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

Posted by Avinash Sookdeo.

On February 15^th, Southwest Airlines Co. filed a lawsuit against Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), and several of its officers, including Bret Oestreich, its National Director, in a Texas federal court. AMFA represents about 2,400 of Southwest’s mechanics and others in related fields. The lawsuit claims that AMFA allegedly helped to organize boycotts regarding mechanics working overtime shifts while in negotiations, thereby violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA). This is largely due to the fact that both Southwest Airlines Co. and AMFA have been in contractual negotiations for four years, despite the intervention of a federal labor mediator.

AMFA is being sued for three violations of the RLA, including Section 6 of 45 U.S.C. § 156, where Southwest Airlines Co. claims irreparable harm. Two counts of violation of Section 2, 45 U.S.C. § 152 was also filed, claiming that the AMFA encouraged unlawful job action and did not take necessary or reasonable steps to stop the unlawful job action. Several weeks ago, AMFA filed lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, claiming that Southwest Airlines Co. has not maintained its status quo during its negotiations, and has communicated information to its union members directly, violating the Railway Labor Act.

Southwest Airlines Co., which is the fourth largest airline carrier, claims that the union failed in its duties “to prevent the workers from banding together to decline overtime work this month” (The Associated Press). The lawsuit comes after the company noticed a 75% decrease from average overtime shift. The company said the boycott resulted in them outsourcing extra employees, costing the company financially. According to court documents, Southwest Airlines Co. is seeking a declaratory judgement, an immediate injunction, and damages for the costs of extra staffing, amongst other things.

Avinash is a biology major in the College of Arts and Sciences and Legal Studies of Business Minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ec39df208463495e9d077bec242581eb/southwest-lawsuit-claims-union-workers-avoiding-overtime

http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Southwest.pdf

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/southwest-airlines/2016/12/16/mechanics-union-files-federal-lawsuit-southwest-airlines-take-leave-negotiating-tactics

Posted by Alonso Arbulu.

In June 2016, a federal court of appeals upheld government net-neutrality rules. The Federal Communications Commission enacted this new ordinance under the past chairman, Tom Wheeler. According to this law, both the government and Internet providers should treat all data on the web as equal.

An issue arose, when T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T started offering zero-rating plans, in which they gave their customers free data when using certain apps. The FCC perceived that the implementation of these data plans violated the net-neutrality rules by favoring certain content owned by the internet providers. In Tom Wheeler’s words, these firms’ practices negatively affected competition through “potentially unreasonable discrimination in favor of their own affiliates.” Accordingly, the FCC under the supervision of Tom Wheeler started an investigation to determine whether or not these companies were adversely affecting consumer benefits by breaking net-neutrality rules. In response to the inquiry, the telecommunication firms claimed that their practices benefited customers by increasing competition, and provided free data and easily accessible content at a better price.

At the beginning of February this year, Ajit Pai was tapped to be chairman of the FCC. Despite the past leadership’s perspective of the zero-rating plans, Ajit Pai decided to close the investigation, dropping the charges against the Telecommunication companies. According to the FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly “companies, and others can now safely invest in and introduce highly popular products and services without fear of commission intervention based on newly invented legal theories.” O’Rielly’s comments highlight the benefits of zero-rating plans and endorse Ajit Pai’s decision on this issue.

Alonso is an economic and finance student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Article links:

https://thetechportal.com/2017/02/04/fcc-against-net-neutrality-zero-rating-schemes-t-mobile-bingeon-att-sponsored-data/

FCC suspends probes of telecommunications firms

Background information:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-setting-stage-for-legal-battle-1424974319

Posted by Frankie Panicucci.

Wells Fargo is a corporate bank with very high and unrealistic sales targets. To meet these unrealistic sales targets Wells Fargo employees were secretly opening millions of unauthorized bank and credit card accounts for customers without their knowledge. These unauthorized accounts that were created racked up fees and allowed Wells Fargo to make more money. The accounts that were created started all the way back in 2011. The company then learned of this behavior and fired about 5,300 employees over the years. In order to pull off the scheme, the employees transferred funds from a customer’s original account into a new one without their knowledge, and it is estimated that around 1.5 million accounts were created. Customers were then being charged for over drafting or not having enough of a minimum balance in the original account. Employees also submitted over five hundred thousand applications for credit cards without the customer’s knowledge. Some of these accounts were charged over $400,000 in fees.

Wells Fargo was eventually caught committing these crimes after being investigated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB). Wells Fargo is being fined with the largest fine since the CPFB’s inception; a fine of $185 million and also must refund customers $5 million. Of the $185 million, $100 million will go to the CFPB’s penalty fund, $35 million to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and $50 million will go to the City and County of Los Angeles. As part of the settlement Wells Fargo also needs to make changes to its “sales practices and internal oversight.” The CPFB declined to mention how the investigation began.

The initial suspicions of accounts being created for customers began when some customers complained to Wells Fargo about unauthorized accounts that were created on their behalf. L.A. City’s Attorney, Mike Feuer, says, “Consumers must be able to trust their banks.” Feuer sued Wells Fargo in May of 2015 in relation to the unauthorized accounts. Once the suit was filed, he began to receive calls and emails from customers regarding the issue. Wells Fargo hired a consulting firm to look into the allegations after the suit was filed. After the investigation Wells Fargo released an internal statement which says, “At Wells Fargo, when we make mistakes, we are open about it, we take responsibility, and we take action.”

Frankie is an economics and finance 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 Matthew Cassidy.

In 1988 the Video Privacy Protection Act was passed by Congress to prevent private information about tape rentals or sales records from being released to the public. The case involves a man named Mark Ellis who downloaded the Cartoon Network Application on his Android smartphone in order to watch shows on that network.

The app is able to track viewer history and an Android phone I.D.; it then sends the information to an analytics company named Bango. Bango is a very advanced organization that can not only monitor customer behavior, but also link user’s information about the user through the Android I.D.

Cartoon Network’s third party partner, Bango, violated the Video Privacy Protection App by gathering personal identification from the Android user’s I.D.  The court weighed its opinions on another case called Re Hulu Privacy Legislation that involved the Privacy Protection Act. This case helped Cartoon Network by providing the true definition of a subscriber to just visiting a website. Therefore, Ellis was not “committed” to the application, so therefore the Privacy Protection Act did not apply to him.

