Posted by Joe Zichelli.

The entrepreneurial spirit that was once a driving force in America is under attack due to egregious government overreach and licensing requirements that are putting hard-working and dynamic Americans out of work – even in some cases costing them their livelihood as well as thousands of dollars in fines. Occupational licensing – the need to secure a government permission slip to perform a specific job – is an oppressive force on small businesses and the backs of countless Americans trying to make an honest living. This unconstitutional overreach must be corrected and the government must once again recognize economic liberties as a substantive right and one that cannot changed.

Occupational licensing is a problem that is morally disturbing and a direct impediment to the success of various businesses throughout the United States. Occupational licensing can be summed up as “permission slips” from the government allowing one to work, as defined by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm concerned with defending civil rights from government infringement.[1]   In addition to this simply making it harder to succeed, more often than not, poorer people as well as minorities and immigrants are more adversely impacted as a result of these licensing requirements because they are the ones who are unable to pay for the required education or even the license in order to comply with the laws promulgated by various states. Since they cannot afford the license or education requirements, they are subjected to a fine, imposing another financial burden – and yet another road bump on the path to success.

The number of industries that require licensing is absurd and only growing. These industries include but are not limited to, florists, casket builders, hair braiders, barbers, and eyebrow threaders. In analyzing something like hair braiding or eyebrow threading, many times people emigrate from other countries and work doing the aforementioned tasks as a way to earn an honest living. Quite often the state in which they work requires them to obtain a cosmetology license, even though while attending beauty school the type of braiding or eyebrow threading is not taught. This is a process that can cost thousands of dollars and consume hundreds, if not thousands, of hours. There are countless examples of professions that require licenses as an arbitrary means to protect an industry; the funeral business and florists are two that are frequently impacted as well. [2]

One of the most upsetting cases of occupational licensing happened recently in the bustling city of Memphis, Tennessee. On January 18th, 2017, Elias Zarate was cutting hair in his barber shop when “the barber police” entered and found that the license he had on display was not authentic. Although Zarate believed the license was authentic, the barber police shut his operation down and began legal proceedings against him, simply because he did not possess a piece of paper to cut hair. Eric Boehm, who published the story in an online article, describes the situation that landed Zarate in the barber shop, writing:

Zarate had dropped out of high school. He’d made it to the 12th grade, but he had a failing GPA and spent most of the school day sleeping through classes because he was exhausted from working a series of after-school and weekend jobs. His mother had died when he was just 10 and his father had left the family soon after, leaving Elias and his two younger siblings in the care of relatives. [3]

Because Elias did not complete high school or obtain a GED, under an amended law in 2017, he would be unable to attempt to get a barbering license because he did not complete high school. As frustrating as this is to lovers of liberty and entrepreneurs, Elias was equally frustrated, noting that “I don’t feel like anything in my entire schooling from grade school through senior year had anything to do with my barbering skills”[4]. The truth of the matter is neither Elias nor any other student in any public high school learned the skills necessary to be barber. For Tennessee to require a high school degree in order to obtain a “certificate of registration as a master barber” is an example of the government prohibiting someone from earning an honest living. It is wrong, unjust, and must be changed.

In addition to being inundated with fear from the barber police, Elias was not afforded any legal representation in his hearing before the administrative law judge and was left to fend for himself – much like he was left to do when his mother passed away and his father abandoned the family, – except this time it was to defend his right to earn a living. In addition to the fines, Elias could face a Class A misdemeanor, which could impose a penalty of up to 11 months and 29 days in jail – all for working without a government permission slip.

The Declaration of Independence reminds us of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are rights that cannot be infringed upon – and this is exactly what is happening to Elias. His rights to ensure his own happiness and to secure his own liberty, as well as his right to earn an honest living and provide for his family, are being grossly trampled upon by an overreaching government that has no business or constitutional authority to do so. It is time for a change to licensing requirements and it is imperative for states to get out of the way of small business owners and entrepreneurs. Until these changes are enacted, thousands of people like Elias will face the burden of a government that is anti-business and in favor of arbitrary “protections” that effectively monopolize industries. This is not the American way…
Joe is a political science/pre-law major at the College of Arts and Sciences, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/19/barber-cops-bust-high-school-dropouts

[1] http://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensing/

[2] http://ij.org/report/license-to-work/

[3] http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/19/barber-cops-bust-high-school-dropouts

[4] Ibid.

Posted by Brianna McCoy. 

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

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

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

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

Posted by Dan Mikrut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited:

CBS/AP. “5 Things to Know about the SEC’s Complaint against Elon Musk.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 28 Sept. 2018, www.cbsnews.com/news/5-things-to-know-about-the-secs-complaint-against-elon-musk/.

Henning, Peter J. “What Are the Consequences of Elon Musk’s S.E.C. Criticism?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/dealbook/musk-tesla-twitter.html

Posted by Frank J. Frasco.

For decades upon decades, the debate of women in the workforce had been a strong debate, a once disregarded topic that was controlled and ignored by the patriarchal society that was once America before the 19th amendment. However, with more and more women having full-time, career jobs, there has been a continued struggle for women to be allowed in higher, more official standings within a company no matter the qualifications, which may be equal to or even higher than that of their male competitor.

Well, the state of California has seen enough. Recently, on September 30th, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law that puts the Golden State as the first state to require publicly traded companies to have at least one woman on their board of directors, states NPR reporter Laurel Wamsley. The companies whose official executive headquarters are located in California will need to conform to this demand by the end of next year or face fines of $100,000. Which companies will these effect? The question really should be, which companies won’t these effect? According to last year’s Fortune 500 list, 53 out of the 500 very successful corporations are within the west coast state, which includes powerhouses such as Apple, Alphabet (Google), Disney, HP, Gap, Visa, EBay, just to name a few. According to Wamsley, within the law companies will have a minimum of two female directors if it has five directors on its board, or three women if it has seven directors by the close of 2021. Will these numbers increase if a company has more than seven on an executive profile? Take technology juggernaut Apple for example. Their leadership of eleven members only has two women on the board. So, should Apple be forced to add at least two additional female members to create more equality within an industry that typically comes across as masculine? It will be interesting to see.

State senators Hannah Beth-Jackson and Toni Atkins had enough with unfair, unethical business treatment and were the key sponsors of the bill. And they have facts to justify their frustrations, as television station KQED reports that a quarter of the 445 publicly traded companies in the politically progressive state don’t have a single woman on their boards. The dichotomy is near shocking. Of course, there was backlash, as California’s Chamber of Commerce as well as over twenty-five business groups opposed the bill in their letter to the senate pleading it was “unconstitutional”. However, it was the frightening, plain, old facts again that helped Senators Beth-Jackson and Atkins win their argument. One of them, the fact that only five percent of the companies that are traded on the Standard & Poor’s 500 have female CEOs, brought hesitation to the adversaries.

It is safe to say that this has been a hot topic in recent news outlets, ranging from political shows to obvious business channels such as CNBC. However, what this law, signed by Governor Brown less than a month ago, provides is hope. Hope for women in conservative states such as Mississippi and North Dakota to understand that progress in the workforce is truly happening, and that the 19th amendment will not be the last major amendment to benefit women’s lives.

Frank is a visual and sound media major with a minor in film, business administration minor, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Article:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653318005/california-becomes-1st-state-to-require-women-on-corporate-boards

Posted by Jasmine Lightburn.

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

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

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

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

Article:

Posted by Surya Makkar.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Marisol Ramirez Ugarte.

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

Posted by Aishwarya Rai.

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

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

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

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

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

Article:

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

Posted by Deana Curis. 

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Leigh Ann Rofrano.

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

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

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

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

Article Links:

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

http://www.ticketfeelitigation.com/

Posted by Megan Duffy.

At the end of September, Facebook announced that the personal information of approximately 50 million users was put at risk after its computer network suffered a security breach. Three problems in Facebook’s software appear to be what allowed the hackers to compromise user accounts in the largest breach since the company’s founding 14 years ago. The first two bugs were introduced in a tool designed to offer more privacy for users. The third was introduced in a tool created in July 2017 meant to help users upload birthday videos more easily and compounded the problems created by the first two. The exact time that the attack took place is not clear, but it seems to have been after third bug was introduced. The breach was discovered by the company in the week before it was announced. The company has not been able to determine the exact identity or origin of those responsible, nor if the attack was meant to target particular users. It’s possible that the attackers were able to take control of the user accounts, which would also give them access to the hundreds of other apps that offer logging in with Facebook as a way to use their services. The company is unsure of to what extent the attackers were able to access these third-party accounts. With the announcement, Facebook also said that it had corrected the issues and notified law enforcement officials.

The attack is not the first incident to draw criticism towards Facebook and the way the company handles user data and disinformation spread on the platform. Facebook, along with other social media outlets, was used to push a campaign by Russian operatives to spread false information surrounding the 2016 presidential election. The company was criticized for being slow to respond to what was happening and acknowledge the abuse of the platform. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, testified before a Senate committee last month about the actions being taken to keep the same turn of events from affecting the midterm elections this November. Another instance that drew criticism took place in the past year when it was discovered that Cambridge Analytica, a British analytics firm, gained access to millions of users’ personal information. Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and chief executive officer of Facebook, also testified in a congressional hearing about the company’s role in the breach. The problems with disinformation and security on the social network have led to calls from lawmakers for more regulation on the platform and others like it. An article in the New York Times by Mike Isaac and Sheera Frenkel, entitled “Facebook Security Breach Exposes Accounts of 50 Million Users,” described the criticism, saying, “‘This is another sobering indicator that Congress needs to step up and take action to protect the privacy and security of social media users,’ Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia and one of Facebook’s most vocal critics in Congress, said in a statement.”

Discussion about how the government might become more involved in ensuring privacy and security on social media has also drawn attention to how significant the role the personal information that can be found online can be in society overall. Placing any information on the Internet comes with the inherent risk of somehow being made accessible by others. However, this risk is becoming more prevalent as utilizing the Internet and the platforms it makes available are an ever-growing part of our everyday lives. April Doss, chairwoman of cybersecurity at the law firm Saul Ewing, commented on the effect of social media specifically in the article, saying, “This has really shown us that because today’s digital environment is so complex, a compromise on a single platform – especially one as popular and widely reaching as Facebook – can have consequences that are much more far-reaching than what we can tell in early days of the investigation.” According to the same article, “‘Breaches don’t just violate our privacy. They create enormous risks for our economy and national security,’ Rohit Chopra, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, said in a statement. ‘The cost of inaction is growing, and we need answers.’”

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

Works Cited: Isaac, Mike, and Sheera Frenkel. “Facebook Security Breach Exposes Accounts of 50 Million Users.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Sept. 2018,

www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-data-breach.html.

Distractions can cause auto accidents and smartphones have been identified as one.  Many states have laws that limit the use of smartphones while driving. Lawyers generally do not pursue distraction cases if there is evidence of some other cause, such as speeding or reckless driving.

