Posted by Connie Huang.

HSBC is a bank with locations in Europe. Two branches raided on or about February 18, 2015 by Swiss authorities are located in Geneva. They raided the banks, because the banks are accused of money laundering.

Money laundering is “a financial transaction scheme that aims to conceal the identity, source, and destination of illicitly-obtained money.” The bank’s Swiss arm was aiding their clients in hiding $100 billion in Swiss accounts, as reported by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). This allowed let them evade taxes.

According to the article, the bank told their clients that it would not divulge to national authorities details of accounts. HSBC talked about “moves that [would] ‘ultimately allow clients to avoid paying taxes in their home countries.’” As said by the ICIJ, HSBC has served clients like Hosni Mubarak, former Egyptian President, the current ruler of Syria Bashar al-Assad, and Ben Ali, the former Tunisian President.

“HSBC Switzerland Offices Raided over Money Laundering Allegations – Feb. 18, 2015.” CNNMoney. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

Connie is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Connie Huang.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, fraud is “the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person; a person who pretends to be what he or she is not in order to trick people; [or] a copy of something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people.” Therefore, a person who pretends to be something they’re not in order to trick people and using dishonest ways to take something valuable from someone is fraud.

A former general counsel of a law firm in South Florida was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. He was sentenced to federal prison because he helped a managing partner  “swindle investors by selling them ‘income’ from faked settlements.” He will probably be testifying against other defendants.

According to the article, defendant’s attorney argued that his client “had been punished enough by losing his New York law license and his home and declaring bankruptcy.” I agree that defendant has been punished enough, because losing one’s ability to work and make money (a law license) and maintain a house is hard on his life as it is. That is a lot to lose. The defendant apologized in court to his family members, which I believe is a rightful thing to do. He has declared he has been guilty to charges relating to wire fraud.

“Former General Counsel of Notorious Rothstein Law Firm Gets 18 Months for Fraud.” ABA Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.

Connie is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

It is now legal for Tesla and other manufacturers of zero-emission cars to sell directly to customers in New Jersey. Tesla’s business model includes selling its battery-driven cars from its boutique stores. One of them is located in Short Hills Mall, Short Hills, NJ.

Customers are free to learn about the vehicles through interactive displays and test drives. Tesla does not want to sell its cars through franchises because they sell mostly gas-powered vehicles. Since most of their revenue comes from gas-powered sales, franchises would not be encouraged to sell zero-emission cars.

Both sides of the political isle are pressuring the Fed to be more transparent regarding its monetary policy and cease “cozying up” to the banks it oversees. There are several legislative proposals that some prior Presidents of the Fed consider to be a threat to its independence. If any one of them are passed, it would be the first major overhaul of the institution since the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby is concerned with the Fed’s portfolio, because since 2008 the Fed more than quadrupled its balance sheet to $4.5 trillion. It purchased bonds to suppress longer-term interest rates, but Shelby is at a loss to discover as to what the Fed is going to do with them.

Sen. Rand Paul, along with 29 other Republican Senators, the Majority Leader, and one Democrat, is sponsoring a bill requiring the Fed to be subject to “regular audits” of its monetary policy by the General Accounting Office (GAO). Paul reasoned it is “‘unseemly that an organization that we’ve given the power, the monopoly, of making money uses that power then to try to thwart transparency.’”

Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan, head of the House Financial Services panel’s subcommittee on monetary policy, wants to require the Fed to use a mathematical rule when it changes interest rates. New Jersey Republican Representative Scott Garrett has introduced a bill entitled, the “Federal Reserve Transparency and Accountability Act” that “would require the central bank to perform a cost-benefit analysis of any new banking rule, submit internal audits and performance reviews to Congress and send a top official to testify before lawmakers on financial rule-making.”

There is at least some change to the selection of governors. Current law now requires at least one member of the seven-member Board of Governors to have community banking experience. It brings experience other than the traditional “academic” or “megabank” experience, as the proponent of the original bill, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, described. Individual governors on Fed’s Board of Governors are required to be confirmed by the Senate. The Board of Governors makes important decisions on interest rates and how banks are regulated. But specific expertise in banking is not a requirement for any of the positions. “Of the board’s current five members, three are economists and two are lawyers.” The addition of a governor with community banking experience, however, lends more diversity in the decision-making process.

The New York branch has been the target of Democrats, in particular Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. She has been critical of the current president, William C. Dudley, of being too chummy with big banks. Warren wants more congressional oversight of the central bank. Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island suggests that selection of the New York Fed president should be confirmed by the Senate and has proposed a bill requiring it. Currently, the bank’s directors select the twelve district bank presidents who are then sent on for approval by the Fed board located in Washington.

A lot of criticism surrounds the amount of power the president of the New York branch has over policy set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The president of the New York bank is the only president that does not have to rotate on the committee. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher called for the “stripping” of the New York president’s permanent role on the FOMC, because the New York branch wields too much power and influence. The Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington lobby consisting of 6,500 members, agree.

Both Democrats and Republicans want a more accountable Fed, but there are detractors who believe that legislation would only have the effect of politicizing the central bank. In one poll, 24% of Americans polled believe that politics should stay out of the Fed.

The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari leaving in place a ruling by the D.C. Circuit that a fee cap set by the Federal Reserve Bank at $.24 per transaction. Each time a customer swipes his or her debit card, a retailer is charged the fee.

Retailers complained when the Fed appeared to be abusing Congress’ mandate to create a ceiling on debit card swipes. The Fed originally proposed a $.12 cap, but retailers claim it was under pressure by bank lobbyists to double that amount and include fees and expenses that are not permitted under law.

The D.C. Circuit rejected that argument and determined the Fed’s interpretation of the law was reasonable. “The Fed rule doesn’t apply to credit cards, government-issued debit cards, prepaid cards or cards issued by banks and credit unions with assets under $10 billion.” Retailers vowed to “continue to press the issue in the courts over the ‘anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices of the card industry.’”

In class, students learn about bribery of public officials and its criminal penalties. Bribery can also be an ethics violation. Generally, public officials are prohibited from accepting gifts in relation to their official duties. Both federal and state governments have fashioned rules regarding acceptance of gifts and these rules can extend to family members.

In Section III of the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, for example, it states that no state officer or employee “shall accept any gift, favor, service or other thing of value related in any way to the State official’s public duties.” The same holds true for federal judges. Under the Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States under Title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 Concerning Gifts, judges “shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court . . . .”

But there are exceptions to the rules and each one has to be carefully construed. Some, like the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, will permit certain “gifts or benefits of trivial or nominal value” as long as the gift “does not create an impression of a conflict of interest or a violation of the public trust.” Other codes may provide a dollar-limit. For example, the “Regulations” for federal judges above provide that gifts having “an aggregate market value of $50 or less per occasion” are permitted “provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts accepted from any one person . . . shall not exceed $100 in a calendar year.”

Common sense is the foundation of these rules. If the gift has the appearance of impropriety, it is better to graciously decline it.

Under new FDA rules, movie theaters, chain restaurants, and supermarkets with 20 or more locations will have to provide calorie counts on the foods they sell.  The stores have until November 2015 to comply and provide calorie information on their menus.  Amusement parks, vending machines, bakeries, coffee shops, and convenience stores must also comply with the new rules.

The move to include these food establishments came from a push by the restaurant industry.  Restaurant owners argued that grocery stores and the like that sell prepared foods should also be made to place calorie counts on their food.  “Representatives for the supermarket industry have said it could cost them up to a billion dollars to put the rules in place — costs that would be passed on to consumers.”