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

Posted by Matt Gilbert.

PepsiCo is beginning to take its health push seriously, stating last month that it plans to reduce the amount of sugar, salt and fat in its products by the year 2025. The company’s newest aspiration comes as a response to growing world obesity and its striving to be in better accordance with global health standards. It also comes in light of recent discoveries that Pepsi’s juice brand, Naked, was mislabeled to say that it included less sugar than it actually does. This was a massive roadblock in Pepsi’s success as it was marketing Naked juices as a healthy, low-sugar alternative, when in actuality it had extremely high levels of sugar.

This misinformation opens a larger can of worms as to the duty of companies to warn its customers of the dangers of its products and where the line of general knowledge and the withholding of information. Essentially where does the fault go from the customer to the company? This is not a straight forward issue by any means and both sides could be argued. If the business at fault knew the true information and knowingly withheld it from the customer, then that becomes a major issue.

It also brings up an interesting and complex discussion as to if Pepsi should be obligated to improve the overall health of their products. The general public knows and acknowledges the fact that soda as a whole is not good for one’s health, so is it really Pepsi’s obligation to attempt to make it healthier when the nature of the product is to be unhealthy? What it really comes down to is where the legal responsibility of the company ends and where its moral obligation to the well-being of its customers begins. The law places baseline guidelines on the standards that need to be achieved, but in many cases that simply isn’t enough. For example, Samsung began testing their batteries internally after the debacle with their batteries even though the law doesn’t require them to go to such lengths.

Pepsi’s commitment to reduce the amount of sugar in their drinks comes at a time when the social norm is with low-calorie healthy alternatives. That being said, the legality of the situation comes into play with whether or not Pepsi needs to make such a change and where the line between customer knowledge and company deception is drawn.

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

Posted by Charles Matta.

UPS (or United Parcel Service) is known worldwide as the world’s largest package delivery company and provider of supply chain management solutions. There is no questioning the success that this company has had, but is there a question of their morality? Recently, UPS was supposed to be looking for clues and observing its trucks thoroughly for illegal transportation of products. It was found that UPS had been illegally transporting untaxed cigarettes from Indian reservations to customers throughout the state of New York. And while they were supposedly “observing the trucks” it was in fact believed that they had “turned a blind eye” and now the tax regulators of the state of New York are asking for the judge to impose an 873 million dollar penalty.

An eight day federal civil trial occurred with closings statements regarding the issue saying that UPS “had a corporate culture that favored sales opportunities over a responsibility to help New York enforce tax law.” The article states that this happened because: “Tobacco retailers located on upstate reservations were given price discounts for shipping in volume. Delivery drivers were allowed to accept iPads and other gifts from shippers. Account executives, whose compensation was tied to keeping big accounts, ignored signs that some customers signing delivery contracts dealt in cigarettes.” The lawyers of New York City and New York State are saying that UPS must be held accountable for what they determine to be about a decade’s worth of misconduct.

On the other hand, UPS has argued that it did follow the rules and restrictions applied to the company, but they can only do so much about policing its 1.6 million daily shippers are sending in sealed packages. In its legal filings, its lawyers said the city and state have offered no proof it “knew or consciously avoided knowing that any shipper was shipping cigarettes.” Now, UPS has terminated contracts with shippers who were known to be violating these packaging rules. “The state and city impose some of the highest taxes on cigarettes in the country in an effort to halt tobacco use,” and because of this, there are 28,000 deaths annually which causes tax payers 10.4 billion in health care related costs. One account executive writes “’I wish UPS would just take the high road, and say NO TOBACCO, NO ACHOHOL (sic), PERIOD.” UPS needs to be more strict on what is or isn’t successful and must find a way to monitor their business operations better.

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

Posted by Michael Ragone.

Recently, McDonalds workers have opened up explaining in detail, sexual harassment incidents that they have experienced while at work. Until last year, under the law, McDonald’s could not be held accountable for labor violations in franchise owned stores. With that being said, McDonalds still ignored all serious instances. Most of the incidents, had to deal with employees being touched, grabbed and slapped, which of course is a clear violation of any moral values. In a video that was shared most of the statements were, “Grabbed my waist, tried to kiss me, touched my breast, grabbed my leg.” “Grab, touch, rubbing up, no, this is not okay.” Some workers were even shown pornographic images from their supervisors. Where in one case, a women’s boss offered her one thousand dollars in exchange for oral sex. This sparked an activist group, “Fight for 15” because of the 15 different claims.

In a recent study, “two in five women working in fast food reported experiencing some sort of sexual harassment ” which is an extremely high percentage. Men and women should be able to work in a safe environment with rules and codes of conduct. In a statement, McDonalds tried to distant themselves from their franchises trying to make them look independent. Fight for 15 is planning protests nationwide over McDonald’s handling of sexual harassment. When women employees went to speak up and report the incidents they were punished with their hours and pay being cut. One of the managers said, “You shouldn’t have flirted with him.” Not in any way is it the employees fault and they shouldn’t have to work in hostile working environments. When you have to live pay check to pay check and barely make enough to get by, speaking up means putting your job at risk.

If McDonalds ignores these harassment claims, their long term reputation and profit maximization will deteriorate. In order to make the work environment safer, there should be people who employees can report problems to right away. The employees affected by this harassment “aren’t seeking monetary damages” and only seek for “McDonald’s to enforce its publicly stated no-tolerance policy for sexual harassment.” This would of course mean that anyone who was proven to be harassing employees in any way would no longer be able to continue employment. When natural law is considered, these workers should all have equal rights to earn a living without worrying about a possible threat to them. This problem is even worse for “immigrant workers” says the Fight for 15 because they are not fully aware of their rights and thus leaving them more vulnerable for exploitation. It is also common that women did not want to speak out in fear of losing their jobs, and of course this would mean not being able to support themselves and possible loved ones. By re-enacting the zero tolerance policy, women will be able to go to work feeling like they are equal to everyone because harassment rates will plummet.

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

Posted by Zachary Lucanie.