There has been an increase in motor vehicle fatalities across the country and they include those involving pedestrians and bicyclists. The studies, however, do not seem to attribute the increases to speeding or driving under the influence.

Many speculate smartphone use is a major cause of the spike in fatalities, but none of the studies show any causal connection. Part of the difficulty in collecting data lies in the reporting forms used by police.  “Only 11 states use reporting forms that contain a field for police to tick-off mobile-phone distraction, while 27 have a space to note distraction in general as a potential cause of the accident.”

In Torts, we discuss defamation and the strict limitations surrounding public figures when pursuing claims against people who say things that hurt their good reputation. Bill O’Reilly, a former prominent news commentator, filed a $5 million-dollar lawsuit against a former politician who posted statements on Facebook regarding his former girlfriend’s treatment by Fox News after she made harassment accusations.

The complaint states: “‘Plaintiff [O’Reilly] seeks damages for the public hatred, ridicule, disgrace, and permanent harm to his professional and personal reputations as a result of Defendant Panter’s publication of knowingly defamatory statements about Plaintiff, which were made with actual malice, as well as Defendant Panter’s intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Plaintiff.’”

Claims made by public figures are difficult, but not impossible, to prove because they require a showing of malice.  Here, the complaint alleges defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The United States Supreme Court dismissed cases involving President Trump’s executive order blocking people traveling to the United States from certain countries. A September order replaced the March order expanding the restrictions. Since the March order expired, the cases pending before the High Court were moot.

The Supreme Court also vacated the underlying Ninth Circuit opinion blocking the order.  The effect is now there is no precedent, which the district court in Hawaii relied upon to block the September order. The Justice Department will be asking the district court to revisit his ruling now that the Supreme Court has acted.

Posted by Divina Tanamal.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Connor O’Reilly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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 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 Noah Stanton.

On the 16th of October, the Supreme Court has made the decision to proceed on the dispute between government authorities and technology companies like Microsoft, who are being forced to give emails and other digital information “sought in criminal probes but stored outside the U.S.” According to the article, justices intervened in a case of federal drug trafficking investigation where they needed emails that Microsoft had on its servers but were beyond the search warrant being that the servers are in Ireland. The Supreme Court decision is impeding investigations, according to the Trump Administration and 33 states. Cases regarding terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud and child pornography are all being delayed because courts are waiting on the ruling regarding obtaining information that is kept abroad.

This case is among many that tech companies like Microsoft about digital privacy that might relate to crime and extremism. This Supreme Court case is an example of finding the balance between older laws and recent technological developments. Microsoft is saying, “Congress needs to bring the law into the age of cloud computing” where most information is not held in the jurisdiction of current law. Back in 2013, a warrant issued to obtain emails pertaining information about illegal drug transactions. Microsoft cooperated but went to court at the time because the emails held at servers overseas were not handed over.

A Justice Department lawyer stated Microsoft can retrieve emails stored domestically or not with a single click of a button. The simplicity of the action does not change the boundaries the warrant has though. All of these troubles relate back to the 1986 Stored Communications Act, which has minimal use when information is held overseas. The article states, “The current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud.”

The president of Microsoft said Congress needs to act by passing new legislation. This would help put an end to the numerous legal actions that take place about officials trying to obtain private information from U.S. based tech companies because they keep servers around the world. The court is expected to confront the issue of emails from an American citizen or foreigner and where they reside. The Supreme Court Case will take place early next year.

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

Posted by Charles Bond.

My article is about the people who feed millions of Americans, farmers. Specifically, a ruling the USDA first tried to implement, but then decided to rescind. This ruling would have offered more protection for farmers who raise cows, pigs, and chickens for the largest meat producers in the United States. The USDA’s plan would have made it easier for farmers to sue those meat producers they are in contract with for unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practices. This was a policy that was set to be enacted at the end of the Obama Administration but was put on hold until the Trump Administration took over; the USDA under the new administration decided to drop it. “Currently, several court rulings have interpreted federal law as saying a farmer must prove a company’s action harm competition in the entire industry before a lawsuit can move forward.” The farmer’s cannot just say they believe a company is aiming to cause harm; they must prove the company said this was their intent.  Passing the new rule would ease the burden of finding proof.

This new rule would have been extremely beneficial for chicken and pork farmers. “Chicken and pork producers must enter long-term contracts with companies like Tyson Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride that farmers allege lock them into deals that fix their compensation at unprofitably low levels and forces them deeply into debt.” Farmers are unaware of the repercussions of these deals until it is too late to do anything about them. The National Chicken Council President was strongly against this rule and thought the rule would have “opened the floodgates to frivolous and costly litigation.” Politicians are split on the ruling. Senator Pat Roberts was pleased with the rule being dropped stating, “It demonstrates the Trump administration’s commitment to promoting economic prosperity and reducing regulatory burdens in rural America.” Meanwhile Senator Charles Grassley criticized the rule being shot down saying ,“The USDA is the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the U.S. Department of Big Agribusiness.”

This is a complicated issue, with reasonable arguments on both sides. However, it seems unreasonable not to have this rule. It is proven that meat producers exploit farmers across the board just so they can maximize profit and keep the farmers reliant on them for business. An argument made against the rule was that it opens the floodgate for farmers to bring cases against the companies, whether they have sufficient evidence or not. If the companies really were doing no wrong than they would not care because the cases would always go there way and secondly the ruling is only being implemented because so many farmers are claiming the companies are doing wrong and they have means to bring them to court. It really is a dicey issue, but ultimately the farmers should be allowed to take the companies court and have the law settle the disagreement.

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

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/10/18/us/ap-us-farm-rules.html

Posted by Mike Elwell.

A recent article written by David Pitt discusses a law regarding the protection of animal farmers, was recently withdrawn by the US agency after being delayed six months by President Trump. The reason for this rule being instated was so that farmers would have an easier time suing companies that were unfair, this was called “The Farmer Fair Practice Rule”.  Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa farmer, claimed that the reason for the cancellation of the law was that “They’re just pandering to big corporations. They aren’t interested in the family farmer.” This was one of the many criticisms regarding the Trump administration.

Many other farmers or those in power in such agricultural based department’s claim that Trump administration is “opening the floodgates to frivolous and costly litigation”. While some other claim that the Obama administration ignored this up until the very end and the rule possibly couldn’t help farmers to the degree initially thought. However many farmers still believe that this rule could help and that Trump is allowing foreign interest to control the growth of American farmers. Many farmers are having troubles with Trump’s administration because they believed he more focused on the wealthy of America and not the farmers who provide produce domestically.

It seems that Trump is turning his attention away from domestic farms and allowing companies to take advantage of otherwise struggling farmers. Part of my family owns a cow farm in upstate New York and they often struggle with big companies because they either expect more out of the farm than is physically possible or they try to often make things cheaper since they are buying in large amounts. Big companies often try to take advantage of the little guy and without proper regulation can lead to the downfall of one of the backbones of America.

Michael is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

IKEA, the popular low-cost furniture manufacturer, recalled 27 million “Malm” dressers.   Three children were recently killed as a result of the defect in design.

The company was on notice of the tendency of the furniture to be top-heavy, but did nothing to address the issue until the death of a 22-month-old child earlier this year.  In addition to the recall, the company offered to send crews to people’s homes to tether the dresser to the wall.

“On average, one child dies every two weeks from falling TVs or furniture. At least six deaths have been connected to Ikea’s Malm dresser.”

Posted by Azhanae Evely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Kesha Patel.

In 2012, four employees of tech giant Apple filed a lawsuit against their employer in San Diego. Apple allegedly failed to give their employees proper meal and rest breaks in addition to not paying them in a timely manner. In 2013, the case became a class action lawsuit that included about 21,000 employees who had worked at Apple between 2007 and 2012.

California law states that any employee that works for five hours or more must get a thirty-minute meal break; any employee that works for four hours is required to get a 10 minute rest break.

Jeffrey Hogue, an attorney representing the class action said the $2 million verdict had came but Apple could owe more. Although Apple made scheduling changes in 2012, the aura of secrecy keeps its employees from discussing the company’s working conditions.

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

Posted by Michael Cappelluti.

It is no surprise that our society is on the brink of a technological revolution. It is projected that “65% of elementary school students will hold jobs that do not exist yet when they enter the workforce” (Frank Diana). By 2029, Ray Kurzweil predicts we will have technology that will allow us to live forever. While these technologies may benefit us, our society will be forced to react to these changes. Ethics and law will be crucial in making these reactions a reality. A more pressing issue, though, is the introduction of autonomous vehicles on the road. The article, “Law & the Problem of Autonomous Cars” by Nicholas Stringfellow, offers a legal perspective on the implications of this new technology.

Autonomous vehicles will disrupt many aspects of law, but the article starts off by discussing statutory law. Stringfellow believes that the state and federal levels of government will have to create a body of law about self driving cars—specifically about what happens when the “autopilot system” fails and the passengers are forced to disengage the autopilot and take control. Four states currently have a statutory law for autonomous vehicles, but they differ in some ways. Some states require a person to sit in the driver’s seat in case something were to go wrong, whereas some are more lax about an “emergency driver.” A huge ethical issue will be whether the car is programmed to defend the passengers at all cost, or, from a utilitarian standpoint, make whatever decision will save the most lives in the scenario.

The article also goes on to discuss Tort law, specifically, products liability law. “Injured persons could bring manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, or breach of warranty claims [to a court]” in the instance of an accident (Stringfellow). Courts will be forced to respond by “adopting a negligence standard, a strict liability standard, or by refusing to impose liability on carmakers.” Essentially, if a car is programmed to protect the most amount of lives in a situation—what happens? For example, if a car spins out of control onto the sidewalk to avoid a fatal accident pile-up on the road ahead, will the pedestrians killed by the disoriented car be able to file a law suit? These questions are unknown, at this point. This topic will be heavily discussed by futurists, ethical analysists, and lawyers in the near future—and this will pave way to the future of how we transport ourselves as human beings.

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

Posted by Brennan Smith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

(Article)

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

(Article)

Posted by Carlos R. Rodriguez.

The article “Ex-U.S. Tax Court Judge, Husband Indicted in Tax Case” written by The Associated Press mainly discusses the topic of how a former U.S. Tax Court Judge, Diane Kroupa and her husband, Robert Fackler have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax evasion, making and subscribing false tax returns and obstruction of an IRS audit, U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger announced. The charges were brought in Minnesota and allege that the couple conspired to evade at least 400,000 dollars in federal taxes. In a statement, U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger stated that “Tax laws apply to everyone, and those of us appointed to federal positions must hold ourselves to an even higher standard.”

