevators at the port whose duties included creating customer contracts, generating invoices and processing payments.” Backis admitted in court that she sent customers invoices for animal feed prices much lower than what her employer paid, in doing so, she caused the company millions of dollars in losses in inventory. She tricked consumers into sending the payments directly to her bypassing Cargill’s corporate controls. In an essence, Diane Backis basically used her ability to access inventory and money from Cargill to sell their inventory privately for personal profit.

The Associate Press states how the tax fraud charge refers to Backis’s 2015 individual income tax return on which declared $61,208 in income and omitted more than $450,000 she received that year from stealing Cargill customer payments. In accordance with Backis’s guilty plea, she has to pay $3.5 million in restitution to Cargill and she has to forfeit her house, an investment brokerage account and her pension benefits from Cargill. According to Pete Stoddart, a Cargill spokesperson, Cargill has audited its controls and trading systems and confirmed that it was an isolated incident only affecting that one location and Cargill customers were not adversely affected. Diane Backis faces up to 20 years in prison when she’s sentenced on March 28^th.

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

Posted by Daniel Szatkowski.

According to Chris Bruce in a Bloomberg article dated October 17, 2017, Wells Fargo was found charging costumers fees to lock interest rates on mortgages and other loans made with the bank. The lock rate fees earned by Wells Fargo are up to $98 million in the period of approximately four and half years ending February 2017. Wells Fargo incorrectly claims that their clients are behind and/or missing payments, which would lead to increased interest rates. Instead of increasing the rate, Wells Fargo tells them to pay rate-lock fees to keep the rate where it is.

The manner in which Wells Fargo is charging lock-rate fees is unethical. First of all, many of the Wells Fargo clients were not actually behind on their loan payments. According to Brian Brach and other mortgage applicants, “Wells Fargo employees wrongfully blamed customers for loan processing delays and made them pay fees to maintain a lock on interest rates that might otherwise expire.” The delays were caused by Wells Fargo, which triggered the rate-lock fees; therefore, no fees should have been issued to the clients.

Wells Fargo wanted to unethically increase their profit by charging these rate-lock fees even though they did not apply to the situation. The company’s reputation will drop due to the new unwanted press and the clients are putting Wells Fargo on trial. The first of the reimbursement will be sent out during the final quarter of this year.

Daniel is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

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.