Historically, presidential elections have brought Americans to their feet as they stand behind their candidate to hold the highest position in American politics. Given that the president is elected once every four years it is important to many Americans that the office is held by the candidate that will solve the issues most prevalent to them. One of the great privileges that an American has is the Constitutional right to vote, with the Fifteenth Amendment ensuring that every vote counts no matter what ones race or skin color. With that, there are still many Americans that pay no mind to elections and abstain from voting. The circumstances have changed, however, in the current presidential election between Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. Many feel that this election has broader implications for the country and that the electing of the wrong candidate could leave the country in turmoil. Along with protesting and campaigning on behalf of their candidate, Americans feel the best way to stop the candidate that they disagree with is to get out and vote. This has brought many voters, some who have never voted before, out to the polling booths which was seen in the primaries. Now, as we close in on Election Day and as voters begin preparing to elect their candidate, many individuals are beginning to question the legitimacy of the voting process. Although this is occurring in states all over the country, there are disputes occurring in swing states especially due in part to the potential weight that their vote could hold. Whether the claims hold legitimacy is not clear cut and many have turned to the law to rectify the issues they see in the voting process.

One state that is experiencing legal trouble is Texas, where voting-rights advocates have pointed out to state officials that “several counties opened the state’s early voting period October 24^th with incorrect signs indicating that voters must show photo identification to cast a ballot” (Kendall). This was a problem to many given that earlier in August a court had determined that there would be exceptions made for people that had sufficient reasoning for not obtaining a form of government issued identification. The signs that were mistaken put out at these polling sites meant that there would be some residents who wouldn’t be able to cast their ballot. Many polling sites claimed this to be an oversight and that the placement of the signs were not intentional. With that said it is still unlawful and since shedding light on the issue the signs have been fixed.

Another state that has seen questions of voting rights was Ohio. State Democrats and a pair of homeless advocacy groups appealed to the Supreme Court in an effort to stop state requirements which they believe could lead to absentee and provisional ballots being rejected if voters make mistakes on the forms. If this problem goes unaddressed it is predicted that thousands of Ohio ballots will be disallowed. “Justice Elena Kagan has asked the state to submit a legal response by Monday” (Kendall). Secretary of State Jon Husted disagreed with the Democrats initiative saying that allowing these ballots to count would be “injecting chaos” (Husted) into the election. Husted stated that “Election officials need a way to confirm that a person is a qualified, eligible voter before counting a ballot”.

“Arizona Democrats are awaiting an appeals-court ruling on their challenge to a GOP state law that makes it a crime for get-out-the-vote operatives to collect and deliver absentee ballots filled out by voters” (Kendall). Democrats fear that if residents are unable to go out and vote that their votes will not be counted. They are also concerned that a large burden will be placed on neighbors, activists and campaigners who will have to go out and collect ballots for those that cannot get out and vote. A trial judge ruled in favor of the state, the reason being that Arizona has been known to have cases of legitimate voter fraud and ballot tampering.

Being a swing state, Pennsylvania is placed under the microscope when it comes to voting and voter legitimacy. Most recently “A Pennsylvania federal judge will consider a GOP challenge to state rules that say residents are eligible to monitor elections only in the counties in which they reside” (Kendall). Due to the power that Pennsylvania has in the deciding of an election, many Republicans feel that it would be wise to place poll watchers in heavily Democratic urban areas to make sure that elections are conducted fairly. Some people, including Democratic Secretary of the Commonwealth, Pedro Cortes feels that the Republicans could “compromise the fundamental rights of voters actually trying to cast peaceful votes.”

As the election begins to narrow down there is widespread implications of voter fraud and voter rights violations across the country. It is up to courts and lawmakers to ensure that every single American has the right to vote for who they want, it is a fundamental right that this country was founded on.

Zachary is a finance and economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Nick Mitwasi.

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

Posted by Joe Casey.

In the business world the line to remain ethical and make profit is thin. In the recent months Samsung has toed the line with the ethical standards of business due to their latest smartphone repeatedly catching fire all throughout the world. Samsung acting as swiftly as possible called for a quick recall of 2.5 million units of this phone however, the recall has gone anything but quick.

While Samsung seemed to be gaining ground on Apple in the smartphone business, they have produced their newest phone the Samsung Galaxy Note 7; the issue that has risen is that these phones are beyond unsafe and yet people still seem to be using them even after the initial recall. Due to the recall, Samsung has seemingly alleviated the possibility to be liable for any lawsuits that will come after the recall has been issued but the harm that was done prior to the recall has in estimate, “further dented Samsung’s reputation and shaved as much as $14 billion off its market value” (Times).  One of the many issues that face Samsung is that it seems they have wavered from government recall protocol and instead are trying to “save face” by venturing out on their own and advertising to bring the devices back for a change of battery when the issue is much more complex. The first recall while slow had seemed to stop the issue of their exploding phone as soon as October 1st.

Five days had passed since the recall seemed to fully become effective, until October 6^th when the first report of a replacement phone being defective hits the news. This stream picks back up and again Samsung is forced to stop producing the phone all together making it the largest smart phone recall to date. Finally, on October 11^th “Samsung announces it is stopping all sales of the phone while it investigates the problems.”(BBC). While Samsung at first was able to stay ethical, they decided to find an immediate solution due to the money they would lose and are now dealing with a larger problem all together.

This hit is only the beginning in the repercussions after this will be seen further in the court system yet their ethical standing to act as quickly as possible even though it went against the governments wishes on how to handle the recall was best for their business. Instead of staying unethical and ignoring the problem they chose to deal with it head on.

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

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37615496

Posted Layla Alzahrani.

Embezzlement is money stolen by an unethical person. According to the article, 40 percent of small businesses in the United States will be targeted for average loss of $ 140,000,00.00, but embezzlement is only reported two percent of the time. Most of the embezzlers are trusted and long-term employees or family friends, or relatives. Victims’ trust usually is shattered after embezzlement happened, especially if embezzlers are their friends or relatives. According to forensic psychologists, victims have lack of judgment to discover the perpetrators before embezzlement happens.

It is difficult to discover employees who follow no pattern and offer no outward signs. Embezzlement sometimes is committed by people who do not have previous criminal records and and may have reputations beyond reproach. There are warning signs, however, that can show as evidence of employees’ behavior before the theft is uncovered, such as: enthusiastic employees who ask questions about business processes and procedures; employees who have excessive debt because of divorce or drug abuse; and employees who refuse to take time of their job, and who want to work when no one is around. Usually embezzlers have a hostile attitude if they get questioned about financial transaction.