Diane Kroupa was served as a tax court judge by then-president George W. Bush in 2003 and retired in 2014. The charges brought on her and her husband allege that between 2004 and 2010, the couple understated their taxable income by about $1 million and they owe at least $400,000 in taxes. Also, federal prosecutors accuse Kroupa and Fackler of fraudulently deducting at least $500,000 of personal expenses they listed as expenses at Fackler’s consulting firm, and another $450,000 in purported business costs for which clients had reimbursed Fackler, the Star Tribune reported. Kroupa also failed to report about $44,520 that she received from the sale of land in 2010 in South Dakota instead of claiming it as an unrelated inheritance which was stated in the court documents.

In my opinion, as a Tax Court judge, Diane Kroupa should be held to a higher standard of ethics. Also, any tax cases for which she was present should be investigated because Diane’s judgment is clearly out of line if she is found guilty for these charges. Given her comprehensive understanding of tax laws, it should be obvious to her that reporting personal expenses as business expenses is a way to defraud the IRS and it was done intentionally in order to evade taxes. Going forward, a solution to an issue of this nature should be that government officials should be checked for things like tax evasion more often because if their moral judgment is incorrect, their decisions can be detrimental to the country as a whole.

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

The regulatory process and its role in the legal system is a fundamental concept in business law. Federal, state and local governments received the authority to regulate activities from Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 also referred to as the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause dictates the enumerated powers of Congress in professional and private settings.

The regulatory process is performed by administrative agencies. Some commonly recognized administrative agencies are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The recent GlaxoSmithKline bribery scandal focused on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative agency. The mission of the SEC is to “protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.” (Securities Exchange Commission)

The SEC recently alleged that GlaxoSmithKline’s Chinese subsidiary had engaged in bribery activity for four years, 2010 to 2013. The SEC accused GlaxoSmithKline subsidiary of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. According to the SEC, GlaxoSmithKline’s subsidiary had been providing foreign officials and health-care professionals with gifts incongruous to the law. These gifts included shopping trips, cash, travel, entertainment, etc. for the purpose of boosting sales. Further, the SEC suspected that GlaxoSmithKline’s subsidiary deceptively recorded these payments as expenses. The bribery scandal investigation eventually captured the attention of a second agency, the U.S. Department of Justice.

GlaxoSmithKline has not admitted nor denied these bribery charges, but has agreed to pay $20 million to settle the matter. Nonetheless, this is not GlaxoSmithKline’s first bribery settlement. In 2014, the company paid $491.5 million and several managers were convicted with charges and suspended imprisonment for a similar matter. Since the 2014 bribery controversy, GlaxoSmithKline stated it “installed several reforms, including shifts to the compensation of sales representatives and the end of payments to health-care practitioners for advocating for Glaxo products to other prescribers.” (Minaya)

My opinion on the matter is that GlaxoSmithKline was rightfully accused by the SEC and DOJ, specifically for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Act has a firm anti-bribery provision that GlaxoSmithKline and its Chinese subsidiary had a legal and ethical responsibility to follow. The fact that GlaxoSmithKline and its subsidiary’s records were not a true representation of its payments is a clear piece of evidence suspecting its violation. In addition, having read the SEC order and learned that GlaxoSmithKline had engaged in this activity before, I believe that the company and the subsidiary did participate in bribery.

Melissa is a marketing major with dual minors in public relations and legal studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Joseph Locorriere. 

The fundamentals of business, something that America has practiced for decades and which was proven to be the correct way of managing a business, include running an ethical business, such as taking proper care and recognition of employees and customers as well as the surrounding environment. However, as America continues to stray farther from these values, businesses continue to find themselves in situations which is tantamount to malpractice. It is no longer as common to see businesses acting ethically as it was like years in the past, mainly due to short run profit maximization. Morgan Stanley, one of the top banks in the country has once again acted unethically towards customers. Like many instances, this business was focused on volume of sales and not ethics, also considered short-run profit maximization, due to the sole fact of making as much money as possible without concern of the public good.

Similar to the 2008 occurrence of selling faulty loans such as NINA loans (No Income, No Asset) or sub-prime mortgages that intentionally fooled the buyer into thinking they would afford their mortgage, Morgan Stanley sold Security Based Loans (SBLs) to customers, allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty. Brokers were incentivized by a $5,000 bonus for meeting loan quotas, which was intended for boosting the companies’ volume of sales. By incentivizing the employees with a bonus they disregarded customers overall satisfaction; instead they focused primarily on volume. Although Morgan Stanley boosted their profits by $24 million in new loan balances, they are being taken to a court of law for business malpractice. Morgan Stanley states that, “The securities-based loan accounts were opened only after discussing the product with each client and obtaining their affirmative consent” (Zacks.com). Although this may stand true, it still violated Morgan Stanley’s fiduciary duty to customers of informing them of their investment.

It is unfortunate to see businesses continue to perform unethically towards customers, as well as employees. Longevity, reputation and long-run profit maximization are no longer commonly displayed. Morgan Stanley in this case should have stayed with giving a bonus, but should have not forgotten about the fundamental values they hold as a broker, which is to inform clients on investments, whether it be positive or negative news. Sadly enough, this is another example of America’s current business strategy that fails to be aware of the public good.

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

Posted by 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 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 Ethan James.

There was a chemical spill into the Elk River, two years ago, that came from a storage tank owned by Freedom Industries. This spill caused a temporary shutdown of businesses within the region around the river, as well as many residents of the Charleston area needing to go to the emergency room with symptoms of rashes and nausea. The damages caused by the chemical spill hurt the local economy and people, so a class-action lawsuit was ensued.

The lawsuit was against Eastman Chemical and West Virginia American Water Co., as through the actions of both companies lead to damages against the people of the Charleston area. “The suit alleged the water company was unprepared for the spill and that Eastman Chemical didn’t advise Freedom of the dangers of the coal-cleaning agent,”(Michael Virtanen). There is a fear that Eastman did not properly warn the water company of the damage to others or how to properly contain it. In addition, the water company was said to be “unprepared for the spill”(Michael Virtanen), in both the damages that were inflicted on the tanks and how to proceed with the consequences of the spill.

The U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver approved a $151 million dollar settlement that involved both companies, splitting the settlement. West Virginia American Water Co. is going to pay $126 million, while Eastman Chemical will proceed to pay $25 million. “The money will be distributed to affected residents and businesses through an application process to be determined later,”(The Associated Press). There has been an update to proceedings within the water company in order to avoid a repeat of the damages that occurred, while the chemical company has placed new regulations on inspections in order to better advise companies of their products.

Ethan is a management, finance, and ITM Majors and legal studies minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Patrick Cleaver.

Every law is made to help the public, to protect the safety of the driver, and deliver a reliable car. The car industry knows they make mistakes and are responsible for fixing the damages for free when such mistakes occur and cars get recalled. However, does a used owner know that he/she is able to get his/her car fixed for free once it had been recalled? Most people do not know that a dealer will fix the car for free after it has been recalled, so the damages are never fixed. The car, marked as dangerous, is instead sold at auctions and then sold again without ever being properly taken care off. While this may end up with nobody getting hurt, doing leaves a huge risk at the buyer’s expense.

Delia Robles was one of the unfortunate people who had been taken advantage of by this system and it ended up costing her much more than she bargained for, getting killed by a defective airbag. Ms. Robles was driving a 2001 Honda Civic on her day off from work when she hit a pickup truck. An accident that would normally end with her walking away unscathed turned into her death bed. The car she was driving has been sold five times over a fourteen-year span and was most recently bought by her son who had no idea that the car was not safe. The information which had not been released to him is that the car was never fixed after it had been recalled for problems with its airbags.

The car was equipped with Takata airbags which “have been linked to 15 deaths.” The airbags were not safe due to being made out of product that wore out over time. That meant that the airbag was a time bomb waiting to explode and Ms. Robles is the one who triggered it. When hitting the truck the Honda had released its airbags which burst and sent metal pieces flying at and killing Ms. Robles.

The issue at hand is that there are no safeguards which prevent deaths like these from occurring. The previous owner is not reliable for not fixing the car like a dealership would be had this happened to a new car. That owner is also not responsible for informing the new owner of the risks they are taking by buying the car. The auction simply sells the car “as is” and does not say whether or not the car is safe to buy.

While there are no federal laws protecting the consumer of accidents in used cars, there are state laws which are implemented in order to keep people safe. According to the New York State law, a seller is not allowed to conceal a material defect because that is a fraudulent action. Also, the New York State auctions are not allowed to sell vehicles “as is” unless they are government agencies. This is a step forward towards the right (safe) way, but does not fix the problem because the Department of Finance takes advantage of it. This department still allows clear negligence by huge companies which can lead to more incidents like the one Ms. Robles experienced. CarMax is a great example of this problem. “CarMax, one of the country’s largest used-car dealers, advertise that their vehicles pass rigorous safety tests – even if the cars have unrepaired problems for which recalls have been issued.” These companies are basically misleading the customers, making people believe that their cars are safe when in reality they could be death traps.

No malice can be proven in the case of Ms. Robles since it has had so many past owners and neither her son, nor the owner before him were aware of the recall on the Honda. Unfortunately, Ms. Robles was a victim of a broken system and now the 50 year old will never get to see her three grandchildren grow up.

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

Posted by Adam Kutarnia.

People have been betting on sports for centuries, however, the multi-billion dollar industry is illegal in almost all parts of the United States except for four states – Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana. Last summer, 29 men were arrested in New Jersey for running a sports betting ring that grossed approximately to $3 million during a 12-month period. New Jersey is one of the many states where sports gambling is illegal, but many are fighting to change the law.

While most of the world allows sports gambling, the United States has been strict about it since passing the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which prohibits sports gambling nationwide, excluding a few states. New Jersey has been pushing hard to legalize sports gambling in the last couple years, but has been unsuccessful due to four major professional sports leagues – NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL and NCAA blocking it.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christe has been a strong supporter of legalizing sports gambling in New Jersey, and even signed a law passed by the state legislatures to allow sports gambling in New Jersey’s casinos and racetracks, before the major professional leagues and NCAA blocked it. The plaintiffs argue that sports betting would harm the integrity of sports and violate federal law. As of right now, New Jersey is losing millions of dollars in potential revenue to offshore and organized crime.

New Jersey will get another shot at their case after a federal court hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals took place last month; a ruling in the case will be made on June 26.

Like the case above with the 29 men being arrested for running a sports betting ring, people want to bet on games and will do so whether it’s legal or not.

Adam is a business administration major with a concentration in finance at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

A police officer in New Jersey is accused of witness tampering and official misconduct. The State claims the officer tried to contact a state trooper and convince him not to appear in court on DUI charges against his cousin.