Smaller outlets are exempt from the rules for now, as are airplanes, trains, and food trucks.

Posted by Kimberly McNamara.

A former controller of the Hereditary Disease Foundation, a nonprofit group out of New York that encourages and contributes to studies and other research dealing with congenital diseases, has been indicted, this year, for embezzlement of over $1.8 million. The organizations former controller, Karen Alameddine, who was responsible for managing finances from 2005 through January 2014, began “‘to make what in reality were transfers to her personal bank account appear as if they were wire or bank transfers to grant recipients,” according to Manhattan Federal Prosecutors.

Alameddine, who also went by the name Karen Dean, made a fake business called “Abacus Accounting,” “Chez Cheval Ranch,” “Dean & Co,” and “Karen Dean Exports,” to try and cover her tracks. She was not so successful. On November 17 of this year, she was arrested in Boston, and the following day, made an appearance in federal court and is now awaiting a transfer to Manhattan, says The NY Times.

Suspicions were raised when a complaint was made after Alameddine left the nonprofit this past January, stating that an account holder never received their check from the group.

In a statement given by the organization, “this loss was confirmed through internal investigation and a forensic audit conducted by outside legal counsel retained immediately by the foundation. . . . Although the theft was substantial, only a small amount of grant monies committed before 2104 was compromised.”

Alameddine was charged with five counts of tax evasion and one count of wire fraud.

Kim is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Deena Khalil.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2014, there was a court hearing about big-time banks being sued for manipulating a financial benchmark, Libor, by “U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation.” Libor is short for the London Interbank Offered Rate, and it’s used to set the rates on things worth trillions of dollars such as loans, credit cards, and some complex derivatives. The benchmark is calculated each business day by averaging out interest rates in which banks estimate they could borrow from each other. But these banks have to be within the London trading operations in order to be part of the benchmark. Some of the banks that are being accused are JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America.

Plaintiffs include U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation. They allege that evidence gathered by investigators in the U.S., Europe and around the globe shows bank traders involved in the rate-setting process rigged the outcomes to boost their trading profits.

The banks accused are trying to get these cases to be dismissed There are U.S banks that have been struck with billions of dollars in penalties due to Libor manipulation. For example, JPMorgan was fined $78 million by European authorities! Some banks have settled cases, but defendant banks in the present case are seeking to dismiss due to “the lack of personal jurisdiction.” Attorneys “argued the recent Supreme Court rulings established that corporations are ‘at home’ only in their respective countries and in most cases are subject only to lawsuits filed there, not in U.S. courts.” They claim that the Libor manipulation activity occurred outside the U.S.

Deena is a business finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by ZaAsia Thompson-Hunter.

The Federal Communications Commission(FCC) is trying to enforce the disclosure of media contracts from various media companies. These companies include widely recognized corporations such as Disney, CBS, Comcast, Time Warner, and many more. These highly established media corporations oppose the order because they affirm this action will put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Earlier this month these media companies put in a request to the U.S court of appeals to stop the disclosure of their programing contracts. In response, the FCC stated that disclosure “’will aid the commission in the expeditious resolution of these proceedings.’”

Announced on November 14,2014, the media companies won the order to block the request made by the FCC. In connection, “a federal appeals court in Washington today said regulators reviewing the merger can’t immediately let third parties see the contracts.”

ZaAsia is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Kimberly McNamara.

The idea of pensions have been around for nearly 100 years. Detroit, a city that recently filed for bankruptcy, is now facing more monetary concerns, and many are looking for someone to blame. According to The New York Times, the city of “Detroit has been a client of Gabriel Roeder since 1938, when the city first started offering pensions. Now the city is bankrupt, the pension fund is short, benefits are being cut . . . .” Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company is a widely known, consultant and actuary firm dealing mostly with pension plans. This company was hired by the city of Detroit to calculate the amount of money coming in versus the amount of money needed for current and future pension pay-outs.

Many Detroit pension holders are now filing lawsuits against Gabriel Roeder. There are three current cases against Gabriel Roeder: one by members of Detroit’s police and firefighting force, another by Wayne County, and Ms. Estes, a citizen and pension holder in Detroit.

Now Ms. Estes has lost not only part of her pension but much of the savings tied up in her house, while she and her neighbors overpay for paltry city services. She says she might have been spared some of the misery had Gabriel Roeder warned the trustees years ago that the pension system was unsustainable and recommended changes.

Ms. Estes is just one of many who have been put in this situation created by poor business decisions. She was also told that, “she would have to forfeit $25,000 when she reaches retirement age . . . .” There are a multitude of people who had depended on their pension for retirement and simply will never see it.

Unfortunately, Gabriel Roeder would not exceptaccept the advice of other firms including government agencies like the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (G.A.S.B.). If they had, maybe Detroit’s bankruptcy situation would be different and quite possibly there would be no lawsuits being brought againstto Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company.   The firm said they “would vigorously defend itself against the lawsuits,” but lets wait and see how well that holds up in court.

Kimberly is a business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Abier Mustafa.

Stryker Corp., a device maker company, recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implant devices in July 2012 after warning surgeons they could harm tissue around the hip and cause other health problems to its patients. Patients have complained of severe pain, unusual swelling and excessive metal debris in their blood, blaming all these symptoms on the Stryker devices. There are at least 1,800 cases Stryker consolidated before U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul, Minnesota. After facing more than 4,000 suits consolidated in the New Jersey state court and federal court in Minnesota alone, Stryker will pay a base amount of $300,000 per patient’s case. This settlement to patients who had the devices surgically removed prior to November 3^rd.

Stryker Corp. has reported more than $9 billion in revenue in 2013 on the advertisement of their hip implants lasting for years. After the devices failed patients within a short amount of time, the company has now agreed to pay more than $1 billion to resolve these lawsuits. However, “the company said that it set aside more than $1.4 billion to cover costs of handling cases over the recalled hips so the settlement fell into the “‘low end of the range of probable loss.’” “This settlement program provides patients compensation in a fair, timely and efficient manner,” Bill Huffnagle, a spokesman for Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker, said in an e-mailed statement. A source also reveals that a majority of the payments will be made by the end of 2015.

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

Posted by ZaAsia Thompson-Hunter.

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

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

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

Teachers in Michigan are testing the new Right-to Work law by deciding whether to stay in their union.  Michigan has one of several Republican-controlled legislatures that passed laws making union membership and dues voluntary.  Many of the 112,000 active members have until the end of August 2014 to decide whether to stay.  About 1,500 left the union last August during an early opt-out period.  Some teachers feel that the $1,000 spent in union dues per year would be better saved since oftentimes teachers work several years without a raise in salary.

Michigan’s new law has not affected the state’s other unions yet as their collective bargaining agreements will not reach the opt-out period until 2015.  Proponents of the law say that it increases workplace freedom and helps attract business.

Since 2011, more than one-third of Wisconsin’s teachers dropped their union.  In contrast, Alabama, which is also a right-to-work state, has been able to retain about 80 percent of their members.

Bank of America reached a settlement with federal prosecutors over the sale of mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.  BofA will pay 10 billion cash and about 7 billion in consumer aid.  Most of BofA’s trouble is inherited from its purchase of Countrywide Financial.  BofA was charged with misrepresenting the quality of loans it sold to investors.

BofA sold residential mortgages from borrowers who were unlikely able to repay their loans; yet, these securities were promoted as safe investments.  Subsequently, the housing market collapsed and investors suffered billions of dollars in losses.