Moreover, there are three factors must be present before a person can commit fraud; they are need, opportunity, and rationalization. Some examples of need are addiction to drugs, alcohol, and gambling. Rationalization appears when an employee believes that his/her illegal action fits within a personal code of conduct or ethic, which means that an embezzler steals because they see that as situational fraud. However, embezzlement can be discovered if accountants find amounts of expenses that are not consistent with historical norms or budget, documents are missing or incomplete, problems of bank reconciliations, and documents are adjusted without adequate support.

Preventing embezzlement can be difficult because there is no sure-fire method that can prevent it. Some examples that make it difficult to prevent fraud are issuing fictitious checks, invoking products that a company does not need it, issuing cashing checks for return products that not actually returned, forging checks and destroying them, and charging patients more than a duplicate invoice. There are some precautions that clients can take to prevent fraud such as doing an extensive background check before hiring an employee, tracking a person’s checks and verifying them, making bank deposits nightly, reconciling the bank and credit card statements, and requiring vacations. Those handing funds must be closely and routinely monitored in a company to insure that all profit within the practice and not in someone’s pocket.

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

Source:

Tranyor, Robert M. (2016) Embezzlement Could it Really Happen to You?, Audiology Today, Vol. 28. No. 4.

Posted by Xiangni Meng.

There have been at least 16 deaths caused by a ruptured Takata air bag inflator worldwide. The first U.S. death report of a Takata inflator is a 17-year-old high school senior, who died in Texas in a moderate speed crash. The most recent death in the United States was confirmed by U.S. safety regulators. A 50-year-old California woman died in a Honda Civic that was first recalled in 2008 because of a defective airbag.

The problem is that “[t]he defective air bag inflators deploy with too much force sending metal fragments flying.” This accident spurned the search and recall for noncompliant vehicles. This deficiency covers more than 60 million air bags in vehicles from BMW, Ford, Honda, Tesla, Toyota, and 12 other corporations. That is one of every five cars on the road in the U.S. The biggest recall could affect more than 100 million vehicles around the world.

Actually, about 11.4 million inflators in the United States have been fixed, while more than 20 million were left unrepaired. Takata spokesman Jared Levy said the “tragedy underscores the importance of replacing those airbag inflators that have been recalled by automakers.” However, owners can be difficult to find. Even Honda has mailed letters, placed Facebook ads, made telephone calls, and in some instances visited owners, but some owners just refuse to get it repaired. “Safety advocates have called for laws banning the sale of any vehicle until recall repairs are made, or a national requirement that recalls be done before license plates can be renewed.” Spokesman Bryan Thomas said, The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) doesn’t have legal authority to order those recalling steps.

A Senate investigation and personal injury litigation have turned up company documents suggesting that Takata executives ignored their own employees and hid the potential danger from Honda, their biggest customer, as well as from U.S. regulators. It is said Takata is seeking a financial investor to help pay for huge liabilities from the world’s biggest auto recall. Also, Takata could face $200 million fine over faulty airbags.

Xiangni is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/29/business/ap-us-air-bag-danger.html?src=busln

http://fortune.com/2016/10/21/takata-air-bag-deaths/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-06-02/sixty-million-car-bombs-inside-takata-s-air-bag-crisis

Posted by Sarah Velez.

International business relations is a major component of the United States economy. Foreign countries send their ships to the United States to pick up shipments and deliver products. While this global trade relationship is highly beneficial, the challenges that arise as a result of compliance issues and differences in ethical standards have recently been brought to light. The article “Greek Shipping Companies Fined $1.5 Million for Pollution” written by Gene Johnson of the Associated Press, reports a case of a Greek vessel that “deliberately pumped oil-polluted water into the ocean, then repeatedly lied and falsified records in an effort to deceive inspectors with the U.S. Coast Guard.” These illegal actions led to a million and a half dollar fine to be paid by the companies that jointly own Gallia Graeca, the Greek vessel.

In October of 2015, Gallia Graeca arrived in Seattle to pick up a substantial shipment of soybeans. This ship, owned by both Gallia Graeca LTD and Angelakos SA, was routinely inspected by U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Daniel Hamilton once it arrived at the port. As reported by Petty Officer Hamilton, the oil was not properly cleaned and it was actually in areas where it should not have been as a result of the poor maintenance of the oil-water separator. A deeper investigation made by the prosecutors showed that the ship had discarded “5,000 gallons of oil-fouled bilge water” (Johnson). In addition to knowingly dumping this substantial amount of oil, the engineers on the ship also presented the U.S. Coast Guard with false records and feigned the functioning of the oil-water separator. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, company executives were aware of the entire operation which shows the unethical behavior throughout the company chain.

While the Coast Guard has reported cases of sea pollution, they consider that holding corporations, as well as individuals, criminally liable is “notoriously difficult to detect and prove” (Johnson). Not only were the two companies charged with forging log books and polluting, but other involved individuals were also held accountable and the engineers on board were sentenced to jail time. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour stated that this case “will resonate with other parties in this industry and cause them to pause when they think about creating a corporate culture that encourages deception.”

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

Posted by Lindsey Pena.

In business, ethics are strong guiding principles that aid managers, employees, and investors to correctly conduct business transactions. When ethical matters are disregarded, the end result is fraud, embezzlement, among many other illegal actions. One of these illegal actions is called a Ponzi scheme. Perhaps the most famous Ponzi scheme was devised by Bernie Madoff, a well-respected financier, who conned investors out of an estimated $65 billion. Madoff was caught in December of 2008 and charged with 11 counts of fraud, perjury, theft, and money laundering. He ultimately faced 150 years in prison as a result of his decades long Ponzi scheme.

Because of the magnitude of this Ponzi scheme, eight years later, the consequences are still being addressed. Recently, the estate of Stanley Chais, one of Bernie Madoff’s friends, agreed to pay the victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme $277 million to settle claims that insisted Chais profited from the scheme. Irving Picard, a trustee liquidating Madoff’s firm, has recovered more than $11.2 billion for the investors who were conned. They achieved this my suing the banks and offshore accounts that hid the money in addition to investors who profited from the fraud. In the 2009 lawsuit against Chais and his wife, Picard claimed that they “reaped about $1 billion in profit from fake securities transactions at Madoff’s firm.” Chais also reaped rewards through fees that he would earn when he gave his customer’s money to Madoff’s firm. In addition to this, Chais was also sued by the SEC in 2009 because he “steered assets from three investment funds to Madoff, “despite having clear indications Madoff was engaged in fraud.”

