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 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 Wasif Rahman.

Voters in Washington, who have taken on a role to guarantee paid sick leave to those working in the state recently, brought the Paid Sick Leave Act into play. The new law calls for employers to give workers an hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours that they have worked. It also restricts when employers would be able to demand medical documentation from employees. While the new law may seem ideal for those working in the State of Washington, it poses a major problem specifically for airlines and its passengers. The problem was first pointed out by Airlines for America earlier this month.

Requiring airlines to conform to the Paid Sick Leave Act for their flight crewmembers is problematic since they are already subject to employment laws of their home state. This new law would enable those same crewmembers to also take advantage of Washington’s employment laws, including the Paid Sick Leave Act, if they are to pass through the state during their shift. Airlines for America filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington in the U.S. district court and subsequently released a statement noting, “airlines cannot operate their nationwide systems properly if flight crews are subject to the employment laws of every state in which they are based, live, or pass through”[1]. The defendant, the Department of Labor and Industries for the state of Washington, made no remarks on Airlines of America’s statement. Airlines for America suggests that Washington’s law promotes, to some degree, more crewmembers calling in sick as the airlines would have certain limitations to when they would be able to demand medical documentation to verify whether a crewmember is actually sick or not. They claim that if it gets to a point where enough crewmembers are calling in sick, it would lead to flights either being cancelled or delayed since there wouldn’t be enough flight crewmembers to serve the passengers. This would lead to severe disruptions not only at Sea-Tac International Airport in Washington but across all airports through out the country. From the airlines standpoint, it would be detrimental to their business having to tell their customers & passengers that they cannot serve their needs. Airlines also claim this new law violates the constitution.

Ultimately, this law is unfavorable to airlines as their passengers would have to face an increase in cost & time for their travels. On top of that, passengers are not purchasing these tickets for the flights to be cancelled or delayed. This isn’t only a major inconvenience for airliners but also for passengers. As of now, a few of the other airlines that have sued Washington State include JetBlue, United and Southwest.

Source:

[1] http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/airlines-sue-over-new-washington-state-sick-leave-law

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

Posted by Giancarlo Barrera.

First it was Target, Home Depot, and now, JPMorgan Chase.  They are the next victim under cyber attack. Chase is the biggest bank by assets in the US. They are also the dominate bank in New York City, where the majority of banks’ cooperate headquarters are located . “JPMorgan Chase has 65.8 million open credit card accounts, and 31.8 million of those accounts with sales activity, according to its most recent quarterly report. Chase also has 30.1 million checking accounts.”  According to what the FBI has been investigating, names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails were taken, but no passwords and social security numbers

It was reported that the hackers did not receive any money from this cyberattack. “The bank’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said that the company will spend $250 million this year on cybersecurity, but has been losing security employees to other banks with more “expected to leave soon.”

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

The Supreme Court issued an order denying an application to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of a district court’s final judgment enjoining the enforcement of a Texas voting statute. The statute requires voters to produce identification before they vote. Business law students learn about injunctions (in this case, the court’s power to stop a party from acting) as a equitable remedy.

Congressman Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, sued Governor Perry and Texas Secretary of State John Steen in federal court, challenging the enforcement of the voter ID law, named SB 14. Veasey claimed that the law had the potential of preventing hundreds of thousands of people from voting. The strict Texas statute “requires the state’s estimated 13.6 million registered voters to show one of seven kinds of photo identification” before casting their ballot. Defendants responded SB 14 was designed to prevent voter fraud and argued voter ID laws were already approved by the Supreme Court in an Indiana case.

After a hearing, the district court agreed with Veasey that enforcement of the law “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.” The district court determined the strict Texas statute was unconstitutional and enjoined defendants from forcing voters to produce ID. The Fifth Circuit issued a stay of the order, meaning defendants were temporarily permitted to enforce the law. The Supreme Court denied Veasey’s application to vacate the stay pending appeal. Led by Justice Ginsberg, three Justices wrote a scathing dissent (and in a rare circumstance, later corrected) expressing disagreement with the court’s decision not to vacate the stay.

Voting rights are analyzed under strict scrutiny. As of now, voters in Texas must show proper ID before they are allowed to vote in the midterm elections on November 4th.

Posted by Xiaoxie Zheng.

Now, more and more countries are beginning to regulate bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In this essay, I’ll focus on bitcoin. Unlike the French currency, there is no national credit endorsement behind bitcoin, and no guarantee of legal significance. It is implemented by the rules set by a group of people. Here are the main features of bitcoin:

First, there is no intermediary. The bitcoin publishing process is only controlled by the algorithm, and it is very difficult to control the centralizing mechanism.