The prosecutor seeks to introduce as a “prior bad act” an incident where the officer tried to intervene on a DUI charge against his uncle. The State’s key witness is a former municipal prosecutor who claims he was in a private meeting with the arresting officers when defendant tried to get his “attention” in the matter. The arresting officers indicated the arrestee was defendant’s uncle. The prosecutor allegedly exclaimed, “You should know better than this, ” and then later had the case transferred to another court. The officer’s lawyer argued to the court, “My guy said nothing. It’s unfair to conclude he was there to interject himself badly. That’s speculation.” He further argued that his client could have entered the room to talk about two other cases in which he was involved at the time. The officer was never charged with any misconduct.

That fact was argued to the the judge.  Because he was never charged, the attorney argued, to allow a jury to hear about it would be “‘very prejudicial . . . You’re asking me to try two cases in front of the jury at the same time.’”

The court questioned the prosecutor extensively as to why he was never charged, but the prosecutor contended the State could not prove the incident beyond a reasonable doubt.  However, the standard, the prosecutor argued, for prior bad acts was a “‘lower standard.’” The standard is clear and convincing evidence, and court inquired how was the evidence clear and convincing when the municipal prosecutor stated the officer did not say anything to him. The prosecutor, however, maintained that the officer made several calls to the processing room and “‘showed interest’” when his uncle was being booked. The judge indicated there was nothing in police department’s policy that prohibited an officer to inquire about the status of a family member.

The State has an uphill battle. It appears they have at least a preponderance of the evidence that the officer did anything to influence the municipal prosecutor but may fall short of the required clear and convincing evidence. Just showing up in a room without saying anything shifts the focus on the arresting officer’s statement to the municipal prosecutor that the arrestee was his uncle and the municipal prosecutor’s assumption that simply by his very presence he was there to influence him not to prosecute his uncle. This may not be enough to get over the hurdle.

New Jersey Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides, in material part, that:

evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the disposition of a person in order to show that such person acted in conformity therewith. Such evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue in dispute.

The rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).  N.J.R.E. 404(b) exists primarily “to guard a defendant’s right to a fair trial by avoiding the danger that a jury might convict the accused because the jurors perceive him to be a bad person.” New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. I.H.C., 415 N.J.Super. 551, 571 (App. Div. 2010).

The federal advisory committee notes state: “No mechanical solution is offered,” and deciding whether to admit evidence of other crimes depends on “whether the danger of undue prejudice outweighs the probative value of the evidence in view of the availability of other means of proof and other factors appropriate for making decisions of this kind under Rule 403.”

Under State v. Cofield, the prosecution must satisfy a four-prong test before evidence of a prior bad act can be admitted:

1. The evidence of the other crime must be admissible as relevant to a material issue;

2. It must be similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged;

3. The evidence of the other crime must be clear and convincing; and

4. The probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice.

127 N.J. 328 (1992).

In State v. Collier, the appellate division upheld the trial court’s decision to permit testimony about a prior incident involving animal cruelty in order to show the defendant had a motive to rob and shoot the victim, because the defendant knew the victim told the police that defendant was involved in the animal cruelty incident. 316 N.J.Super. 181, 196 (App. Div. 1998).  The fact that both acts were dissimilar is not dispositive as to admissibility. Id. at 194.

In the present case, the State has to show that there was some motive by the defendant to contact the state trooper to stop him from testifying based on his prior act of entering a room when his uncle’s DUI was being discussed by the arresting officers and the municipal prosecutor. That appears to show more a pattern of behavior than motive as required by the rule. And whether or not it amounts to clear and convincing evidence of motive remains to be seen.

Posted by Keith Cleary.

A lawsuit has erupted between Exxon Mobile and the state of New Jersey, particularly two industrial sites in New Jersey, Union and Hudson counties, according to the New York Times (Sullivan). The lawsuit, “which has been filed in 2004 and litigated by four administrations, is a $8.9 billion dollar lawsuit.” (Sullivan). The lawsuit is about the contamination that Exxon left on the marshes and forestland, and New Jersey is willing to pay $250 million dollars to clean up the 1,500 acres of petroleum contaminated fields. The $250 million dollars that Exxon offered to pay is not nearly enough to pay the amount it would actually take to clean the fields.

The amount that Exxon offered to clean up the fields, “infuriated environmentalists and a state lawmaker, after experts determined that it would cost billions to clean up the properties in northern New Jersey.” (Sullivan). In particular, the areas that the lawsuit covers are the facilities of the Bayonne and the Bayway sites, where surprisingly, the use of chemical production and petroleum refining goes back to a hundred years. Those years of spills also contributed to the contamination of the lands. “A report compiled for the state by Stratus Consulting of Colorado determined that it would take $2.5 billion to clean the site up, and an additional $6.4 billion to restore enough wetland and forestland.” (Sullivan).

Many people are questioning why the state decided to settle for such a low amount of money. Debbie Mans, head of NY/NJ Baykeeper, said, “I think it’s criminal to settle so low.” (Sullivan). Settling an almost $9 billion dollar lawsuit with $250 million is by far criminal. It is like paying $500 dollars for a $250,000 Ferrari. However, along with making the state accountable for the cleanup of the area, they were trying to “reimburse taxpayers for the years of lost use—the same way a victim of a car accident can seek lost employment wages from the responsible driver.” (Sullivan). So, not only are they trying to make up for the damages but also lost time.

There was also speculation about donations made from Exxon to the Republican Governor’s Association while Christie was chairman of the organization. “The Exxon Mobile Corporation contributed more the $500,00 to the association in 2014 during Christie’s tenure, and $200,00 in 2013.” (Sullivan). Even though all of these contributions were made, apparently none of it had anything to do with Christie being chairman. With the small settlement, it was called into question what it would be used for. Prior to this, Christie’s administration used $130 million of a $190 million settlement with a Passaic River polluter to the state’s general fund.

Keith is a business law student at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Rizzlyn Melo.

The car-manufacturing company, Tesla, has been battling with New Jersey government officials for the right to sell their premium electric cars in the state. Tesla differs from other car-manufacturers because they sell their vehicles directly from small, independently-owned sites instead of large dealerships. Many of Tesla’s facilities are actually located in various malls in New Jersey. The issue with this practice is that under New Jersey law, cars can only be sold through registered dealerships. In the article, this legislation “was put into place at a time when small local dealers were perceived as vulnerable to the moves of major national manufacturers.” Because of Tesla, this law has been targeted and challenged by various carmakers and consumer-rights groups. Fortunately, it can be said that their efforts have not gone in vain. In March, Governor Chris Christie signed new legislation that allows Tesla to operate at four sites in New Jersey. Shortly after this was signed, New Jersey lawmakers approved an amendment granting zero emission car manufacturers the right to operate dealerships in the state.

Tesla’s success story in New Jersey shows that the market is modernizing. Legislation that was once effective in the past can actually be disadvantageous in the present day. While the law requiring sales through registered dealerships was once helpful to small businesses, it prevented a company from potentially helping the environment. Tesla only produces zero-emission, luxury cars. They are a company seeking to reduce society’s carbon footprint by introducing a sleek, fashionable car to the market that does not require gas. The government’s initial refusal to allow this company to conduct its business in New Jersey made legislators look like they would sacrifice an environmental advancement for the sake of large dealerships. Tesla’s win in New Jersey represents more than the right to sell cars; it is a win for the evolving market that is in need of environmentally friendly products.

Rizzlyn is a business administration major with a concentration in marketing at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Rizzlyn Melo.

The practice of corruption in any company hurts every single person involved. This is certainly the case with Petrobras, a Brazilian state-run oil company. The corruption that has been associated within the large company has caused it exponential damages and has tarnished the reputations of both business executives and political figures. In the BBC article, it was reported that the company suffered an “overall loss of $7.2 billion” and an impairment charge of $14.8 billion that reflects the decreased value of its assets. These figures represent the first losses the company has suffered in decades.

The unfortunate circumstances Petrobras is currently facing are the results of various criminal activities. One of the most scandalous discoveries made against Petrobras is its members’ involvement in bribery. Bribery can be defined as the unlawful offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government or public official. Various government officials have been linked to these bribery allegations. Even Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, has endured scrutiny for her alleged involvement. Rousseff was a board member of Petrobras during the time of the illegal activity. Thousands of Brazilian people have protested against their elected president. Later, however, an attorney general of any charges exonerated Rousseff. Another form of corruption Petrobras has been accused of is money laundering, which is the concealment of the origins of money obtained illegally. In this case, money laundering was employed to hide bribes as well as several illegal donations made to political parties.

At least forty politicians are currently under investigation. That number does not even include the numerous business executives that have lost their positions. The criminal activities of this one company have ruined countless lives and has shaken an entire nation. The corruption in Petrobras demonstrates how important business law is in keeping companies such as this in check. Petrobras has lost more trust than profit, and that is something it cannot easily make up.

Rizzlyn is a business administration major with a concentration in marketing at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Tommy Donofrio.

Every motor vehicle must display a license plate signifying that it has been properly registered with the appropriate state or local government. Symbols, colors, or slogans representing the cultural heritage of each state are typically included in the license plate design of each state or jurisdiction. Upon registration, a unique alphanumeric identifying number is assigned to the user. Sometimes, individuals, businesses or organizations remit additional fees to be able to display custom or personalized license plates. These plates, which may help raise awareness and funds for specific causes or groups, must adhere to particular guidelines. That is, perhaps, until now. Recently, the Supreme Court was called on to decide if the “decision to exclude the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) from the specialty license plate program violated the organization’s free speech rights under the First Amendment.”

Not surprisingly, this is the first time the Supreme Court is called on to clarify the law surrounding specialty license plates. The Supreme Court will determine if a message on a specialty plate is considered to be a form of “private” or “government” speech. If it is private, then the First Amendment protects the message. For the Sons of Confederate Veterans, this means that they have the right to display the confederate battle flag to “honor the reputation of soldiers who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War” even though the state of Texas finds this message racist and offensive. Conversely, if the Supreme Courts determines that specialty plates are a form of government speech, as Texas officials claim, then the state “is allowed to select the message that it is willing to publicly support.” The Sons of Confederate Veterans will not be able to freely express their message.

Although it may seem a trivial issue, it has far reaching ramifications. The Supreme Court’s decision is important because it will influence every state and local jurisdiction going forward. According to Richard W. Garnett of Notre Dame Law School, the ruling will effect “all of the many, many ways that government property and funds facilitate expression and communication.” If the court sides with the state, both individuals and businesses may be hindered from raising awareness and revenue through the use of personalized plates in the future. A decision is expected by early summer.

Tommy is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by Jenna Pizzi, on March 02, 2015, argues whether or not a union of New Jersey business groups should be mandated to provide paid sick leave to its employees in Trenton. As of now, seven New Jersey municipalities possess a local paid sick leave law. A lawsuit was filed in state court on behalf of these New Jersey business groups on Monday, March 2nd. They claimed that the new law was unconstitutional. As stated by the business groups, “The ordinance allows the city to reach outside its given powers by forcing requirements on employers.” They also asked that the law be banned from taking effect within the upcoming week.