Chais, along with five of Madoff’s employees, were not the only ones who received consequences. Thousands of innocent investors trusted Bernie’s reputable, veteran background hoping to make profit from their investments. While reading this article, I could not help but to think about the Kantian ethics which states that a person should evaluate their actions by the consequences if everyone in society acted the same way. Bernie Madoff made the exception for himself when he decided to execute the treacherous plan and the consequences of his actions will cost him the rest of his life.

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

Posted by Enerd Pani.

During the beginning of October, there was a vast change where control of the internet source code was transported from the United States, to what most likely will be the United Nations. The result is that countries not only in Europe, but all over the world can vie for control of the internet. Arguably unscrupulous countries such as Russia, China and Iran can cause issues with human rights violations and can censor areas of the internet in other countries, not only within their own home country. The second issue is that the President did not ask Congress for approval to give a piece of U.S property to overseas forces. The following action has been criticized as going against US interests, and mitigating any form of American supremacy.

Still, some people see this as a necessary step. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration believes the chance of government intrusion to be “extremely remote” (BBC). The issue arises when multiple shareholders with many different ideas on how the internet should be maintained all vie for control of singular entity. These “stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technological expertise” (BBC). One might wonder how such a important function can be put within the control of so many groups with different interests. There has even been calls by Russia and China for the Domain Naming Server to be put under the control “by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union” (BBC). The request put forward shows the desires countries with very shady human rights have towards getting control of such a important tool for free speech.

Many groups had argued that a delay on the acquisition should have been placed. The critics of the movement “argue that once the transition takes place it is irreversible, and that it would be prudent to temporarily maintain existing U.S. government authority” (fas 18). It would seem very controversial to transfer over such a valuable asset when there may not be any chance to change a decision. Also questions arise on how the “.mil” and “.gov” domains should be handled. These domains are sole property of the U.S Government, and cannot be used in any other way.

To conclude, the “giveaway” of ICANN is one shrouded in uncertainty. No one can be sure if the new stakeholders of the internet will continue to monitor it ethically. There has been major concern about some countries abusing the power of internet control, but many companies like the NTIA assure that they are looking to “protect U.S consumers, companies, and intellectual properties” (fas 12). It can be argued that ICANN was transferred unethically, though now the deed is done. The future will tell if this move will either effect, or mitigate personal freedoms on the internet.

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

Sources:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

Posted by Kristina Volta.

In light of the recent events of Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 phones setting on fire, many people have been looking to Apple as an alternative. However, the new news of Apple’s IPhone 7 catching flame has many consumers nervous. The most recent case was when an Australian surf coach, Matt Jones, left his phone under a pair of pants in his car while he taught a lesson. When he returned to his car he found that his car was full of smoke and where his phone was had been burnt up and the pants that had been on top of the phone were on fire. This is concerning for Apple whose stock has dropped .41%. This is going to be a knock to Apple’s popularity, especially after seeing the negative kickback that Samsung has been facing for a similar problem.

Apple has been investigating this report, challenging that he was not at the car when the fire started. Many people are beginning to believe that there is a possibility that Apple’s IPhone 7 has a similar Lithium-ion battery, which can become “unstable” when it’s put in certain situations. There is a chance the phone became too hot wrapped up in the pants in the car and that could have been the reason the phone caught fire.

Even though these claims haven’t been solidified yet, this could still cause a major setback for Apple and their products. Although there haven’t been many claims about Apple phones catching fire, the fear consumers now have could be significantly detrimental to their sales of the IPhone 7. Not to mention, if the case does come out to show that it was the IPhone’s battery that caught fire, Apple will be held liable for it.

When companies put out products their consumers and shareholders are putting faith in the company that they are purchasing a safe good unless otherwise mentioned. Lithium-ion batteries have been known to have issues for other products like “Tesla cars, Boeing jetliners, Hewlett Packard laptops and Hoverboards” as well as other IPhones. There was a case in March of an IPhone 6 bursting into flames on a flight to Hawaii. This is concerning for not only Apple, but also any other company who is or plans to use Lithium-ion batteries. This is a risk these companies are taking considering the clear unpredictability of the safety of these batteries.

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

Sources:

http://fortune.com/2016/10/21/apple-iphone-7-explodes/

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/21/2nd-fire-apple-iphone-7-threatens-mass-recall/

Posted by Caroline Weeks.

On November 5, 2015 a dam in the Brazilian city of Mariana collapsed, resulting in multiple causalities and irreparable damage to the surrounding cities and ecosystems. In total, nineteen people lost their lives. The collapse also “released a torrent of sludge that washed away villages, displaced hundreds of people, and traveled more than four hundred miles through southeast Brazil’s Rio Doce basin before reaching the Atlantic Ocean.” It is said that this is “believed to be the biggest disaster of its kind anywhere.” The yearlong criminal investigation into the collapse recently ended and has resulted in homicide charges being filed against twenty one people in connection with the disaster. Some of the people charged are “current and former top executives of mining giants Vale SA and BHP Billiton Ltd., and Samarco Mineração SA.” In addition, employees of a consulting firm that performed checkups on the dam were charged with “presenting false stability reports.” This disaster is an example of companies being concerned solely with short run profit maximization and an inherent lack of corporate social responsibility.

The federal prosecutor in Brazil has stated that “the motivation of the homicides was the excessive greed of the companies.” It has been detailed that the victims were killed by the “violent passage of the tailings mud” and that they “had their bodies mutilated and…dispersed across an area of 110 kilometers.” These innocent employees died a cruel and painful death at the hands of corporate greed. Samarco focused on short run profit maximization and did not take into account the effects of their actions. The prosecutor says that there is evidence that Samarco, and its shareholders, were “aware of chronic structural problems” as early as April 2009. If this is true, the company knew about critical problems with the structure for more than 6 years and chose to continually ignore the warnings. The board not only failed to make the facility structurally sound, but responded to these structural issues by “pressuring the company to extract more iron ore.” If the company had simply taken head to these warnings they would’ve prevented the loss of innocent lives, the damage of surrounding communities, and incredibly expensive lawsuits along with a permanently tarnished reputation. These findings show the goal of the company was to maximize profits as quickly as possible. They did not take into account the repercussions of a dam collapse and innocent people paid the price for their greed.