Second, there is no inflation. Limited by the algorithm, the total supply of bitcoins is controlled and will never exceed 21 million.

Third, there is openness and transparency. Through technology, transactions are transparent and transaction costs are low.

Bitcoin is thoughtful. But the value of bitcoin is far from stable. The price of bitcoin can rise more than 100%, and sometimes it can collapse overnight. On the one hand, when it comes to determining value, it is difficult to do; on the other hand, the holder of bitcoin may be more speculative in his or her investment, which is not the ideal currency circulation function.

The problem with bitcoin is that hackers are a big threat. On June 19, 2011, a security hole in the Mt.Gox bitcoin trading center caused the price of one bitcoin to drop from $15 to a penny. In August 2011, the bitcoin exchange, MyBitcoin, was hacked, and more than 78,000 bitcoins worth $800,000 were missing.

As for the relationship between bitcoin and the economy, it has theoretically eliminated inflation and brought about deflation. In addition, the openness of technology is the intrinsic “spiritual value” of bitcoin, and therefore the competition of a large number of new virtual assets is inevitable. Its homogeneity itself leads to the risk of impairment of value and internal collapse.

Some countries have adopted a strict ban on bitcoin, such as Ecuador and Bolivia. But prohibition is not the best way to handle the matter. Comprehensively denying the authenticity and financial connotation of bitcoin and digital assets will not detract from its significance in financial transactions.

The lack of oversight of bitcoin can pose a significant systemic risk. The chaos of the digital asset floor and the trading platform can bring systemic risks. For example, money laundering is a public safety hazard. As a result, it is difficult to restrain speculation and the financial risks brought by it. Instead, governments cannot strictly regulate it under the current financial legal framework, nor can it effectively protect financial consumers.

The US Congress is right to impose stricter federal regulations on these emerging asset classes.

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

Source:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/us-congress-sets-sights-on-federal-cryptocurrency-rules

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 Connor Lynch. 

An article from The Wall Street Journal titled, “General Motors May Face Punitive Damages Over Ignition Switches” is a perfect example of short-run profit maximization versus long-run profit maximization. As of November 9, General Motors can face punitive damages in several lawsuits regarding defective ignition switches in millions of vehicles. Although those vehicles have all been recalled, the defective part has been linked to more than 100 deaths.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber has linked GM to the deaths and injuries caused by the defective part in millions of their vehicles. After the case has been discussed, “Texas lawyer Robert Hilliard, who represents people suing GM for injuries and deaths tied to the defective ignition switch, called the decision ‘a major win’ for plaintiffs, contending that punitive damages are the only way to properly compensate victims who have been harmed by the defect.” Although it seems as if it was a complete loss for the defendant, a GM spokesperson said the company disputed the statement that the ruling was an utter victory for plaintiffs.

Punitive damages are damages intended to deter the defendants and others from getting involved in conduct that is similar to the actions that formed the basis of the lawsuit. Punitive damages are also used to punish corporations for wrongdoing such as selling defective products. Those defective products usually lead to death/injury which often can lead to large awards from the jury. It is unclear to what the punitive damages of this case will amount to: “Judge Gerber at one point in his ruling suggested GM’s punitive damages exposure could amount to millions, if not billions, of dollars, though any actual exposure will depend on whether legal claims against the company are settled or ultimately successful.”

This is not the first time that General Motors has been involved with a defective product recall resulting in punitive damages. Last year GM agreed to pay $35 million for failing to alert the public about the specific defect in a timely manner. Judge Gerber’s ruling stems from separating the “Old GM” and “New GM” because of the controversial belief that GM has retained liabilities pertaining to their restructuring.

“Old GM” had so many problems at one point that they were forced to restructure and become a new and reformed company. This has resulted in product-liability, “GM, as part of the bankruptcy restructuring, agreed to assume responsibility for future product-liability cases involving older vehicles, or those under the purview of Old GM.” General Motors’ reconstruction has allowed them to avoid several lawsuits because of their “bankruptcy shield.” Judge Gerber has ruled that “New GM” may be held responsible for the recent defective ignition switch that has caused over 100 deaths. Punitive damages may be sought out to the extent of new GM’s knowledge on the subject matter involving the defective ignition switch. Because of all the injuries/deaths, there are over 1,000 plaintiffs represented by Texas attorney, Mr. Hilliard. General Motors seems as if it is doomed to pay more money in punitive damages in addition to the $575 million they have paid recently to settle cases involving defective products.

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

Posted by Claudine Rosca.