The reasoning behind this possible injunction is that business groups feel the new law tries to reach outside the boundaries of Trenton. As stated per the lawsuit, “The law as written seeks to reach outside the city boundaries to impose the law on business owners that are not located in Trenton but have employees that work here.” The business group’s attorney, Christopher Gibson, also argued, “Trenton’s mandatory paid sick leave ordinance is vague, ambiguous and . . . impossible to interpret, administer or implement.”

Although New Jersey business groups make valid points, the new ordinance faces great controversy as a vast number of voters approved it earlier on in November of 2014. Trenton spokesman, Michael Walker, even went on to say, “Trenton voters demanded that the ordinance become law and the city is preparing to enforce it.” If Trenton’s paid sick leave ordinance were to take effect, it would mean that for every thirty hours worked, a worker would be eligible to earn one hour of sick time. For New Jersey businesses with ten employees or more, it would result in a maximum of five sick days per year. For New Jersey businesses with less than ten employees, it would result in up to three paid sick days per year.

The increase in paid sick days would allow employees the opportunity to take care of themselves as well as any immediate family members who may need care. However, it is important to note, if employers offer better benefit packages, they are not required to award more paid sick time to their employees.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by MaryAnn Spoto, brings to question whether or not Rutgers University violated the New Jersey open public meetings law, during one of their meetings held back in September of 2008. Francis McGovern Jr, a lawyer as well as audience member of this meeting, objected to the way these meetings were promoted and handled. McGovern noted that audience members waited over four hours while board members discussed issues behind closed doors. Once the board of governors finally reassembled, many audience members had grown tired of waiting and already left.

McGovern also noted that the Rutgers board of governors failed to mention topics discussed behind closed doors such as talk of Rutgers new football stadium. She stated, “This case is about governmental transparency,” and believes these long and tedious closed sessions dissuade public attendance. During her case, she asked that the court make it mandatory for Rutgers to hold public meetings first. She believed that by not bringing to light all issues discussed among Board of Governors, that Rutgers violated the law.

Although many may argue that McGovern had reason behind her case, the Supreme Court still ruled that Rutgers University was in compliance with the law. The court did not believe that Rutgers conducted their meetings in a way that discouraged public attendance. The court also stated that Rutgers Board of Governors did not violate the open public meetings law.

However, the court did agree that lawmakers should in fact look into tightening the law. Discussion of tightening this law would allow citizens the opportunity to challenge public organizations trying to get around the law. All in all, Rutgers University was pleased with the court’s decision.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Keith Cleary.

For almost a half of a decade now, over 40 patent lawsuits have been going on between “the two largest smartphone companies, Apple and Samsung.” (Chowdhry). However, the two companies came to terms on ending all of the patent lawsuits that are outside of the U.S. These countries are all over the world including Britain, Spain, Germany, and Italy. Even though these two technology giants are dropping their lawsuits against each other internationally, they still have not ended their lawsuits against each other in the states. A few years ago, “a jury in California awarded Apple with $119 million out of a $2.2 billion lawsuit against Samsung three months ago”(Chowdhry). Even, though they settled their disputes overseas, the two competitors are still relentless with their lawsuits.

Some of the lawsuits are driven by a patent lawsuit filed in 2011. Steve Jobs was actually behind the lawsuits in 2011 saying, “I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.” (Chowdhry). “This” meaning the lawsuits filed in 2011 were over Samsung’s Android. The two companies have tried to work out their differences through a mediator but to no avail. Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court was actually really hoping for a resolution. She stated, “If all you wanted is to raise awareness that you have I.P. (Intellectual Property) on these devices, messages delivered. In many respects, mission accomplished. It’s time for peace.” She further stated, “If you could have your CEOs have one last conversation, I’d appreciate it.”(Chowdhry). She realizes that the two companies do not want each other copying off their designs and property.

The comical part about all of this is that, with all the lawsuits going on, Samsung and Apple are business partners. Samsung supplies major components to Apple’s products, such as memory chips and processors. However, it does not look like this relationship will last forever. While Apple is one of Samsung’s biggest customers, it looks like their taking business elsewhere—“Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company,” to be exact. (Chowdhry). Apple buys chips and other components from them.

The good news is that Apple is reducing the amount of lawsuits against Samsung. Apple dropped one of their lawsuits for patent infringement and the two companies settled another lawsuit with the U.S. International Trade Commission regarding an important ban on Samsung’s products (Chowdhry). With the dropped lawsuits, there is a chance for amends and a new relationship between them.

Keith is a business law student at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Jen Suarez.

To what extent is defamation? From my last blog article, I defined defamation as “malicious and damaging misrepresentation,” where an organization was falsely accused of rape. However, can anyone play to the “defamation card” if they don’t like what other’s have to say? For example, Yelp.com is a website where consumers can post and rate the quality of businesses anonymously. The Rhodes Group, which is a Collin County Texas real estate firm, received a poor review on the Yelp website and is now suing on the grounds of defamation; they are requesting the name of the customer, whose username is “Lin L.” The Rhodes Group does not even believe that “Lin L.” is a real person. In fact, they openly suggest that this username belongs to someone from a competing organization, trying to ruin The Rhodes Group’s reputation. The Rhodes Group, however, is fighting in court against Public Citizen, which claims that revealing the user’s identity violates the user’s right to privacy. Though the negative Yelp review has been removed, there is no confirmation its removal was due to the impending lawsuit.

The Public Citizen lawyer, representing Yelp, stated that there is no justification for revealing the user’s identity, especially since The Rhodes Group did not file any complaint until well over a year after the review had been posted. According to its website, “Public Citizen maintains that the Rhodes Group’s claim violates the one-year statute of limitation for libel suits and, additionally, that the subpoena was issued in the wrong state and therefore cannot be enforced by the Texas court.” The Rhodes Group is fighting back stating, “You can’t use the First Amendment as a shield to make false and defamatory statements about an individual, particularly in a commercial arena.”

The Rhodes Group is absolutely right that Yelp cannot hide behind the “First Amendment Shield,” however, Yelp and Public Citizen are correct that the user’s identity should remain anonymous and there is no justification to reveal it. Bad, anonymous reviews, whether they are fake or genuine, are part of the online world. Millions of users have the ability to hide behind a keyboard and this allows us to bestow harsher criticism without fear of consequences. Freedom of speech does not include libel. Therefore, the result of this court case could determine how “free” freedom of speech actually is on the World Wide Web.

Jen is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

The defendant in the Chris Kyle murder case argued he was insane at the time of the killing. There are various forms of the defense, but in essence it is the defendant’s inability to know that his actions are right or wrong, or that a mental disease somehow impaired his free will to act.

Normally, the burden is upon the defendant through his counsel to show that he was insane at the time of the murder. But in some states such as Colorado, the burden falls upon the prosecution to show that the defendant was sane at the time of the murder.

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

This article “Injury on Weight Bench Results in Lawsuit But Ruling for Club,” discusses a lawsuit, which was filed by a fitness facility member at the gym center where he routinely exercised. The plaintiff, La Fata, filed a lawsuit towards the center, LA Fitness International, because he claimed that his injury was due negligence by the defendant, LA Fitness International. As stated in the article, “the member contended that the facility was negligent and responsible for what the member claimed was a willful injury.” This quotation alludes to La Fata’s perspective that LA Fitness International was responsible for his injury and believed that he was morally and ethically entitled to monetary compensation in this civil case in order to make the defendant compensate him for what he contended was significant injustice in which he was victimized.

Contrary to La Fata’s assertions, there was significant evidence omitted from what he claimed was a vindictive, immoral, and an unjust situation in which he was harmed and expecting compensation for the wrongdoing. This evidence significantly neutralized his claims for wrongdoing and negligence by the defendant LA Fitness International. The defense completely destroyed his argument in the statement, “At the time the plaintiff joined the defendant’s facility he signed a double-sided membership agreement which contained a release/waiver of liability. The release contained the usual language including a provision that the facility was relieved from any liability for injuries suffered “in, upon, or about LA Fitness premises or arising at LA Fitness facilities, services or equipment.” A bold face typed provision of the release indicated this member had “read and understood the entire agreement.” This quote indicates that the plaintiff knowingly signed a waiver for liability in the event of getting injured on the premises of LA Fitness, and most importantly, signed the contract that he had read and agreed regarding the rules and regulations. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed on summary judgment because La Fata knowingly signed this contract, which shields LA Fitness from liability. The clause defends the corporation from lawsuits such as these that could result in a significant financial award for damages.

Conclusively, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, LA Fitness International. Perceiving the deciding factors in this case, the judge placed significant importance upon the evidentiary support and the notion (as was taught in class) that it is not necessarily about who is right or wrong, but what one can prove. Within the domain and the rules of the law, it is more important who can provide more evidence to support a claim. In the end, it is about whichever party can ascertain more concrete and factual information to provide justification to decisively conclude who is righteous in the perception of the law. That will separate which individual, or party, is morally and ethically innocent by contemporary societal norms and beliefs.

Herbert, David L. “Injury On Weight Bench Results In Lawsuit But Ruling For Club.” Exercise Standards & Malpractice Reporter 23.6 (2009). Web. 14. Feb. 2015.

Fadi is a double major in nutrition food science and exercise science at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

The article “Debate On Medical Malpractice Lawsuits,” discusses the intricacy of a singular aspect of business law that involves the controversial aspect of medical malpractice lawsuits. The primary reasoning behind the controversial nature of medical malpractice lawsuits is that they can be perceived from a beneficial and optimistic standpoint in the notion that if a medical professional is negligent then the victim would be able to receive some outlet of financial compensation to justify the negligent actions the physician took towards the patient/victim.

Conversely, however, there are many individuals seeking to intentionally profit off of a malpractice lawsuit in the immoral and unethical attempt to make as commonly referred to as a “quick buck.” In the article, the author eloquently articulated, “Some states have been gradually chipping away at medical malpractice laws seen by some as too plaintiff-friendly. For instance, a New York law limits the size of contingent fees in medical malpractice cases, thus reducing the financial incentive for plaintiffs’ attorneys.” This quote illustrates the belief that there are a multitude of profit-seeking individuals who aspire to take advantage of this law, which was originally created to empower the victimized individual or to allow financial compensation in a civil case to pay the families of the victims in the event of harm that had occurred due to the physicians negligence. As the quote portrays, contemporary legislatures are seeking to minimize this immoral mentality and reduce wrongful malpractice lawsuits that focus on making a significant profit by opportunistic individuals who are suing the doctor in a “get rich quick scheme.”