This fatal event also details Samarco’s lack of corporate social responsibility. The company chose to focus on profits and purposely chose to ignore the issues with their facility. The company did not act ethically and they certainly did not take into account the surrounding communities. As a result of the dam collapse, families have lost their homes, and even entire communities have been washed away. Not only have these villages been destroyed, but so has the surrounding ecosystem. The river “is still tainted a rusty red form the sediment” that washed through the river basin after the dam collapsed. If the company had acted ethically, they could’ve saved lives and communities. This disaster is a prime example of executives acting carelessly in the hopes of inflating their bank accounts.

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

Posted by Gurpreet Kaur.

CNN Money released an article on Well Fargo’s employees secretly withdrawing money from customers’ bank account and transferring to new accounts since 2011. The article was published on September 8th of this year and Wells Fargo bank was forced to fire 5,300 employees in Los Angles for setting up accounts for customers. This fraud was taking place without any of the customers’ knowledge. After this fraud, many customers were fumed because their bank accounts were unsafe. The employees’ fraud was unethical and illegal because they were creating credit card accounts without letting their customers know.

Brian Kennedy, a Maryland retiree, was one of the victims and he told CNN Money “he detected an unauthorized Wells Fargo account had been created in his name about a year ago. He asked Wells Fargo about it and the bank closed it.” Wells Fargo’s customers had trust in the bank. The victims of this fraud could have filed for refunds, but it wasn’t necessary because Wells Fargo agreed to refund 5 million dollars to them. The settlement in Los Angles required Wells Fargo to warn their California customers to shut down their unrecognized accounts. The fraud caused the bank to unemployed 5,300 workers over these five years.

Richard Cordray is the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and he said, “Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses.”  Those employees transferred funds from customers’ accounts without their knowledge to new accounts they created. Customers were upset because they were facing overdraft fees and insufficient fees. Wells Fargo stated, “We regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request.” Wells Fargo’s market valuation was the highest in America, but the fraud led to lawsuits against Wells Fargo. In May 2015, “Feuer’s office sued Wells Fargo for authorizing accounts” and “after filing the suit, his office received more than 1,000 calls and emails from customers as well as current and former Wells Fargo employees about the allegations.”

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

Posted by Anna Fintor.

Wells Fargo is currently involved in a legal scandal in which it is said to have opened bank accounts and credit cards without the costumer’s consent. According to Reuters, “The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulators ordered United States’ third-largest bank by assets to pay $190 million in fines and restitution to settle civil charges.” The scandal has been going on for several years and there were as many as 2 million accounts opened illegally.

Wells Fargo has been known for its “high-pressure” sales culture, which one of my personal friends who has worked in one of the branches can account for. The Bloomberg article I have read describes how anonymous users have been posting cartoonish videos on YouTube presenting the negative work atmosphere at Wells Fargo. The videos show how management pressured and threatened workers that if the unreasonable goals were not met the workers would be let go.  It is suspected that the videos were created by employees as far back as in 2010.

While reading the articles, I remembered one of the discussions from class of how in large corporations top executives can pressure the bottom level workers to commit the illegal activity. One of the YouTube videos shows that bankers received $5 McDonald’s gift cards for opening a new account, while the executives received generous bonuses. In my opinion that’s very unethical and just wrong.

In the recent weeks the CEO, Jhon Stumpf has resigned and Wells Fargo continues to be under investigation. I feel like this situation is going to hurt Wells Fargo not only financially but also create bad reputation. Due to the popularity of social media, the videos will spread to a vast number of the population, including to those who may not be keeping up with the news.

Anna is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-21/psst-regulators-watch-videos-for-bank-scandal-after-wells-fargo

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-21/psst-regulators-watch-videos-for-bank-scandal-after-wells-fargon fines and restitution to settle civil charges

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-accounts-california-idUSKCN12J2O

Posted by Alexa Constantine.

The New York Times on October 11th of this year released the article describing Wells Fargo’s fraud scandal that was brought to the public eye last month. The ethics scandal came to light last month, but the fraud has been going on for years, maybe even a decade with the first report in 2005. Julie Tishkoff in 2005 wrote to the Wells Fargo human resources about how she saw employees setting up sham accounts, forging customer signatures, and the sending out of unsolicited credit cards. Her complaining went on for four years. Tishkoff was not the only employee who was complaining to the internal ethics hotline, the human resources department, and to the managers and supervisors.

In 2011, John G. Stumpf, the board chairman, received at least two letters from Wells Fargo employees describing the illegal activities they have witnessed. Mr. Stumpf became president the year Julie Tishkoff wrote to human resources. In September of this year, Mr. Stumpf testified in front of Congress, twice, stating that, “he and other senior managers only realized in 2013 that they had a big problem on their hands — two years after the bank had started firing people over this issue.” In 2013, Wells Fargo launched the internal investigation within their company for the fraud they realized that was happening. But by then, the prosecutors and regulators caught on and in May of 2015 a lawsuit was filed. The Los Angeles city attorney filed the lawsuit for the creation of unauthorized accounts against Wells Fargo. The case was settled this September of 2016.

After the lawsuit settled, Mary Eshet, spokeswoman for Wells Fargo said, “We have made fundamental changes to help ensure team members are not being pressured to sell products, customers are receiving the right solutions for their financial needs, our customer-focused culture is upheld at all times and that customer satisfaction is high.” And since September 8th, Wells Fargo will pay $185 million in fines for the opening about two million customer accounts and credit cards without authorization. Wells Fargo is taking responsibility for the scandal and is making changes to the company.

The scandal still continues after the settlement. Former employees whose are suing Wells Fargo state that many of the managers at the branch level and the people who heard their ethics complaints are still employed. The employees who complained and brought to light the fraud within the company lost their jobs shortly after they complained. Between 2011 and this year, Wells Fargo terminated the employment of 5,300 workers, “around 10 percent of those worked at the branch manager level or above, according to the bank, but only one — an area president — had a high-level management role.” The whistleblowers lost their jobs while the people who should have acknowledged the fraud kept their jobs. Mr. Stumpf acknowledged the outrage of former employees about how the bank should have heeded what they said were warning and taken action earlier by saying, “We should have done more sooner.” Mr. Stumpf’s answer does not satisfy former employees.