The consumer aid component should come in the form of reducing the principal on loans BofA knows it cannot recover in full.  This is one of the “consumer-friendly” activities BofA can engage in order to achieve “credits.” Credits consist of a multiple for each dollar spent on each form of consumer relief.  Critics claim that because of credits, tax write-offs, and “other tricks” the fines paid by banks who break the law are worth only a fraction of the amount.

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.

According to the latest ruling by Second Circuit, the NSA’s collection of massive amounts of phone records violated the US Patriot Act. Although they never reached the constitutional question, the court said that Congress never gave the agency the authority. But Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, believes the court had it wrong, and that Section 215, the provision in question, authorizes the NSA to conduct mass collections. The Act is set to expire in a few weeks. Congress will either renew the Act, change it, or eliminate it altogether.

Under Section 215, certain investigators

may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

The controversy is over the words “any intangible things,” and in other parts of the Act, the words “information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” The court agreeing with privacy advocates that the “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation” language is too broad. Members of Congress, however, believe that the language is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks. In any event, any phone record seizure must be preceded by a warrant.

The House is set to vote on the USA Freedom Act. The Freedom Act extends the Patriot Act but removes the power of the NSA to collect bulk phone records.

The Federal Reserve has a lot of power over the economy. It is obligated to promote maximum employment and guard against inflation. In the near term, long-term interest rates, which presently are very low, could rise after the Fed raises its benchmark rate. Rates have been hovering near zero since 2008. Yellen is cautious, however, not to take the market by surprise with any change in monetary policy.

In a recent interview, Yellen said equity market valuations are high and warns of “potential dangers.” Yellen said that “she sees risks as moderated and does not see any bubbles forming, though the central bank is watching the issue closely.”

Posted by Stephanie Simms.

In this article, Ruby Tuesday is facing a civil rights lawsuit for discriminating against male job candidates. The government is suing on behalf of, Andrew Herrera, who worked at an Oregon Ruby Tuesday, and Joshua Bell, who worked at a Ruby Tuesday in Republic, Missouri. They were only allowed to work there for a temporary period of time. What makes the situation worse for Ruby Tuesday is they specifically had an internal job posting that stated only girls should apply to their restaurant. The law of discrimination based on gender states that, employers are prohibited from classifying jobs based on gender, unless employer can prove gender is essential to the job.

The government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in Oregon. The lawsuit explains how the postings which were passed around to stores within nine states, and their content is a violation to the Equal Opportunity Employment laws from the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo stated, “It’s rare to see an explicit example of sex discrimination like Ruby Tuesday’s internal job announcement. . . . This suit is a cautionary tale to employers that sex-based employment decisions are rarely justified and are not consistent with good business judgment.” Everyone is entitled a fair chance when it comes to jobs, because one cannot just tell someone they cannot work somewhere without putting them up to the task. Both of the men say they were denied the opportunity to earn more money because they were not allowed to compete for the jobs.

In the end, Ruby Tuesday hired seven women and no men for the 2013 summer jobs. EEOC’s Seattle Field Office Director, Nancy Sienko said, “[Mr. Herrera] was shocked and angered that Ruby Tuesday would categorically exclude him and other male employees” from a lucrative job. The job announcement was distributed to restaurants located in Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah.

The lawsuit does not indicate exactly how much in damages the men were seeking for the discrimination due to their gender.

Stephanie is business administration with a minor in biology at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Nadia Haddad.

“Intellectual Property law works, until it is stretched.” According to a New York Times article, the problem with intellectual property law is that lawyers try to push the idea of I.P. too far in other areas, like software development, because they believe more the better. The article states that a software patent is a good example of a failed “experiment” because no one today can name a major software innovation whose investments relied on a patent. Some software innovations such as Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, Netscape’s browser, or Google’s search are not responsible for their existence because of a patent. The article mentioned how software patents are expensive, threaten competition, and are occasionally used for accounting fraud.

Intellectual Property plays an important role for all humans in society. In general terms, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by others. Intellectual property is important because it drives economic growth and competition, as well as creating and supporting high paying jobs.

The mind is the most important thing a human possesses, because that is the root of who you are and what you want to do. We live life through people’s intellectual properties or inventions, which is why we need to protect them.

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

Posted by Taylor Gonzales.

A major issue in the United States is the suffering economy. There are not many jobs to apply for and even those available do not pay enough to support oneself or their family. To counteract this issue, states have opted to give a higher minimum wage. In Seattle, they have chosen to raise it to $11 per hour this year; they are allowing small businesses to adjust to the set price of $15 per hour over six years and larger businesses get two years to rise up to that amount. Such a change may be good in terms of income for employees, yet it offsets the business and their current budget.

A pizza shop in Seattle has to close down because it is considered a large business and is unable to make the adjustment of the high wage hike within two years. Ritu Burnham, the owner of the shop, stated, “I’ve let one person go since April 1[;] I’ve cut hours since April 1[;] I’ve taken them myself because I don’t pay myself,” she says. “I’ve also raised my prices a little bit[;] there’s no other way to do it” (Patel, 2015).

Legislation that enforces minimum wage seems to be aimed to protect people, except business profits should be taken into account as well. One idea is each business have a set wage that is efficient for them to stay open and large enough to support their employees. That wage would be enforced through a contract, and if the potential employee comes to an agreement with their wage proposal, then they will sign and be hired.

Sometimes the government needs to allow businesses to take care of themselves, especially in hopes of bettering the economy.

Taylor is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Taylor Gonzales.

Uber and Lyft have become new technological businesses that have gotten a lot of attention for offering taxi service straight from your phone. An app is required that allows an account to be made, linked to a credit card, where you are able to request a taxi to a certain location to bring you to another one. It is a business, however, that is not the typical taxi service. Any person who needs extra cash can be a driver when requests to the apps are made. However, the article states, “The state regulates for-hire passenger transportation through the Limousines Transportation Act 271 of 1990 and the Michigan Vehicle Code. All vehicles transporting passengers are defined as limousines under the law and must have a commercial license plate. Drivers are required to have a chauffeur’s license” (Oddy, 2015). Yet, in Michigan for-hire drivers are not required to have a chauffer’s license.

Though it is not illegal in the state of Michigan, as a business, they should realize that it does not reach the moral minimum. The law may not require such a license for their for-hire drivers, however, they should realize that this poses risks for their customers, because Uber’s and Lyft’s employees may not be qualified to fulfill the position safely and successfully. Both businesses should have created an ethical code of conduct that should be followed to ensure the upmost excellence of their business procedures and safety of their customers.

There is a contract between the customer and the provider, even with these types of business, and through that contract they should make an adjustment to ensure that each driver is properly trained and has a chauffeur license regardless of state law. In cases like this, it is not so much that they are breaking the law, but rather not running a morally and ethically stable business.

Taylor is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Sukayna Khalifeh.

Spoofing became illegal in 2010 when an amendment stating that “bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution” was added to the Commodity Exchange Act. Navinder Singh Sarao was criminally charged for this so-called spoofing, because he was allegedly driving down the price of stocks of Standard & Poor on purpose by making other traders sell their stocks, and then at the last minute, buy those stocks himself and cancel his hoaxed sell orders. He would make a profit after the price came back up and everything goes back to normal. According to the New York Times (Henning), the government also thinks that he was one of the causes that lead to the “flash crash” in May 2010, where the “Dow Jones industrial average dropped nearly 1,000 points in just a few minutes before quickly recovering.” This was proven not to be the case when the blame was actually pinned on Waddell & Reed Financial in 2010 and Sarao was still placing orders after that yet no sudden drops in the market occurred. This proves the government had made the wrong analysis.