This article reveals that there is no simple black and white solution for these issues, because there are truckloads of gray areas. Although malpractice lawsuits are occurring in civil cases with righteous reasons and there are a wide spectrum of patients who became victims under the negligence of the physician operating on them, there is a wide-spectrum of profit-seeking fools who are filing malpractice lawsuits in the hopes of getting a financial benefit that the individual should not receive in the first place. In conclusion, this article summarizes both aspects to this controversy and insightfully portrays both sides of the controversy.

“Debate On Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.” Salem Press Encyclopedia (2013). Research Starters. Web. 7. Feb. 2015.

Fadi is a double major in nutrition food science and exercise science at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Grand juries function to investigate criminal wrongdoing and screen out charges that do not warrant prosecution. Secrecy in the proceedings is paramount to carry out its duty. Therefore, litigants in a civil action cannot request that grand jury proceedings be disclosed, unless there must be a particularized need for the disclosure. That need must outweigh the public interest in its secrecy.

But why should these proceedings remain secret when court proceedings are generally conducted in public? The United States Supreme Court has said there are five reasons why grand jury proceedings should remain secret:

(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.

United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 681 n. 6, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986 n. 6, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077, 1081 n. 6 (1958)).

One of the concerns is keeping witness names secret for fear that exposure could have a chilling effect on future witness cooperation in grand jury proceedings. Another concern is damage to the reputation to those investigated if they are not indicted by the grand jury or if the indictment is subsequently dismissed by a judge for legal or factual defects in it.

Particularized need requires the party requesting the grand jury information to show its relevance to the case and without it the party would suffer prejudice or an injustice. Courts may require the party seeking the information to exhaust all other means provided by the discovery process first. And if granted, the court may opt to review the material in camera to make sure the party’s need outweighs the public policy for grand jury secrecy.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

While federal law trumps state law, nothing under the Supremacy Clause compels a state court’s interpretation of a federal law to give way to a lower federal court. In Lockhart v. Fretwell, Justice Thomas stated in his concurrence that “a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.” 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993).  Justice Thomas gave the following example: “An Arkansas trial court is bound by this Court’s (and by the Arkansas Supreme Court’s and Arkansas Court of Appeals’) interpretation of federal law, but if it follows the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of federal law, it does so only because it chooses to and not because it must.”

The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal law. When it rules, then the states are bound.

In Heien v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that where a police officer makes a stop based upon a reasonable mistake about a law, the stop is justified.

In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, based on a misunderstanding that the North Carolina law permitted only one working brake light. The officer stopped Heinen’s vehicle because one light was not working and then proceeded to a consensual search of the car. The search turned up a bag of cocaine located in a duffle bag in the trunk. Heinz was arrested and convicted of attempted drug trafficking. The question presented to the Court was whether a police officer’s reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold a seizure of an automobile and the occupants in it under the Fourth Amendment.

The North Carolina statute reads that a car must be:

equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. The stop lamp shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake. The stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(g) (2007).

The Court concluded that the statute required only one stop lamp to be working. However, the officer was under a different impression of the law at the time. A nearby statute requires that “all originally equipped rear lamps” be functional. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(d). The officer made the stop under a mistake in law. Nevertheless, the Court held that even if an officer reasonably misunderstood the law, as long as the officer conducts a search or seizure reasonably under the Fourth Amendment he is acting justifiably.

“To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.’” Reasonable mistakes of fact are permissible. For example, when someone consents to the search of a home, the search will be considered valid even if the officer mistakenly believes that the person consenting is the owner.

Reasonable mistakes of law are also permissible. “Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground.” Even laws that police enforce that are later declared unconstitutional by a court does not rebut an officer’s reasonable assumption that the laws were valid at the time.

Heinen argued that there is no margin of error for an officer’s mistake of law. He argued the legal maxim: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” If persons cannot get out of trouble by claiming they were mistaken about the law, then neither can the police.

But the Court concluded the law protects against only “reasonable mistakes,” and therefore, “an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws he is duty-bound to enforce.” The Court further concluded Heinen’s reliance on the legal maxim is misplaced. A person cannot escape criminal liability by claiming he did not know the law, but neither can the government impose criminal liability by a mistaken understanding of the law. The Court explained:

If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop.

In this case, Heien did not appeal his brake-light ticket. Instead, he appealed a cocaine-trafficking conviction, as to which he did not claim the police made either a mistake of fact or law.

Posted by Chris Widuta.

Did you ever stop to notice how busy life can be? Either you’re on your way to your parents, maybe going to class that meets twice a week during rush hour, or off to the gym to see your friends. Life got busy really quickly for me and I am still managing to handle the responsibilities that come with it, which includes bills, an apartment, a relationship, and most importantly my future.

On a Wednesday at nine o’clock in the morning, I was headed down the highway doing a steady 20-mile per hour in light traffic. I was headed to meet with my college professor to discuss statistics before the final examination. The entire drive was very smooth with no one cutting me off. At the same time, I thought the slow moving traffic would make for a great time to multitask. Isn’t it true that more and more people getting more done by doing two things at the same time? Walking and talking is more than simply talking, obviously. For me, that Wednesday morning I was working with my television provider to opt-out of the TV service I thought I didn’t need. Cable is expensive and those types of calls are stages of perpetual holds. I was multitasking.

I was just a few feet away from my exit, blinker on, driving with both hands on the wheel, using my cell phone by holding it with my shoulder. The state trooper was already conducting his business that morning in the emergency lane, when he turned and saw me, communicating. I thought nothing of it as I knew I was within the law. I continued to proceed off my exit, slowly accelerating since traffic was clearing up and all of a sudden, red and blue lights jumped right into my rear-view mirror. This trooper was able to do two things at once, too! The amount of time it took him to leave that scene and open another had to be less than 30 seconds, and quite frankly I was impressed.

He pulled me over and asked for all the necessary documents. I always ask why I was pulled over, because I know that by most tickets are written by the discretion of the officer. He stated that I was on my phone and quite frankly I agreed. I was on my phone, and I stated to him that I was not holding it in my hand. I stated that I had both hands on the wheel, and I asked the officer if he saw me holding the wheel with both hands, at the 10 and 2 position. I believed that if he was able to see my head and phone, he must have been able to see both hands, which would be unmistakable, being about chin level from his vantage point.

At this point, the officer started to look like a State Trooper. He had the hat and was very serious, more serious than a local police officer. I knew that he had to be in a bit of a hurry when he gave me my insurance and registration back immediately and held my license. The trooper then stated that it didn’t matter how I was holding the phone, but the fact that I was on my phone was worthy of a ticket and illegal. I didn’t make a fuss of it and proceeded to my stats lesson.

It took me only a few minutes to research the most recent statue description for 39:4-97.3, or “Operation of a motor vehicle while using cell phone.” The statue number was right on the ticket, and a quick Google search pulled up some results. I proceeded to the 215th Legislature because that lead to the most recent additions to the law. I know how important it is to know current law rather than outdated information from the Internet. After reading through the entire statute, I came up for air and formed a judgment. The statute clearly stated in Article 2 Section 1: “The use of wireless telephone . . . device by an operator of a moving vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful except when the telephone is hands-free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands-free.” That line right there gave me great hope that I was within the law, and hope that my day in court I could prove that. I was mentally preparing for a trial, pro se.

My first appearance in Municipal Court came 11 days later. Due to the fact that the situation was minor, and really only a monetary fine, I knew that the “ball was in my court.” You see, most municipal courts just love these kinds of evenings. People who are “money right and time poor” just plead guilty, pay the fine, and go on with life. The municipal court makes hundreds of thousands of dollars on these court nights, especially since the average fine that night was around $290 a person. These fines are like a tax on a poor decision.

This situation is the exact opposite. I am a student with a part time job, 15 credits, and financially responsible, who has some extra time to save some money. The fine was $200, a pretty large amount, and something I couldn’t lose. I was charged to go in with the prosecutor and plead my case. The first step I took was to sit down with the prosecutor and told him I plead, not guilty. He told me that by pleading not guilty I would request to have a trial, acting pro se. The prosecutor aggressively asked me if I was ready for “trial” as if it was a big and scary event. Of course, I knew this meant a trial so I was prepared. I also told him that I would be sending an “order” for discovery, which was my Constitutional right. He repeated what I said in a joking manner as if I was doing something wrong, but I confirmed that was what I wanted and thanked him for his time. I proceeded to sit down in the court room, second row from the font. I chose the second row because I wanted the judge to see my face and I wanted to be in the right position to hear the lawyers around me and the cases being presented that night. It was important to hear everything that was said because I was going to eventually head to the bench.

I took notes, studied, and remembered what the judge and prosecutor said for over 4 hours before I had the chance to speak. They called my case. The judge read the statute, told me the fine, and asked how I plead. After a moment or two of silence, I clearly stated “not guilty.” I may have been trembling a little on the inside, but it was important that he heard no wavering in my voice. The judge stated that I should prepare for a trial, but included a certain lead that gave me great hopes; the judge said, “If that phone was in your hand, you’re breaking the law.” I thanked him, and listened to him say that I would be getting a trial date. I walked out of the court room almost 5 hours later.

I quickly wrote up an request for the prosecutor. This official letter included my summons number, the date and who I was. In the order, I reminded him that it was my constitutional right for this discovery. I asked for all recordations of the interaction, including but not limited to, officers notes, audio, and dash cam video.

Preparing for the case was a matter of determining what facts were going to be most important to getting the charges dismissed. It was imperative that I used the officer’s comments against statute and the judge’s interpretation of the law. I truly believed that I was within the law, so it was relatively easy to find good reasons to throw this charge out. It was also clear to me that I would be making decisions based on political decisions; to be exact, I realized that the courthouse was making a bet that the State Trooper would be a witness and testify, but more on that later.

Weeks went by and a discovery packet was never sent. It was the day before the trial date and I called the courthouse to speak with the court clerk. I had told her I have not received discovery and asked for a new date. She said that she could not give one and trial will still go on tomorrow. This was actually good news. Because it is my Constitutional right to have discovery, I knew that the court would not judge against me, and at this point, the worst that could happen would be a new trial date. I could live with that.

I appeared to the court house dressed well. I went to the prosecutor’s office to speak with him, mainly on the fact that I have not received discovery. He was surprised to hear that I sent an request and he never received it. I reminded him of his words and what address to use. He also included a very important hint of what was to come. The prosecutor told me that the witness, the trooper, was not at the trial. This means that the only witness that the State has did not show up! I knew my rights under the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment that, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.” These new facts greatly swayed my emotions to believe that I had a chance to get this dismissed that night. I was excited to sit in the court room.

Surrounded by lawyers, I was attentive and engaged. Every poor soul that stood up there took the charge and paid the fine. I prepared and thought of a response for what I would say for every one of the questions that the judge asked. Many other people had trials that day, and most if not all led the accused to lose their case. I did not give up hope, as I knew I had a different tactic. Instead of arguing the law, I planned to argue why the rules of the court should sway the judge to dismiss this case. They called my name and I felt much more confident this time around. All the possible scenarios played through my head already and I was ready.