Endo International PLC is a generics and pharmaceutical company that delivers medicines to patients in the fields of urology, men’s health, etc. Despite their professionalism, their products allegedly were defective resulting in liability. Product liability is the responsibility that a manufacturer incurs because they sell or create a faulty product. In 2014, Endo “agreed to pay more than $400 milion to resolve lawsuit allegations.”

Their vaginal-mesh implants had eroded in their female patients which cause painful side effects. The devices are used to “support internal organs and treat incontinence,” which is a lack of control over urination or defecation. Officer Rajiv De Silva “said the company way adding $400 million to its $1.2 billion liability reserve for the devices.” The company was blamed for organ damage in women, combining to over 10,000 suits. The issue with the company was their lack of “stricter safety requirements because they are high-risk devices.” As a result of the 2014 issues among companies such as Endo and Johnson & Johnson, the FDA ordered “vaginal-implant makers to study rates of organ damage and complications linked to the devices.”

Following the allegations in 2014, Endo continues to pay millions to resolve the sums of lawsuits against the company’s vaginal-mesh implants. Recently, Endo set aside $755 million for the eroded implants which constitutes almost $2.6 billion that was paid to wipe out cases. Their Dublin-based Endo was shut down after a piling of complaints against their devices. Other previously named companies continue to face thousands of lawsuits from women who argue against their devices. The U.S. FDA continues to increase regulations on mesh inserts but companies continue to manufacture and sell faulty products.

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

Sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-01/endo-said-to-pay-400-million-plus-in-vaginal-mesh-accord

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-07/endo-sets-aside-775-million-to-settle-remaining-mesh-lawsuits

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 Gabrielle Vanadia.

Recently, there has been a lawsuit filed in federal court against three major American corporations for supposedly doing business with the Iraqi government during the Iraq War.  This lawsuit was filed by lawyers from a start-up firm led by Ryan Sparacino and the litigation firm of Kellogg Hansen, on behalf of members of the American military that were killed or injured in attacks during the Iraq War.  General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer are three of the major corporations being accused of providing free drugs and medical devices that funded the Shiite militia.  Other companies accused of contributing are the European drug makers AstraZeneca and Roche Holding A.G. The lawsuit filed provided contracts between these companies and Iraqi government, as well as “leaked diplomatic cables, press accounts, and the testimony of informants.”

The lawsuit claims that the companies knew that the Iraqi health ministry, who they were providing with drugs, had become a terrorist organization.  Upon knowledge of this information, the corporations should have terminated their contracts or changed them to prevent corruption, since it is illegal under United States law to knowingly fund terrorist groups.  However, a Pfizer spokeswoman said that the company “denies any wrongdoing” and that their mission was to “provide medicines to patients to help better their lives;” while Johnson & Johnson has completely declined to comment on this matter.

In my opinion, the actions of these companies are completely unacceptable.  They willingly and knowingly funded a terrorist group that was attacking United States soldiers.  American soldiers were in Iraq to help rebuild and regain the country for the Iraqis after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  However, instead of American companies backing and funding their own troops, they helped the enemy.  The militia group that U.S. soldiers were fighting were commonly referred to as the “Pill Army” because their “fighters were often paid with prescription medicines and used hospitals… as staging areas for death squads.”  Many of these death squads funded by drugs from American companies killed American soldiers.  If I was an employee of one of the accused American corporations I would be embarrassed and ashamed of my company’s actions.

Gabrielle is a public relations major with a business administration minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source:

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 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 Sydney J. Kpundeh.

The famous over the counter drug Tylenol was at the center of a case that was brought before a Pennsylvania federal district court in early November. The case involved a lady who had taken Extra Strength Tylenol for many years to treat various conditions. In Mid-August of 2010, she underwent lumbar laminectomy surgery and afterwards she was instructed by her doctor to take Regular Strength Tylenol in conjunction with Lorcet, a prescription drug containing acetaminophen, but not to exceed 4 grams of acetaminophen in a 24-hour period. For approximately two weeks, she used the Regular Strength Tylenol, as instructed, until the bottle ran out, after which she began using Extra Strength Tylenol. At some point, she stopped taking the Lorcet due to its side effects. On August 29, she unfortunately was diagnosed with acute liver failure and died two days later.

After her passing, her sister filed a products liability lawsuit, “including claims for defective design and negligent failure to warn against McNeil, which manufactures the drug, and Johnson & Johnson, McNeil’s parent company.” Her sister insisted that the defendants knew that Tylenol could cause liver damage when taken at or just above the recommended dose. Also, she claimed defendants were liable for the her sister’s death because they had failed to warn her of the “risks of injury and/or death.” The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the sister had not offered sufficient evidence to support her failure to warn claim.