Henning brings up a question of whether there is enough proof to call this process a fraud. If it is constituted as one, then Navinder Singh Sarao might have to be deported to Britain by the government. According to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, since 2009, Sarao had made about $40 million just by spoofing. Sarao counter argues that this is just the way he trades and that he had made this estimated profit within 20 trading days. Henning also describes that the “victims of Mr. Sarao’s orders are not ordinary investors” but they are instead “sophisticated investors who use algorithms that try to predict where the market is headed.” This brings up the fact that these sophisticated or high frequency investors are most likely the ones caught with spoofing charges. So, is this actually affecting or “harming ordinary long-term investors” (Henning)? This type of fraud is still violating the law regardless of who the victims are but according to the New York Times (Henning), these high frequency investors, with their access to data about large orders, could have easily adjusted their algorithms to find out what type of orders Sarao used. In that process, they would not have fell for the scheme.

Also, it is not obligatory that once you enter an order it must be filled. According to the New York Times (Henning), “more than 90 percent [of orders] are estimated to be cancelled.” This is not considered to be spoofing since the order might be filled. Henning views this as an illustration of the “fine line between accepted practices and illegal conduct.”

In order for Sarao to be extradited to Britain, the Justice Department must prove that he had true intention of not filling the order after entering them in. Also, the British court can block this extradition if it “would not be in the interests of justice” (Henning).

According to the New York Times (Henning), this case took the prosecutors six years to put together and will take them a little while longer to find out if Sarao actually committed fraud.

Sukayna is a double major in finance and management, information and technology (MIT), Class of 2017.

Posted by Sukayna Khalifeh.

According to the New York Times (Peter J. Henning), there are no real findings of liability for violations from the cases arising from the 2008 financial crisis. Henning wrote about two cases in particular that were recently resolved but the top managers in the companies were not held liable. One of them involved fraud charges against Freddie Mac’s former chief executive, Richard F. Syron. This case “concluded only with an acknowledgment that no party is the prevailing party” (Henning). This was concluded because there was “no accepted definition of a subprime mortgage,” so there was no way to prove Syron had intentionally given false accounts of loans. The second case was against Ernst & Young, an auditor of Lehman Brothers. They were charged for accounting fraud but reached a settlement with the government for $10 million instead even though Lehman Brothers set off the financial crisis in September 2008 by going bankrupt. It was the largest bankruptcy in American History according to the New York Times (Henning).

Both of these cases were huge contributors to the financial crisis yet the perpetrators still were not held liable for illegal or dishonest behavior. “Management was aware of accounting maneuvers used to make its finances look stronger than they were,” (Henning) yet the Security Exchange Commission still stopped the investigation on Lehman Brothers in 2012. They were not criminally charged nor was any civil action taken.

Henning also wrote about the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which is designed to pursue “cases against banks for violations of the mail and wire fraud statutes.” This has been a successful and helpful tool that prosecutors used against JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup. Although this is a powerful tool, it has not been used to hold individuals for violations. Henning implied that the Justice Department should focus more on individuals in the corporation and charge them for misconduct instead of the corporation as a whole. The guilty individuals inside the company should be held liable for wrongdoing.

Sukayna is a double major in finance and management, information and technology (MIT) at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Stephanie Simms.

Over the past decade or so, Congress has created multiple bills with regard to cybersecurity, but sadly made no progress whatsoever. In December 2014, lawmakers along with the President set aside disagreements over the topic of cybersecurity reform and passed the following into law: (1) National Cybersecurity Protection Act (NCPA); (2) Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 (CEA); (3) Federal Information System Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA 2014); (4) Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act (CWWA); and (5) Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act (BPAPRA).

These bills mentioned above generally address federal government departments with respect to cybersecurity. FISMA 2014, is a revision of the Federal Information Security Management Act 0f 2002 (FISMA) and was meant to “provide a framework for the federal government to assess and ensure its information security controls.” The CWWA and BPAPRA handle cybersecurity workforce issues at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The NCPA focuses only on promoting “information sharing” between the government and the private sector via DHS. The CEA officially is a bill that is governed-focused, but of all the bills passed in December, “it is the one that may have the biggest chances of causing unintentional effects on private sector organizations.”

Stephanie is business administration with a minor in biology at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Kyle Gatyas.

The US vendor of Chinese flooring products, Lumber Liquidators, has been facing an array of lawsuits ranging from allegations of stock price affectations to defective products. More recently, the company not only failed to meet California’s CARB-2 safety standards, but plaintiffs have also claimed exceeding levels of formaldehyde in their products. On March 5, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by John and Tracie-Linn Tyrrell because of certain symptoms they were experiencing shortly after John Tyrrell’s son-in-law installed the laminate flooring. They claimed they began having shortness of breath, weakness, fatigue, and incessant coughing and sneezing (Gibb). The lawsuit stated, “despite repeated medical tests, his doctors have not been able to identify the cause of these symptoms.” (Gibb).

The report aired on CBS News on 60 Minutes; it was said that the reason for higher levels of formaldehyde in their products was used to keep the cost down (Gibb). “According to an interview done by 60 Minutes, the amount of formaldehyde in the products is a serious threat because the toxins can escape into the air, making homeowners extremely ill.” (Gibb). The class action lawsuit permits representing any consumer who purchased the Chinese flooring products in the last four years and has had any medical complications. Reimbursement for the material and installation will also be included as damages in the lawsuit.

Kyle is currently undeclared at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

In class, we discuss the American legal system’s doctrinal foundation of presumption of innocence, based on Blackstone’s formulation, and even deeper, its Biblical roots. A Kansas man was recently released from prison for a crime he did not commit. His brother confessed to killing his niece and then committed suicide.

Kansas has no law helping those who are released from prison.  Other states, such as Texas, would have given him $1.8 million, or $80,000 for every year lost, “not including a yearly compensation afterward.” Colorado would provide $70,000 for each year, and Alabama, $50,000 per year.

As a remedy, it is possible to sue state officials under federal law. Section 1983 of the code in part states, “Every person who … subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.”

These cases are difficult, but not impossible, to prove. Police have “conditional immunity” from prosecution, and prosecutors have absolute immunity, where a case can go forward if there is evidence of intentional misconduct.

Posted by Dan Lytle.

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

Posted by Sandra Mucha.

Rio Tinto, one of the world’s largest mining companies, is under investigation for allegedly overstating the value of a mine in Africa by billions of dollars. Rio Tinto Plc’s CEO Tom Albanese and CFO Guy Elliott were accused of performing fraudulent activities within their business on October 18, 2017. The accusation included claims about the unlawful concealment of critical information regarding the company’s multibillion-dollar failure. The two former top executives were suspected of inflating the coal assets in Mozambique in order to hide the ordeal. By concealing information they violated company policies and failed to follow the proper accounting standards to accurately record the assets. To settle the claims given by the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority the company agreed to pay $35.6 million. By hiding the true value of a coal mine in Mozambique and making misleading public statements, the company was able to raise $5.5 billion from U.S. Investors from 2011-2012.

Although the company is based primarily out of London the company’s stocks and shares are traded by U.S. investors on the New York Stock Exchange thus granting the U.S. with the rights to pursue the case. The SEC claims that the public bond offerings harmed U.S. investors. Guy Elliot claimed that the allegations were invalid, and promised to vigorously dispute the charges. The SEC forced him to resign from the board of Royal Dutch Shell and is seeking to have Albanese and Elliott barred from acting as officers or directors of any public company.