The judge read the charge as I laid my papers on the table. Before I looked up, the judge quickly and effortlessly offered to cut the fine in half. This was completely arguable, I thought to myself. I said was that I was not granted my Constitutional right because I did not receive discovery. Before he said anything, I handed the officer a copy of the letter I sent to the prosecutor. He read it and asked a few questions about what I was requesting. The judge specifically asked how I knew that the interaction with the officer was recorded. Quite frankly, I assumed that it was recorded, I didn’t know for a fact, but I didn’t let him know that. I answered his question by referring to the fact that this was a state trooper and I believed the State installed video long ago, and how important it is to have video for more important interactions. He proceeded to ask about recordations, which I also requested.

The prosecutor followed up with a statement that the officer, who was their sole witness, was not present. He asked if it would be okay to reschedule for another date. I quickly returned his comment by asking for a dismissal. The judge rebutted with some guilt tripping remarks, including that ever since 9/11, State Troopers are very busy, and that certain arrangements for special occasions are required. I wasn’t going to fall for this guilt trip. It is important for the witness to be present at any trial, especially this one. I responded with the fact that this was a trial and asked if a trial is important enough to request their witness to be present. I also stated that he should have been subpoenaed for the trial. The judge did not respond. I asked to kindly accept my motion for a dismissal.

After what seemed to be an eternity, the judge looked up and said, “Case dismissed.” His words were truly the most relieving and gratifying two words I could have possibly heard. All of the hard work and time I put in to this exercise, not only saved me the $200 fine, but I confirmed to myself that I could stand up to my opponents and be victorious. The best part of this was, I didn’t even have to argue the law, I used the law in my favor and the judge nor could the prosecutor do anything to stop me.

Chris is a business administration major with a concentration in management of information technology at Montclair State 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 Elizabeth Win.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Johnny A. Guerrero.

This article was published by the New York Times on 26 November 2017 and was written by Stacy Cowley.  The article illuminates the tension between a high-ranking government civil service official, Ms. Leandra English, and the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump.  To further understand this dilemma, one has to first comprehend what is “the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” and what do they do.  For starters, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “was created six years ago to oversee a wide variety of financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, bank accounts and student loans” (Cowley).  With this in mind, one can say that the bureau was a regulator created in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that hit the New York Stock Market Exchange harshly.  The “Regulatory Agency,” also referred to as (CFPB) was created by the Obama Administration to protect consumers from the tyrants of Wall Street.  Thus, the agency is charged with overseeing financial products and services, as noted.

The tension raised because Ms. English, the deputy director of the bureau, was not willing to step down from her post because she believed that the President could not fire or replace her.  So, she “filed a lawsuit late Sunday night on 26 November 2017 to block Mr. Trump’s choice of someone else from taking control of the agency on Monday morning, 27 November 2017” (Cowley).  Ms. English was defending her cause because Congress gave the agency infrequent independency and autonomy to protect it from political interference.  Thus, the bureau’s director “is one of the few federal officials the President cannot fire at will” (Cowley).  However, the President nominates the agency’s director, who is subject to the approval and confirmation of the United States Senate.  Ms. English was not nominated by former President Obama; she was appointed director by the agency itself because the director, Mr. Richard Cordray, brusquely stepped down on Friday 24 November 2017.

To add more fire to the already burning wood, Ms. English, a seasoned agency veteran who rose progressively through the agency’s ranks, was being replace by Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s budget director.  Paradoxically, Trump wanted someone who saw the bureau as “sad, sick, a joke” (Cowley), and who openly supported legislation to eliminate it, as the agency’s new director.  Ethically this is not right.  Why appoint someone who speaks harshly about the agency to be its head?  Mulvaney, a white-collar professional, many believed would undo what the bureau had achieved since its conception, which was to protect consumers from the abusive debt collectors and politics of Wall Street Financiers.  This notion becomes eloquent with Senator Dick Durbin’s, a Democrat from Illinois, metaphor: “Wall Street hates it (the Agency) like the devil hates holy water” (Battle for Control of Consumer Agency Heads to Court, New York Times Article).

However, even though one may think that the President’s choice is ludicrous, he as the Head of the United States Government has the authority to appoint whoever he wants as the head of any Federal Government Agency.  Ms. English did not have the grounds to veto the President’s decision; after all the actual director, Mr. Cordray, was the one who resigned.  Therefore, it is the President’s duty to appoint a new head leader for the agency.  The law regarding Presidential Nominees is clear, “not grey.”  One must hope that Mr. Mulvaney does a good job protecting the American People from the Wall Street Tyrants, as he swore to do.

Johnny is in the dual B.A/M.B.A program at the College of Arts and Sciences (political science, minor in history) and the Stillman School of Business (management and finance), Seton Hall University, Classes of 2018 and 2019.

Source:

Posted by Ryan Simoneau.

The National Law Review recently posted an article on February 20, 2018 discussing the impact of the N.Y. Court of Appeals decision in Forman v. Henkin, a personal injury case. Forman, the Plaintiff, claimed she suffered spinal and brain injuries when she fell off the Defendants horse. Before the accident, the Plaintiff admitted to having an active Facebook account on which she posted pictures of her active lifestyle. After the accident, she claimed her life changed and she could no longer continue her active lifestyle and could barely type coherent messages. During discovery, the Defendant asked the court to compel the Plaintiff to provide full access to her Facebook account, regardless of whether it was public or private. At trial court level, the discovery (or electronic discovery) request was limited to photos before and after the accident and those relevant to her difficulty to type. When appealed, the appellate court limited the photographs provided in court. The court based its decision on another case, Tapp v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, in which it decided, “[t]o warrant  discovery, defendants must establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff’s Facebook account- that is, information that contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses and other claims.” The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. They determined that public versus private did not matter in regards to social media and reinstated the trial court’s ruling.

The Court of Appeals did not grant full access to the Plaintiff’s social media to protect her privacy, yet does not see a difference between public and private Facebook posts. Typically in personal injury cases, the Defendants will ask the court for full, unrestricted access to social media which is oftentimes unwarranted and called a metaphorical fishing expedition. The Court of Appeals held that the information compelled has to be “appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information.” What this means is that the request cannot be overly broad and burdensome, but relevant. This ruling mimics Federal procedure, specifically Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

I am torn on the fairness of treating all Facebook posts the same regardless of whether it is private or public. In the 21^st century, social media is becoming more and more popular. People utilize Facebook and Twitter as if they are personal diaries. Sometimes a physical diary could be relevant to a case, I’m sure, but it seems like an invasion of personal privacy. On the other end, social media utilizes the internet and the internet is not private so it should all be treated the same. I believe that in social media discovery (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), the court should use this appeal as a precedent and continue to limit requests to what is relevant but privacy settings should not matter.

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

Link: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ny-court-appeals-no-difference-between-private-and-public-posts-discovery

Posted by Ashley Scales.

On February 22, 2018, Palantir was ordered to open their books to an investor who was seeking U.S. fraud probe.  The judge ruled, “Data analytics and security company Palantir Technologies Inc. must open its books to early investor Marc Abramowitz.”  Abramowitz wants to investigate possible fraud and misconduct at the esteemed private U.S. Company.  He sued the firm after a 2015 falling out with the company’s chief executive officer, Alexander Karp.  The lawsuit claims that Palantir prevented Abramowitz as well as many others from selling their stock in the privately owned company, while allowing sales by Karp and Chairman Peter Thiel.

Judge Joseph Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery said that Abramowitz showed “a proper purpose of investigating potential wrongdoing and a credible basis to justify further investigation.”

Through the KT4 Partners LLC fund he manages, Abramowitz invested an initial $100,000 in Palantir in 2003.  According to Judge Slights’ 50-page opinion, Abramowitz’s investment is now estimated to be worth about $60 million.

Abramowitz and Karp had a close relationship until their falling out in 2015.  Karp “verbally abused” Abramowitz and accused him of taking intellectual property from the company.  Soon after their falling out, Abramowitz tried to sell his stock in Palantir, but he claimed that the company blocked the deal by making an offer of newly issued stock to the potential buyer.  According to Slights, Abramowitz began pursuing information from Palantir while he considered suing the company for blocking the sale of his stock.  In September 2016, in response to the potential claim against the company, Palantir sued Abramowitz for supposedly stealing trade secrets.  In a comment, Palanti said that they plan to continue to pursue their case against Abramowitz.

Abramowitz brought his case to Delaware in March 2017.  Palantir claimed that Abramowitz “should be denied information because he was likely to use it to build his lawsuit over the blocked sale”.  Judge Slights ruled, “Abramowitz could investigate Palantir’s lack of annual meetings, corporate amendments that limited KT4’s rights and the company’s sales of stock”.  However, Abramowitz would not be allowed to investigation Palantir’s value or Karp’s compensation.

Ashley is an accounting 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 Brandon Bartkiewicz.

It has been almost two years since the Wells Fargo scandal broke into the headlines. It is not out of the ordinary to see a bank involved in shady activities; just look at the recession. However, in 2016, Wells Fargo committed a truly unforgivable crime, identity theft and fraud on a massive scale. To refresh, Wells Fargo had “… secretly opened millions of deposit and credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by customers, and that ultimately harmed those who had entrusted their financial affairs with the bank”. The goal of this was to create an illusion of more “sales” (accounts being opened). They did this by transferring money between accounts without permission of the accountholder. These activities were highly encouraged by an incentive system in place that would reward employees for opening accounts. Everyone was in on this; bank managers pressured their employees, and the executive board of Wells Fargo knew this was going on and did not stop it. By August 2017, the investigation found that as many as 3.5 million unauthorized accounts existed in Wells Fargo’s records.

The news of this wide scale fraud fueled a settlement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Los Angeles legal officials, totaling $185 million in penalties. Along with this, Wells Fargo would give “… $80 million in refunds — $64 million in cash and $16 million in account adjustments — to more than 570,000 auto loan customers who were charged for auto insurance without their knowledge.” As it should be, the bank is now in financial trouble as it tries to cover all of the direct and indirect costs relating to the scandal. However, the Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve is not done disciplining the bank. Due to their “widespread customer abuses and compliance breakdowns,” the bank is now restricted from growing any more than its total asset size in 2017.  Along with this, the bank will remove some of the senior ranking executives in the company.  This is done to ensure that Wells Fargo will have sound business practices before it can grow again.

Personally, I believe that punishments handed down by the Federal Reserve were suitable for Wells Fargo. It provides a clear message to all banks that business malpractice is unacceptable and will be punished by harsh penalties. No bank should be able to get away with using client money and creating unauthorized accounts for personal gain. I wish the American legal system were stricter with companies so it would deviate them from doing illegal acts like this in the first place. What I did not like about this case was the fact that there are still plenty of people who have been long time officials of the company and are still employed by Wells Fargo. If you keep many of the same old pieces in place at a company, something like this is bound to happen again.