Under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine, there are two factors that must be shown to find the scope of a manufacturer’s legal duty. The first is that there is some potential danger and the second is that there is a possibility of a different design to avert that danger. In this case, sufficient evidence was presented to show that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Extra Strength Tylenol could cause liver damage. The facts also showed that the manufacturers were working to find a substitute. Finally, the evidence also showed that the plaintiff’s sister died of acetaminophen-induced liver failure after taking Extra Strength Tylenol as directed.

Sydney is a political science major with a minor in legal studies at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Mary Bonatakis.

As the Volkswagen case unwinds it is causing many debates. Volkswagen is currently being charged with selling 11 million diesel vehicles equipped with software to cheat test put in place to limit the emission of gasses that are harmful to our earth. After this information was released over 350 lawsuits have been filed against Volkswagen. With a case this large the first major debate is where this trial should take place. It has been decided that these cases should all be heard in the same location.

The venue of the hearing is a very important part of the case. Many lawyers have different suggestions as to where this case should be heard. Charles S. Zimmerman a lawyer in Minneapolis believes the case should be heard in Detroit because it is considered “Motor City”, Benjamin Galdston, a San Diego lawyer believes the case should take place in Los Angeles because many other Volkswagen lawsuits have taken place there, while Warren Burns, a lawyer in Dallas believes the case should be held in Alexandria Virginia because the carmaker’s United States headquarters is nearby. The final decision as to where the case should take place is still undecided.

Once the location is chosen the judge will appoint the lawyers to represent the plaintiffs. This approach has been used many times in the past in big cases such as in automotive or drug cases. This approach concerns legal scholars because one group of lawyers can dominate the case and the lawyers will benefit more from the case then the clients. “One recent study found that about two dozen firms played leading roles in 10 or more major lawsuits. Five of those firms spearheaded 20 or more” (Meier). Firms like this are considered “repeat players” and have been earning the most money from their fees. Many people believe having firms like these take on the cases will create an unfavorable environment for plaintiffs.

Volkswagen released that they have put aside 7.3 billion dollars to handle the scandal. This money will not only be used to handle these cases, but also actions from regulators and the state attorneys general. In the law suits filed the common argument is that Volkswagen lied to them with false information about the cars performance. The plaintiffs are asking to be reimbursed for the premium prices of the car and to take the cars back. With this much money at stake it is driving lawyers to want to be involved in this case.

Large cases like this are very hard to handle. With over 7 billion dollars on the line lawyers have more room to take use the case to their advantage and make a large profit off their clients. In a Johnson & Johnson case in 2013 involving a flawed artificial hip, any client who chose not to hire their own lawyer and use one appointed by the court were forced to forfeit 29% of their reward to payout the lawyer appointed to them. The payout was approximately 50,000 dollars. Past cases like the Johnson & Johnson case are leading scholars to question the motive behind lawyers to get involved in this case. Everyone involved in this case is working towards making it as fair as possible. Once everything is taken into account with input from scholars the final decisions of the location of the case and the lawyers representing the clients will be chosen, until then the debate and fight to be a part of this case will continue.

Mary is an accounting and information technology major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Jessica Page.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a huge salmonella outbreak traced to peanut butter produced by the Peanut Corporation of America. Nine people died from this incident and 700 were reported ill. The $30 million company was shut down and liquidated after the incident and the CEO, Stewart Parnell, was indicted and prosecuted. In late September, he was sentenced 28 years in prison.

What’s intriguing about this article is the comparison to the GM faulty ignition case. In this particular incident, the defect caused 124 deaths and over 200 injuries. GM has recently settled for $900 million and a three year prosecution agreement. The major difference between the two cases though – indictment of employees. Preet Bharara, one of the best federal prosecutors in Manhattan, explained, “it is unusually difficult to prosecute auto industry executives” and because of the national auto safety laws, there is a call for punishing the corporation as a whole, rather than any one individual.

The main conviction in the salmonella case is the fact that Parnell committed fraud by “knowingly introducing tainted peanut butter paste into interstate commerce.” The fact of the matter is though, there were GM executives who knew about the faulty ignition but failed to report it within the five-day span. The company itself was fined as a corporation for this matter, but there was not specific indictment of GM executives. The real issue at hand is how much harder it is to prosecute auto executives when it comes to cases of product liability. There is currently a bill that many senators are working to pass that would make this process easier and hold executives accountable, if they were knowledgeable of the faulty auto product or provided false statements to consumers, as GM did. This could change future product liability cases within the auto industry and as Senator Blumenthal stated, “one sentence like Parnell’s [within the automotive industry] would change auto safety dramatically and enduringly.”

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

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.