I believe that the executives were fully aware of the low monetary value of the mine, understanding that it was worth significantly less within a year of purchasing it. Because the men but did not share that information with investors until 2013, nearly two years after people had already purchased $5.5 billion worth of shares, they should be charged with fraudulent activity for their inability to comply with the rules and regulations. They distributed false information to individuals who follow the stock market. While it is acceptable to refrain from releasing information to the public too early because it can cause misunderstanding and panic, it is wrong and illegal to record inaccurate asset values. The executives were dishonest and deceitful and should be punished accordingly.

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

Reference Link:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/18/reuters-america-update-5-u-s-sec-charges-rio-tinto-former-top-executives-with-fraud.html

Posted by Aristea Selmani.

In recent years, the operating role of business executives amid law firms has risen to a new high. Bloomberg law reporter Casey Sullivan, argues in his article Should Business Managers Run Law Firms this mere notion of as to “what degree should business executives oversee operations at law firms as opposed to lawyers who do what they do best — practice the law” (Sullivan). The growing number of business executives present in the field of law, seems particularly peculiar given the fact that a lot of these executives have no previous experience in law practices or simply do not hold any law degrees. Nonetheless, they are still entrusted with the subtle responsibility of “telling lawyers how to manage their work”, when in truth, such a role could be more effectively performed by lawyers who essentially practice law and understand how law firms operate. Throughout this article, Sullivan attempts to incorporate the opinions and thoughts of several business executives, which primarily concern their roles in the department of law.

Sullivan begins his article with an introduction detailing the influence of business executives in one particular law firm by the name of Katten Muchin Rosenman of Chicago. According to the report, this establishment just recently declared that it “has no plans to scale back managerial oversight of its 600-lawyer firm” (Sullivan). On the contrary, they are hiring longtime chief operating officer, Craig Courter to manage the daily operations of their law firm. Sullivan declares that Craig Courter is another addition to the list of business executives who “do not practice law … but are [still] charged with the delicate task” of managing lawyers (Sullivan). Their executive roles span from making small everyday decisions to choosing the right clients for the firms to take on. More explicitly, Sullivan also mentions that at Katten Muchin Rosenman Courter will act as a supervisor of marketing, finance, technology, talent management and human resources.

In another case mentioned throughout this article, chief operating officer of the Americas at White & Case, Victor Núñez, plainly stated that “[he] really didn’t know much about law firms and how they operate,” and never went to law school, but was still charged with the important role of “assessing the profitability of client matters, as well as forming strategy around and executing new office openings” (Sullivan).

Furthermore, in Should Business Managers Run Law Firms, Sullivan cites another business executive who is currently met with skepticism known as John Yoshimura, chief operating officer at McDermott Will & Emery. Yoshimura just recently began to implement a business-development team to help lawyers with their clients, however since the McDermott “partners have been “skeptical” of business development staff handling their client relations”, the new development is still in the planning phase. He did however make a strong case regarding the notion that “doing outreach through business development staff … is more cost effective than having partners do it” (Sullivan). Therefore, on the basis of this aspect, and given the statistic that there is a growing number of law firms in the market, business administration roles could consequently be greatly demanded in the recent future.

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

Source:

Article Link: https://biglawbusiness.com/should-business-managers-run-law-firms/

Posted by Justin Trigg.

Northern California homeowners have filed a lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for failing to sufficiently protect power lines before the region’s deadly wildfires. The homeowners Wayne and Jennifer Harvell argue, “[the] drought-like conditions over the summer put fire dangers ‘at an extraordinarily high level’, the homeowners are claiming PG&E failed to trim and remove vegetation within close proximity of power lines.” The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are actively “investigating the power lines and equipment as a possible cause of the fires that have killed at least 41 people and destroyed 6,000 homes.”

If the state, fire investigators determine the utility’s equipment as a possible cause, then the California Public Utilities Commission, who regulates PG&E, investigates the issue. In recent years, PG&E has been fined “$8.3 million for failing to maintain a power line that sparked a massive blaze in Northern California that destroyed 549 homes and killed two people” and “$1.6 billion for [a] 2010 natural gas explosion in the San Francisco Bay Area city of San Bruno that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes”. Moreover, PG&E has reported to state regulators of several accounts of damages to its equipment. However, the report failed to acknowledge whether they might have caused the fire.

In my opinion, because of the evidence of PG&E’s failures to maintain their equipment from causing destruction and damage in recent years, they must increase their efforts to sustain their equipment in order to avoid these tragedies. Meanwhile, California homeowners, who appear to be aware of the danger of vegetation growing close to power lines, must alert the proper authorities to trim and cut down these hazards. With an increased effort from both parties, perhaps the degree of severity from these reoccurring California wildfires can be lessened.

A day following the lawsuit, United States Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris of California wrote the Federal Communications Commission expressing their concern of the federal government’s failure, “to adopt rules that would require wireless carriers to more precisely target neighborhoods with orders to evacuate”. This regulation would certainly benefit the residents of neighborhoods in imminent risk, while evading alerting residents, who are in safe areas. The Senators argue, “These emergency services are caught in a bind between notifying individuals in imminent danger and risking mass panic”.

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

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/b98b3394040d470aa6db2afbdb2ea4dd

Posted by Alexandra Prostamo.

On October 16, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Microsoft’s dispute over the government’s authority to be able to access emails and digital information sought in criminal investigations, but stored outside of the United States. According to the Trump administration and 33 states, the court’s decision is impeding investigations into terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud and child pornography just because the email information is stored in servers in Ireland. This is why they urged the court to take the case, U.S. v. Microsoft.

They believe the decision has implications not only for Microsoft, but also for other technology giants like Google and Yahoo, stating that “a private company has unfettered discretion to shield evidence of crime from law enforcement, simply by electronically sending that evidence out of jurisdiction.”  The issue rises from the fact that data companies have built servers around the world to keep up with customers’ demands for speed and access. This is why the court needs to confront whether the same rules can be applied to the emails of both an American citizen and a foreigner.

What Microsoft is trying to battle is the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allowed a U.S. law enforcement agency to obtain stored e-mails with a warrant from a U.S. provider if those e-mails are stored abroad. Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith stated that “the current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud”. Microsoft deeply advocates for the fact that Congress should pass a new legislation, however the result of the dispute could have significant global business and privacy implications.

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

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-consider-major-digital-privacy-case-on-microsoft-email-storage/2017/10/16/b1e74936-b278-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.4863bf16975d

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/fb9b07a2c14940b0977cb35ff01166ff

Posted by Gabrielle Vanadia.

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

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

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

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

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/us/johnson-ge-pfizer-terror-iraq.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=13&pgtype=sectionfront

Posted by Reganne Camp.

Recently there have been tragic wild fires in Northern California, now killing 41 people and destroying 6,000 homes. Wayne and Jennifer Harvell believe that the Pacific Gas & Electric Company had something to deal with how bad the fires became, which is why they are suing. They believe that the company failed to adequately protect its power lines before the region’s deadly wildfires. The lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court says drought-like conditions over the summer put fire dangers “at an extraordinarily high level,” particularly after heavy winter rains increased vegetation. It says PG&E failed to trim and remove vegetation as it should have. The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates PG&E, would investigate only if state fire investigators confirm that that the utility’s equipment was a part of the reason for the fires.

PG & E Co. has been in trouble before. Earlier in the year, the utility commission fined PG&E $8.3 million for failing to maintain a power line that caused a massive blaze in Northern California that destroyed 549 homes and killed two people. In addition, California regulators fined PG&E $1.6 billion for 2010 natural gas explosion in the San Francisco Bay Area city of San Bruno that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes.

I understand why sometimes a company does not reach out to the public in case of causing mass panic for no reason, but they also need to protect people who could possibly be in danger,  especially, where there is a history of people dying in incidents that cause. The company may not have control of the temperature and how high it gets, but they do have control over their equipment and duties they are supposed to monitor. Companies that commit illegal acts and especially where they also act unethically gives the victims more of a reason to sue.