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

Source:

Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/02/fed-limits-wells-fargos-growth-citing-consumer-abuses/302973002/

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 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

President Trump blocked the impending merger between Singapore-based, Broadcom, and U.S.-based, Qualcomm, over concerns that it would affect national security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States investigated “the national security implications of the deal last week over concerns that it would hamper U.S. efforts to develop 5G wireless networks and other emerging technologies. CFIUS on Monday recommended that the president veto the deal.”

The President cited “‘credible’” evidence of risk to our national security. We would lose a company with the ingenuity and technology to build the next-generation of wireless networks.

Posted by Ryan McNeilly.

Something we have come to know as Americans is that three things are certain in life. We will live, we will die, and we will pay taxes. Currently in the news, President’s Trump new tax plan has become the hot topic of discussion. People are disappointed to see another tax cut come about that seems to benefit the top 1% of society. Even some of the richest man in the world, like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, are speaking up against the new plan because they feel that they do not need more money. They think they need to be giving more of it away so that people who live from paycheck to pay check can have a little bit more leeway and a better opportunity to increase their standard of living.

This article posted by Politico looks at this tax law and delves deeper to see what is occurring behind the scenes. They set the stage by opening the article with “A political battle over the fate of hundreds of regulations and other guidance for the new tax law may soon land on President Donald Trump’s desk, forcing him to choose between two of his favorite Cabinet members.” This alone is enough to capture the attention of any reader. As you continue to read you come to find out that the two Cabinet members they are talking about are Steven Mnuchin the Treasury Secretary and Mick Mulvaney the White House budget director.  The President must decide who will get to define the laws and regulations within the tax act.  This is crucial because the vision of the treasury differs from the view of the budget director.

This dispute has a greater impact than people see because now two crucial sectors of the White House will now be pitted against one another. With this occurring internally, it could hinder the President’s goal for growth. His goal is to get this plan into action, but he will not be able to unless an agreement occurs. The article states “OIRA and Treasury have been going back and forth for years over which entity should have final say over the department’s regulations.” This pressure has increased because of the decision date is slowly approaching. Politico speculates that the OMB has already made a deal with the White House. If this is true, then the OMB will get control of regulations and guidances for this tax act. None of this is confirmed so now we must wait and see how this internal debacle sorts itself out.

Ryan is a finance and information management systems major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

Link: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/23/tax-law-white-house-power-struggle-364885

Posted by Alex Law.

A lawsuit had been filed on Wednesday, February 14th, against the New York and Atlantic Railway Company for the unfair treatment of 18 railway workers. According to one of the railway workers, Mario Pesantez, the railway company has denied the workers safety equipment, as well as withholding proper training. Furthermore, Pesantez claims that he was told to attend his work station by climbing over a chain-link fence by his employers. On the account of unfair treatment and low wages for vigorous labor, railway laborers have decided to take matters into their own hands by confronting the company in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

The New York and Atlantic Company tries to undermine the lawsuit by stating: “These allegations are baseless and without merit. The individuals making these employment claims were never N.Y.A.R employees, and as such, their claims are directed at the wrong party.” However, Kristina Mazzocchi, a lawyer for the railway workers, strongly disagrees with what the company asserted. According to Mazzocchi, the railway workers have “worked full time and were paid weekly, in cash.” In other words, these workers are official employees of the company  that have been mistreated for years as they were subjected to dangerous tasks while being under paid. An example of a task that were completed under dangerous circumstances was for Franklin Lopez, a railway worker, to “squeeze beneath derailed cars” in order to put the derailed cars back onto the track. In other words, Lopez had to complete his task fearing the possibility that he would be crushed to death.

According to the article, it seems that New York and Atlantic Company had experienced criticisms in the past in regards to their safety regulation and the treatment of workers. Specifically, the company has neglected to properly train the workers in using particular equipment for completing their tasks. It is also important to recognize that these workers had watched YouTube videos in order to learn how to perform different undertakings. Additionally, the labor workers faced discrimination when the article states: “Those workers, the suit added, were given a segregated and substandard changing area, subjected to racial slurs.” Based on these accounts, it is ultimately unacceptable for the railway company to under-pay their workers based on the notion that the workers had to face such circumstances. With that said, there is a major indication that the New York and Atlantic Company suffer from a flaw in their safety regulation.

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

Source:

Article Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/nyregion/railway-workers-lawsuit-discrimination.html

Posted by Chenglu Xia.

In his article, “Bitcoin Will Be Taxed as an Asset: Israel Tax Authority,” Samburaj Das states that Israel government will have a new regulation on cryptocurrency. The official tax authority is making a change, transferring bitcoin’s role from the cryptocurrency to an asset. However, Israel’s official authority is not the only one that regards bitcoin as an asset. The IRS also did the same thing; it admits the importance of bitcoins, but the precondition is that bitcoins should play a role of asset rather than cryptocurrency and should be taxed proportionately. I believe this change can make bitcoins market legal, which will also benefit the worldwide economy. If any transaction of bitcoins will be taxed, it will lead to stronger and more sustainable economic growth without some illegal transactions.

Nowadays, bitcoin is the most popular cryptocurrency around the world. It has two main characteristics. Primarily, it’s a kind of digital currency rather than fiat currency, such as USD. Moreover, it’s decentralized which use a process called mining. This process use advanced technology with some complex mathematic formulas to produce specific codes. At the beginning, most investors prefer to use this kind cryptocurrency to avoid taxation.  Meanwhile, they can exchange bitcoins with fiat currency, also goods and services; and, it is difficult to track those transactions, which encourages the black market to use this cryptocurrency to carry on illegal transactions.

However, I’m considering about bitcoins’ credibility. There is no guaranteed operating organization. Bitcoin is just a virtual currency and there is no regulation when it first appeared on the Internet. I am wondering why there is an increasing number of people using this currency. In China, I heard that most people just buy bitcoins for investment. It is the similar situation with the investment in stocks, which means that most people do not regard bitcoins as a currency. They only invest in it because of high profits, although it comes with high risk. Personally, I believe that there are some organizations which use bitcoins to do illegal transactions, making high profit. Thus, bitcoin becomes a tool used for illegal purposes, which attracts the attention of national legislature. Thus, it’s profound, meaningful and effective to make the decision of taxing transactions of bitcoins.

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

Sources:

https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-will-see-taxation-asset-not-currency-israel-authority/

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040515/are-there-taxes-bitcoins.asp

Posted by Paul Kikta.

The lawsuit that I decided to evaluate was Liebeck vs. McDonalds. Liebeck vs. McDonalds is a 1994 product liability lawsuit about the hot coffee McDonalds sold. On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico accidently spilled coffee on herself. This coffee was dangerously hot to the point where it caused her third degree burns through her clothes in seconds. She endured burns that covered six percent of her body. Because of this, she recovered for two years after being hospitalized for eight days.

This arrived to higher-level court through a lack of a compromise. At first, Mrs. Liebeck wanted $20,000 to settle the case, but McDonalds refused and countered with $800. That money is not enough for Mrs. Liebeck because it does not cover her medical expenses. When it went to court, the jurors saw her third degree burns, facts that McDonalds served their coffee 30 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the industry average, and other testimonies that McDonalds’ coffee have burned hundreds of adults and children. Liebeck’s lawyer, Kenneth Wagner, claimed McDonalds’ coffee way too hot in comparison to other competitors. The average temperature of coffee served is between 135 and 140; however, McDonalds was at 190, which means that burns happen at a significantly faster rate. The plaintiff also learned that “McDonalds had faced over 700 claims by people who had suffered burns from the coffee from 1982-1992. Some of these claims involved full-thickness burns similar to those suffered by Ms. Liebeck” (Welman). After admitting a claim such as that, it looked very good for Mrs. Liebeck to achieve victory.

In her case victory, the jury granted 2.7 million dollars for spilling coffee on herself. After the case ended, many authors published articles about her victory, agreeing or disagreeing with its result. To me, it does not seem fair that she won that much money unless her hospitalization bills and recovery costed that much. She just became a millionaire because of an action that she could have avoided if she paid attention. I think that the lawsuit also took into account for the hundreds of other cases with coffee burns- the lawsuit punished McDonalds to lower their coffee temperate and Mrs. Liebeck was the fortunate one on the other end. Due to many political and public statements on the case, “Ms. Liebeck … entered into a settlement with McDonalds … which the parties agreed would remain secret, has never been revealed to the public despite the fact that the case received extensive public reporting” (Welman). The result of a very controversial case that the public pressured showed that it helps to create more fairs results of the case. Everyone agreed that Liebeck should win but not to the extend she got.

Paul is an economics/ mathematical finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/darryl-s-weiman-md-jd/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362.html

Posted by Abigail Murphy.

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

A case involving a fan who claims he was overcharged for tickets to the Seahawks-Broncos game is headed to the NJ Supreme Court. He paid $2000 each for two tickets worth no more than $800.

NJ law protects plaintiff and consumers like him against inflated prices by requiring at least 95% of the tickets to be sold to the general public. According to plaintiff, the NFL only sold 1% in a nationwide lottery.

Plaintiff expects the class action will result in the NFL paying millions to those fans who paid more than the face value of their tickets.

Posted by Shahrani Bhatti.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2017, Bank of America came to the agreement to pay $66.6 million to end its lawsuit accusing it of high rate of interest and fees from customers, who have checking accounts that were overdrawn for several days. The amount of interest and fees Bank of America charges was decided unlawful. The case was a lawsuit between the company and the federal government. The lawsuit began in 2016 and the final settlement of this lawsuit was disclosed in San Diego’s federal court on November 3, 2017.

According to the final settlement, Bank of America has been overcharging interest and fees for over five years (since February 2014) and the bank has made a huge amount of profit by overcharging customers. The settlement was predicated on the fact Bank of America needed to “stop charging for extended overdrafts,” which at the time the customers, who have overdrawn their account, will not have to pay the extensive amount of interest to Bank of America. The decision made by the court will save customers about $1.2 billion. After the court decision was made, Bank of America had its attorney sent out an email to customers indicating that “Bank of America account-holders will no longer have to endure these charges.”

This is a great example of how business law made by the federal government could protect customers. Bank of America used to charge a $35 fee for overdrawing their accounts, and if customers want to continue using their account, they will have no choice but pay this high extensive fee. The lawsuit perfectly shows that federal government protects the people’s right as customers and helps them to be fairly treated by large corporations.

Zhanli Peng is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Reference:

Aubin, D. (2017, November 02). Bank of America settles overdraft lawsuit for $66.6 million. Retrieved February 01, 2018, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bank-of-america-overdrafts/bank-of-america-settles-overdraft-lawsuit-for-66-6-million-idUSKBN1D22ER