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

Posted by Kayla Caveny.

The United States and Europe both have emissions standards for their vehicles. The standards are in place to limit the amount of pollutants the vehicle may make. However, there is a way to bypass those standards, illegal of course. This certain device is called a “defeat device,” which is any apparatus that unduly reduces the effectiveness of emissions control systems under conditions a vehicle may reasonably be expected to experience.

On September 18, 2015 U.S and European officials accused Volkswagen and Audi of installing these defeat devices within numerous diesel cars made between 2009 and 2015. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the cars that were tampered with “included software that circumvents EPA emissions standards for certain air pollutants.” The vehicles that were effected only release the EPA’s emissions standards when the car is actually being tested. The vehicle actually produces nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the “legal” standard. Because of these vehicles being tampered with over 11 million Volkswagen and Audie’s have now been subject to recall. Volkswagen did admit to not complying with governmental standards. However, the makers of Volkswagen and Audi told the owners of these cars that “this is an emissions issue, your vehicle is safe to drive.”

Volkswagen and Audi’s actions have now caused several lawsuits, especially within the state of Tennessee. Most of these lawsuits are against Volkswagen and many of the dealers within the United States. According to John Willis, a lawsuit in Chattanooga, Tennessee’s Federal Court included seven plaintiffs who sued Volkswagen’s parent company and a Tennessee based dealer for fraudulent concealment and violating Tennessee consumer protection law. They thought they were purchasing “green” vehicles that met or exceeded federal emissions standards.

The plaintiffs believe that once Volkswagen completes a government mandated recall to remove the illegal defeat devices, the cars will not perform as they were designed. In the end Volkswagen has a settlement of 10 billion for vehicle buybacks, lease terminations, and owner compensation, as well as a 2.7 billion dollars towards environmental programs to reduce polluting nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere. Volkswagen must also spend another 2 billion to promote zero-emission vehicles, which is even more than what they had originally planned to spend on the technology.

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

References:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/faq-volkswagen-diesel-emissions-settlement.html

Posted by Michael Larkin.

When one checks into a hotel, one would expect to have their information stored in a company’s database, but one would not expect that database to get compromised. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation was using a property management system that stored customer’s names, addresses, and credit card number. On three separate occasions in 2008 and 2009, Wyndham was hacked and this information was pulled off of over 600,000 accounts. Damage was approximately $10.6 million and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought Wyndham to trial.

Even though Wyndham was the company that got hacked, it was the customers who got hurt and that is why the FTC filed against Wyndham. The FTC argued that the hacks were caused due the very limited security that the management system used. It was found that the credit card numbers could easily be read, passwords were easy to guess, and a firewall was not deployed along with various other issues. Wyndham argued that the FTC had no right to file a suit against them and that the unfairness and deception claims were not sufficiently validated. It was founded that Wyndham didn’t provide a fair system for its customers and the court required the company to change in order to protect its customers. Mainly, Wyndham needs a more comprehensive security program in order to protect account information and also conduct annual information security audits and maintain a safeguard for its servers.

This case was a matter of protection and privacy for the company’s customers. A customer is providing personal information in order to engage in business so Wyndham has a duty to protect that information. Having a higher security will ensure that hackers will not be able to breach the system and steal information. The FTC won the trial, and in doing so, made sure that a company had a high security to protect the customers.

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

Sources:

FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp.

Verdict From: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/wyndham-settles-ftc-charges-it-unfairly-placed-consumers-payment

Posted by Michael Larkin.

In a case that has been around for over a decade, Richard Suen will meet in the Nevada Supreme Court for the second time with Las Vegas Sands. This case is about the Las Vegas Sands casino opening up a location in Macau, China. The argument is whether or not Suen had a major role in this transaction to be able to share in the profits that the Sands casino would make.

Macau is the world’s largest gaming market so Sands would be able to share in the profit and attempt to make money. In order to open a location there, Sands would have to have had a license authorized by the Chinese government and business officials. Suen was a Hong Kong businessman who was able to set up these relationships for Sands in order for them to get the license with a payment of $5 million and 2 percent of profits. This is where the case gets tricky as Sands argues that Suen did not have a major influence in setting up these relationships, therefore, the company owes him nothing. Suen argues that if it were not for him, then Sands would have had no chance of getting the Macau license and because of this, he wants money due to the service he did. Suen filed a lawsuit saying that Las Vegas Sands owes him $115 million. Going back to 2008, Suen won $43.8 million dollars and later in 2010, he won another $70 million. Now continuing to the present, Las Vegas Sands is fighting these awards again in the Supreme Court.

Sands’ biggest argument is that there is a lack of evidence in the previous trials. What has been proven, however, is that there were cases where Sands’ executives recognized Suen and the work that he did. It appears that Suen does have the right to receive some payment, but all of it is the real question. Las Vegas Sands was trying to expand their locations to one the biggest gaming area of the world, but because they disregarded someone who helped, they have been facing a long-run issue.

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

Posted by Joseph Papandrea.

All different opinions are being thrown around in this case between Apple and the Federal Government. Syed Farook’s phone is what the Federal Government wants to access, due to his previous activity. Farrook killed 14 people during the San Bernardino attack. His relations to ISIS is why the government wants to access his phone. The judge decided to side with Apple in not letting the Fed’s access Farrok’s phone. Apple’s argument not to unlock this phone is because it affects everyone who owns iPhones. “Apple’s lawyers argue that the government’s demands would ultimately make iPhones less safe”(Riley). Apple being able to unlock this phone would make it less safe because phones could fall into the wrong hands. Apple in the past has helped the law enforcement in a drug dealer case. In this case it is much more serious and dangerous for society. Judge James Orenstein says there is no way he can force Apple to hack and access the phone.

The Federal Government holding this phone and stressing about this case does not make sense. There has to be a way the government can hack into the phone themselves, but do not want to reveal that power. If they are able to do that without the help of Apple that could also put a lot of people in danger.