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

Posted by Shellian A. Murray.

The basis for this blog will be an Enron story” The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005)” which was retrieved from the documentary listings on Netflix. A 2929 Entertainment, a Wagner/Cuban Company, Magnolia Pictures, HDNet Films. The documentary takes a behind the scenes look at the reliable energy company whose downfall will forever change the scope of business prospects around the globe. The “Jesus saves” notion was embedded with everyone asking the same sets of questions, which include, whether or not one main person was to be blamed, or it is a shared effort, and what mechanisms were put in places to make sure such events will never occur again. The fall of Enron was considered to be the largest bankruptcy in the United States of America history.

Enron, a company that took approximately 16 years to build and with a net worth of over a 100 million in assets took 24 days to go bankrupt.  What everyone thought was a significant investment and a company that was poised to take over the energy section with major gas prices, turns out to be the biggest Ponzi scheme. But in an instructive tale of corporate greed, negligent and diffusion of responsibility, there was no evidence of directors’ fiduciary duty, integrity, and stewardship displayed from those who were the leading players in the Enron scandal.

Jeffery Skilling, the former president and CEO and Kenneth Lay chairman/CEO were both Harvard graduates, the leaders of Enron, and were known as “the smartest guys in the room.”  Skilling and Lay were the captains of the ship; one that they thought was too powerful to go down. The employees that were involved were consumed by pride, greed, arrogance, and intolerance that they fail to realize they were just sinking themselves into a hole: a hole that will be unable to climb back out. The chaos caused by Enron traders in the 2000 California energy crisis left many disgruntled. California was seen as the money pit for Enron. The game was to create blackouts that would then drive-up gas prices significantly.  Many called on the federal government to fix a deregulatory system that Enron officials took for self-interest, but were told that the state was on its own and had to correct the problem by themselves.

On the other hand, Enron’s CFO, Andrew Fastow was still able to continue leaving massive debts off the balance sheets and booking future earnings, producing an illusion of market-to-market profit.  The Security Exchange Commission (SEC) did not have a problem with this accounting method and failed to enforce against companies like Enron. But reported profits were actually losses, even though amounts were not collected or collected, but were supposedly prepayments from clients, where such momentum was created to keep the stock price up.  But after winning the award for the best innovative company six years in a row, many persons started to question, how Enron made its money. A reporter by the name of Bethany Mclean wrote an article, “Enron stock overpriced?”  realizing that the cash flows were not coming together.

Jeffery Skilling the CEO had resigned suddenly, which lead the SEC to launch an investigation.  Enron declared bankruptcy on December 4, 2001, giving employees thirty (30mins) to leave the building. But before such bankruptcy declaration, on October 23, 2001, Author Andersen, the prestigious accounting firm had destroyed thousands of documents which were related to Enron finances.

Opinions and Reactions

The operation of Enron defrauded employees and investors out of millions of dollars, which at the same time the “big guys” who were involved in the game were quietly bailing themselves out, putting millions in personal and offshore accounts including the banks, such as, Chase and Citi Bank. Ken Lay had a high level political figure as a good friend, one that could help Enron to maintain its operation’s practices. Consequently, and if one were to believe it or not, politics is the driving factor for all regulatory and policies within any countries operations.

ArthurAndersen, the prestigious accounting firm, was paid a million dollar per week, denied their awareness of such practices of Enron. Auditors that supposedly gave reasonable assurance that the financials were, in fact, true and fair and free of material misstatements. As a result, many persons questioned the integrity and independence of the accounting and auditing profession. Such questions left a bitter taste in my mouth, within a career that has my interest and aspiration. A profession I held a role as an external auditor, internationally, and now as an accountant, I am in an “aww” moment, as to how people’s greed could allow them to continue embezzling cash or equivalents by any means necessary, no matter what harm may have caused by such actions. The disappointment I have with these people that are involved, by allowing their integrity to be compromised because of the greed of money is very heart rendering, wherein the end, mostly the poor suffer from such harsh deals.

Shellian is a master of science in accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Faris Alzahrani.

On June 20th Christiano Ronaldo was accused by the government prosecutor for evading tax four times amounting to $16.5 million. Ronaldo was investigated and was expected to appear before Pozuelo de Alarcon court No. 1 on July 31. His summoning accorded with the same prosecutor who indicted Mourinho for evading tax two times. The prosecutor reported that there was enough evidence that Christiano Ronald used a shell firm to hide the cash she had acquired from the team image rights. However, Ronaldo pleaded not guilty.

It believed that Ronald had to move out of the country and join another football club because of the accusations against him. It was alleged that Mourinho committed tax deception in a period between 2011 and 2012; this is according to Madrid’s prosecutor. All of the evidence was based on the facts delivered by Spain Tax Office that indicated that Mourinho also hides money from profit rights and avoided to pay tax (Fox, 2017).

Everything was left in judges hands. It is crucial to note that these individuals are not the first to be accused of tax fraud. Last year a Barcelona striker, Lionel Messi was indicted for tax fraud on three counts that amounted to $4.6 million, this mainly from the income made from image rights. He was given a 21-month jail sentence, but he was not expected to serve in prison, since it was his first offense and his sentence was below two years.

Faris is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

News, F. (2017, June 20). Cristiano Ronaldo, Jose Mourinho caught up in Spain tax scandal. Retrieved from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/06/20/cristiano-ronaldo-jose- mourinho-caught-up-in-spain-tax-scandal

Posted by Yacheng Xu.

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

Posted by Alex Coyle.

This article is about U.S. regulators monitoring the oversight of bitcoin and other types of “cryptocurrency.” Regulators want more regulation for this kind of trade, due to the fact that “cryptocurrency trading has outgrown the state-based regulation that covers many platforms.” The goal is to create better laws to further protect anyone purchasing bonds and stocks in cryptocurrency form. In order for this to happen, the Securities and Exchange Commission might need some legislation help from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

The SEC Chairman, Jay Clayton, is mainly concerned with the lack of regulation, due to the fact that the “ability to manipulate the prices goes up significantly.” With prices for this type of currency being able to change so quickly, it is not fair to future investors. Many scandals have occurred in the past with other investments, and in order for this to stop, this market has to be carefully regulated.

I do not know a lot about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, but I agree with the information in this article. It seems like cryptocurrency is an easy target for corruption, and innocent investors could get financially hurt from it. If I was investing in any type of market, I would want to be sure my money is protected and not just getting taken from me. I believe that the agencies should take care of this problem before it becomes worse.

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

Source:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/patchy-bitcoin-oversight-poses-hazards-for-investors-regulators-say-1517913001

The craze over cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin, calls into question as to how things are valued in this space. This article and video help shed some light on the issue as to whether Bitcoin is a bubble or something with real world value.

Source:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/12/07/what-is-the-fundamental-value-of-bitcoin/#6527eb19545a

Posted by Ruowei Peng.

Currently, there is a widespread belief that reaching a trade consensus between countries is an important part to contribute to foreign trade going on wheels. However, it is not easy to reach an agreement. NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Area, is signed by the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The three member states must abide by the principles and rules of the agreement, such as the most-favored-nation treatment and the transparency of procedures to eliminate trade barriers, but recently, there is a controversy about its revision.

According to William Mauldin’s essay, “Canada, Mexico Reject Proposal to Rework NAFTA Corporate Arbitration System”, Canada and Mexico refuse what the U.S. suggests in modifying the NAFTA’s proposal. Canada and Mexico point out that the U.S. aims to quit the organization, while they do not want any country to drop out since it may influence trade between countries. U.S. officials said that it is still negotiating. In the sixth meeting, they talked about anticorruption issues and Canada tried to put up an informal proposal that makes up for the shortfall in the U.S. demand for car production. It seems that everything develops toward a positive direction. However, the U.S. desires to secede from NAFTA, which will lead to problems that American companies would be protected by arbitration but companies in Mexico and Canada are not allowed to use the system to challenge the U.S. government. Large companies are trying to avoid it from happening because of court battles are always more expensive than arbitration. Canada and Mexico are likely to remove the investor’s state provisions and form their own bilateral investor agreement. The Trump administration proposed to shrink the challenges that the company may pose in the system. However, there is no proposal that will not be questioned by the public. Thus, the argument is still going on.

From my perspective, free trade is beneficial to a country’s development. Free trade promotes a country’s economic development, because countries in the free trade zone can circulate and reduce tariffs, while countries outside the trade zone maintain their original tariffs and barriers. To some extent, every member state wants to maximize its benefit though the proposal, but it doesn’t make sense. Thus, conflict produces and countries need to negotiate to find solution. It will be easier to reach an agreement if each of them step back and consider their citizens’ welfare and the economic benefit of all countries in free trade zone. I firmly believe that with joint efforts, they will come to an understanding.

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

Source:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/canada-mexico-reject-proposal-to-rework-nafta-corporate-arbitration-system

Published January 28, 2018 William Mauldin

Article’s Title: Canada, Mexico Reject Proposal to Rework Nafta Corporate Arbitration System

Posted by Ziheng Cai (Ricardo).

The crisis intensified in recent LeTv problems from financial problems including layoffs; the ups and downs of LeTv just like drama TV series, as the founder of LeTv, Jia Yueting again and again stood in the forefront. Let us begin with a LeTv internal letter in November 2016.

On November 6, 2016, Jia Yuting, the boss of LeTv, released an internal letter to the whole staff, saying the company is focused on mainly is the mobile phone supply chain problems. According to  statistics, LeTv phones have affected dozens of suppliers and agents, and the arrears amount to billions of yuan.

LeTv phones grab market share sales at lower than market prices; but, LeTv sells at a loss of 200 yuan, less direct costs and a net loss of 4 billion in the past two year. Sales cash flow cannot make up for the cost, therefore, to in order to balance this upstream supply chain is inevitable.

In addition, LeTv subsidiary mobile Hong Kong LTD has purchased an 18% stake in Coolpad for hk $2.73 billion on June 28, 2015, becoming the second largest shareholder of Coolpad. Then, in June 2016, LeTv gave out another 1 billion Hong Kong dollars for “whale swallowed” Coolpad. LeTv mobile owns about 28.90% of the shares of Coolpad Group, which makes it the single controlling shareholder. But maybe not for long, Coolpad mobile phone also because of the transformation of labor issues, capital shortage and other issues. The company’s forecast for 2016 was hk $4.21 billion.

In 2016 at an annual shareholder meeting, Jia Yueting admitted that LeTv Music made some mistakes. And in this event, an audit was rejected by LeTv. This is a violation of Article 33 of the company’s rules. In accordance with the provisions of Article 33, the shareholders shall have the right to consult, to a copy the articles of association, to the minutes of the meeting of shareholders, the resolutions of the board of directors, the resolutions of the board of supervisors, and the financial and accounting reports. The shareholder may request to consult the company’s accounting books. If a shareholder requests to consult the accounting books of the company, he shall make a written request to the company for the purpose.

Shareholders shall make a written request for a written reply within 15 days from the date of the shareholders meeting and explain the reasons. If the company refuses to provide this for inspection, the shareholder may request the People’s Court to request the company to provide for the inspection.

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

Source:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-leeco-management/chinas-leeco-founder-resigns-as-chair-of-listed-unit-after-public-plea-for-patience-idUSKBN19R0B8

Posted by Masood Mohayya.

In Fall 2015, TaxSlayer, a web-based tax preparation service, fell victim to a data breach, specifically a credential-stuffing attack. Due to a security flaw, the cyber-attackers were able to gain access to almost 9000 TaxSlayer accounts, which provided them the highly-sensitive data (including social security numbers, bank accounts, and credit card information) belonging to TaxSlayer’s customers. TaxSlayer was not aware of this attack until January 2016, when a user complaint mentioned a compromised tax account. The discovery of this credential-stuffing attack resulted in a thorough investigation conducted by the FTC.

The FTC had determined that TaxSlayer failed to meet the standards set by the Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GBLA). Although the GBLA only applies to financial institutions, such as banks or investment advisors, the fact that TaxSlayer partakes in tax return activities made it subject to the GBLA. The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to have a “comprehensive written security program”. Furthermore, they need to routinely monitor their cybersecurity programs, and “design and implement information safeguards” to control any risks or flaws identified during security assessments. Had TaxSlayer not violated these requirements, their network security risk could have been identified much sooner, and prevented the endangerment of thousands of customers’ information.

Moving forward, the FTC concluded that TaxSlayer must comply by the regulations set by the GBLA. Failure to do so would subject them to contempt risk. However, this incident opened larger doors for the FTC. One of their largest priorities is enforcing the importance of multi-factor authentication to access sensitive data for all companies, especially those not subject to the GBLA. They believe it is one of the most effective privacy protection tools, and can prevent countless cyberattacks. Although there are still no official legal mandates set in stone by the FTC, companies without robust network security put themselves at severe risk.

Masood is an IT management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source:

https://biglawbusiness.com/cybersecurity-enforcers-wake-up-to-unauthorized-computer-access-via-credential-stuffing/

Posted by Hailey Arteaga.

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Claudine Rosca.

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

Posted by He Yin.

Since the beginning of 2017, the combined market value of all encrypted currencies has risen from $17.7 billion to nearly $836 billion on January 5, 2018, more than 4,500% in more than a year. In such a short time, no investor has ever seen a significant appreciation of such an asset class.

China is often seen as one of the biggest battleground states in the secret revolution. Last summer, the Chinese government halted an initial public offering (essentially an initial public offering but used in digital currency) and announced that it would close the country’s cryptocurrency exchange.

Just recently, the Chinese government announced that it would track the facilities of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. On January 3rd, a press release issued by the central bank outlined a plan to limit the power supply of some bitcoin miners. Given that China is currently in the currency of mining occupies more than two-thirds of all the processing power of share, the move is an obvious for COINS community, and the evolution of the encryption currency is a whole.

Comment: China has been developing rapidly in the last forty years. Its economy is a well-functioning machine. As for Russia, however, it does not have as much. Its currency, the ruble, has been in turmoil more than once in the past few decades, and its dependence on oil has caused huge swings in its economic growth. So in theory, Russia appears to be the perfect candidate for the bitcoin revolution.

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

Source:

Link: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/forget-china-this-country-has-become-the-most-intriguing-cryptocurrency-battleground

Posted by Xin Tao.

“Uber disclosed on Nov. 22 that it paid hackers $100,000 to conceal a 2016 cybersecurity incident in which names, email addresses and mobile phone numbers belonging to some 57 million users around the world were stolen. License numbers of 600,000 Uber drivers were also obtained by outsiders, the company said.”

Now Uber likely to face a barrage of state legal action after breach. Forty-eight states have laws about the breach; they require companies need to inform customers about a data breach, particularly if sensitive customer information was involved. Uber will face different amounts of fines from different states. The charges unsealed by U.S. Southern District of New York were leveled against at an Iranian hacker. The hacker attacked multiple employee accounts, and used the accounts to steal some personal data.