Both Apple and the Federal Government are making a lot of things difficult. Apple was faced with a big decision about whether they were going to help access Farrok’s phone. If Apple accesses the phone, it can help the government in many ways. Their view on it though is that it affects every iPhone owner. Apple’s power to access one phone will give the government access all. A lot of people would side with Apple for fear of their own privacy, but others will argue and say that it will benefit the government because there can be evidence leading to ISIS. Apple decision is probably what is best for the company. Apple wants to stay loyal to its customers and do not want to lose income. People knowing that Apple is able to unlock a phone so easy is where customers lose trust with the company.

In conclusion, both Apple and the Federal Government are stuck between what is morally right. Apple is doing what is best for the company, because if the technology falls into the wrong hands it will bring the company down. I believe the Federal Government must have someone who can find a way to access this phone., because they have the technology already and are looking for a means to protect that secret. They can listen in on anything. In my opinion Apple is not wrong for not wanting to unlock the phone, because they are only protecting the company.

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

Posted by Dalton Soffer.

Erin Andrews, a sportscaster who has worked for ESPN and currently for FOX, was recently awarded $55 million by a Nashville jury for her civil lawsuit against a Nashville, Tennessee hotel owner and her stalker Michael David Barrett. In 2008 Barrett used a hacksaw to tamper with Andrews’ peephole and secretly video taped her while she was undressed. The video was later released on the internet, and it turned in to a nightmare for Andrews. Her privacy was taken from her and she was publicly humiliated after the video surfaced. Andrews gave an emotional testimony and sent out an emotional post on twitter saying the support she has received throughout the whole process has helped her fight to hold those accountable for whose job it is to protect everyone’s security, safety, and privacy.

Andrews originally sought $75 million in her suit however the court settled for $20 million less than that. The jury found the stalker, Barrett, was 51% at fault and was ordered to pay out $28 million, while the West End Hotel Partners, which owns and operates that Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University, was found to be 49 percent at fault and asked to pay out more than $26 million. The West End Hotel Partners has said that Barrett is solely responsible for his criminal actions.

In my opinion, I feel like the settlement amount was fair but I do not feel that it was properly divided between the guilty sides. Barrett was more at fault than 51%, I would say he was more like 75% at fault in this and should be ordered to pay more of the settlement.

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

Posted by Joseph Papandrea.

Chipotle is a company that has had a rough year due to people getting sick from eating at the popular fast-food chain. Steve Ells and Monty Moran, two executives who share the job as CEO, were affected when people started getting sick. Just before that outbreak, the company’s stock reached an all-time high. It was going for $758 a share, but once people started getting sick it was down to a little over $507 a share. Both Ells and Moran brought in around $13.8 million each, with the based salaries increasing by just over $100,000. The outbreak of this health crisis hurt Chipotle’s sales and had a huge impact on their image. For this to happen during a time where stocks and sales were up is tragic. The company did the right thing by temporarily closing their restaurants for the safety of society. The company had to sit down and figure out what was causing this health crisis.

This was the first time the company had a decrease since opening 10 years ago. The company took in only $68 million in profit, which reflected a 44% drop. Things like this are going to happen to companies. A company that is very successful has its down falls. Chipotle did the right thing by closing temporarily. Getting their image back from this crisis will be be tough. The focus for the company should be getting the trust back from their customers. We know this breakout was called E.coli, but the cause was never determined.

The best thing the company could do is advertise to get the trust back. The customers should always come first and their satisfaction should as well. The company still did fairly well even when the health issue broke out. This is an eye opening situation for all businesses, that even though there is a downfall they could always bounce back and get the customers trust back. Customers were hospitalized, and it is best that Chipotle is able to prevent that from happening again.

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

Posted by Peyton Adams.

Avery was wrongly convicted for strangling Maryetta Griffin.  According to sources, Avery did not admit to the crime, and if he did, it was a forced confession.  However, the jury did not believe him.

The prosecution was able to sway the jury, which caused Mr. Avery to go to jail for SIX years. His image was severely damaged; he lost touch with his children and grandchildren due to being wrongfully convicted.

New DNA evidence surfaced proving that Avery was not the murderer of Maryetta Griffin.  Instead, the DNA testing was linked to Walter Ellis, a serial killer.  Avery was unjustly incriminated by the Milwaukee Police and Avery’s accusations of him not confessing, or confessing unwillingly were proved correct.

The police in this case, therefore, destroyed a man’s life by making up incriminating statements.  Avery lost touch with loved ones; his image was attacked; and he was ONLY awarded $1M.

John Stainthorp with Peoples Law Office in Chicago said, “If you think about it, six years while you’re in prison, you can’t get up when you want, you can’t see the people you want, go to bed when you want, read what you want.”  His life was ruined due to the fact that the police did not do the correct investigation to make sure that they had accused the correct man.

Mr. Avery was released after six years, but his life will never be the same AGAIN!  The Milwaukee Police should be questioned for the accusations they made in court against the plaintiff.

Peyton is a marketing major with minors in business law and nonprofit studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Peyton Adams.

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment have been overlooked by authorities many times in the past.  The Martinez vs Denver Police case is yet another time this has occurred.

The Denver police forcefully entered the Martinez house on January 27, 2009.  Instead of allowing Mr. Martinez to fully open the door to determine why the District 1 Special Crime Attack Team (SCAT) was at his door, SCAT forced their way into the house, without a warrant, after receiving information about this home being that of a drug dealer.  This Crime Team failed to realize that a new family had taken over the home since the tip was received.

The Denver police were apparently working on “stale information about the former tenants presumably being into drugs and prostitution and some bad stuff.”  The police failed to do their background checks; failed to do some investigation; failed to show any respect; and, failed to handle the situation in a proper manner.  Instead, the police asserted their power, entered the house, abused their power, and assaulted a family of a mariachi band.

The Martinez family were wrongly accused, but does the Denver police care? The Denver police instead ignored it and didn’t punish anyone on this raid.  They merely overlooked the fact that their team did not do their job.

The jury, however, came to a conclusion.  The Martinez family sued on two accounts: one, for excessive force, and two, for wrongful prosecution.  The jury did not see enough information to determine if the officers entered the house and abused their power, although there were broken windows and injuries sustained by the family.  Nonetheless, the jury found that the Martinez family was wrongfully prosecuted and awarded the Martinez family a monetary value of $1.8 million.

The officers planned on appealing the case.

Peyton is a marketing major with a minor in nonprofit studies and business law at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.