HBO was also a victim of hacking when an attacker released scripts of the popular show “Game of Thrones,” as well as episodes of other shows and a trove of executive emails. In an anonymous email to HBO personnel, the attacker threatened to release more data unless the company paid a ransom of approximately $5.5 million in bitcoin, according to the indictment.

According to Bloomberg News, the attackers accessed a GitHub site used by the company’s software engineers and found login credentials to an Amazon Web Services account. From there, Bloomberg News reported the attackers found a cache of rider and driver information, and later emailed the company asking for money.

When a computer is infected with malicious code, the data on it will be encrypted, until a ransom is paid in bitcoin or another form of cryptocurrency. Personally, I think the most effective way to protect our data is we should not put our personal information on the internet, especially because of the dangers of phishing websites and apps. And we should update our computers regularly to fix vulnerabilities. Also for large companies like Uber, they should take the responsibility to make sure the system is reliable after they receive customer’s information.

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

News links: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hbo-uber-incidents-shed-light-on-ransoms-without-ransomware-1511353574

https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-likely-to-face-a-barrage-of-state-legal-action-after-breach-1512131094#comments_sector

https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-hack-fallout-illinois-sues-senators-ask-for-answers-1511825588

Posted by August Pimentel.

President Donald Trump recently had a libel case against him dismissed in the Supreme Court of New York on the basis that his tweets were spreading opinion rather than fact, and therefore could not be held accountable for libel.

The conflict began in February 2016, when Cheryl Jacobus, a Republican strategist who had previously been recruited by the Trump campaign, went on CNN attempting to expose a political action committee which allegedly was partly funding the campaign. Trump responded to the broadcast via his personal Twitter account, saying “Really dumb @CheriJacobus. Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!” Jacobus sued the then presidential candidate and his then campaign manager Corey Lewandowski for defamation, pursuing damages of $4M. Jacobus stated that after the tweet, she received no more offers to speak and no employment opportunities.

Barbara Ross of the New York Daily News covered this case with an article in October 2016 on the suit, and another released in January 2017 when the case was dismissed.

“Jacobus had appeared 141 times on CNN to discuss the presidential race before the dust up,” said Ross. “But only once on another station after his tweets.”

The hearings in front of Justice Barbara Jaffe of New York revealed that the Trump campaign had indeed recruited Jacobus for a job and discussed terms of the employment, but rejected her after receiving a request for $20,000 per month in salary. Jacobus’ attorney, Jay Butterman, claimed Jacobus’ entire career was destroyed by those tweets, and the Trump campaign lied about her “begging for a job” and “[acting] hostile.” Trump’s attorney, Lawrence Rosen, claimed Butterman and his client to be engaging in “hyperbole” stating: “To a large extent, Twitter is the wild wild West. People say the darnedest things. Everyone understands that when tweets are made, you take it with a grain of salt.”

Justice Jaffe ruled in favor of President-elect Trump and Lewandowski just ten days before inauguration day. In her decision, Justice Jaffe stated that “professional misconduct, incompetence or a lack of integrity may not be reasonably inferred from being turned down from a job.” The judge also commented on the nature of tweets themselves, similar to Rosen’s argument in the case.

“His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as ‘loser’ or ‘total loser’ or ‘totally biased loser,’ ‘dummy’ or ‘dope’ or ‘dumb,’ ‘zero/no credibility,’ ‘crazy’ or ‘wacko’ and ‘disaster,’ all deflecting serious consideration.”

Butterman and Jacobus plan to appeal the ruling, claiming it a “sad day for free speech.” Reflecting on this case, there may have been some small falsity in President Trump’s tweet in that his campaign did not turn Jacobus away twice. This was not enough, however, to make Trump guilty of libel. That tweet over a year ago, made by the then prominent presidential candidate, can be interpreted as vague. However, if it is true that Jacobus has lost speaking opportunities for which she would have gotten paid because of a crude tweet, it shows that those companies and media outlets did not take Trump’s tweets “with a grain of salt.” The president has recently boasted about the ability of his tweets to obstruct others, citing that no NFL team has signed Colin Kaepernick because they are afraid to get “a nasty tweet from Donald Trump.” Unfortunately for Jacobus’ case, this appears to be an ethical issue rather than a legal one.

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

Sources:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/manhattan-judge-tosses-libel-lawsuit-donald-trump-article-1.2942831

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cheryl-jacobus-trump-destroyed-career-4m-suit-article-1.2818683

Posted by Anna Fajnorova.

On March 26, a gate agent decided to deny two teenage girls from a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were traveling on a company travel pass and their leggings were a violation of the airline’s dress code. United Airlines defended the gate agent’s decision and it led to an uproar with many people on social media after the incident was reported. Now does United, being a privately-owned company, have the right to do what they did?

United Airlines allows customers to fly in leggings, but these girls were “pass rider” users. “Pass rider” is a benefit United Airlines employees receive for working for an airline. Employees are able to travel the world and extend their privileges to relatives or friends as long as they use an airline that follows that policy. Employees and “pass rider” users are considered representatives of United and have a dress code to follow. Because the girls were wearing leggings, they went against the dress code and were denied to fly. Other airlines follow the same policy as United and have a set dress code for relatives and friends that receive benefits from their airline. Southwest Airlines has a “relaxed and casual” dress code, but does not allow “low-cut, skimpy, revealing clothing, short shorts, or gym shorts.” JetBlue also does not allow leggings but finds jogging suits acceptable. Besides leggings, low-cut, revealing attire, and sweats of any kind are not allowed. Employees and pass rider beneficiaries must also have clean shoes as well as cover up their tattoos. Another question that should be asked is does United have the right to tell employees and their families what to wear, especially during their leisure time?

Even though there are critics saying several things such as “how would people know about the policy”, “the policy is outdated and strict”, and “it’s sexist because it singles out attire worn primarily by women”, what United Airplanes did was not wrong according to the article. Many “pass rider” users even agreed with United’s decision and believed the teenage girls were taking advantage of the employee benefit and should have known better. United regularly reminds their employees that when a relative or friend is given the benefits of becoming a “pass rider” user, they need to follow dress code. If this is the case, United only followed policy that employees are regularly reminded of and enforced that policy. Yes, the policy seems outdated because leggings are something that many people currently wear but “pass rider” users represent the company along with employees, so they must follow dress code as well.

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

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/03/27/united-airlines-your-leggings-are-welcome-as-long-as-youre-paying-for-your-flight/?utm_term=.31bfbcfaf365

Posted by Ailinulan Aihemaiti.

Politicians are always prone to controversy, and not even the current President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is exempt from any of it. In 2010, a class suit was filed against Trump University upon allegations that it defrauded its students. The allegations centered around Trump University engaging in aggressive sales tactics and spreading misleading information. Former students say the university promised to teach Trump’s insider secrets of the real-estate business, but after they paid $35,000 for an education, they said they received no such “secrets.” One such student, Bob Guillo stated the Trump University advertised tricks “included using the real estate website Trulia.com to search for properties and learning about tax deductions on the Internal Revenue Service’s website” (Time).  Many others said they received a great education.

After a seven-year long battle, the Trump University lawsuit finally ended on March 31, 2017 when a federal judge declined the request from a Florida attorney to “opt out of the $25 million Trump University global settlement” (Courthouse News Service). The final settlement of $25 million will be a much better deal for the students, giving back 90 percent of what students invested in Trump University rather than the 50 percent of the November settlement. Class attorney Rachel Jensen provides even more good news, saying that the students should get their checks a few months from now if there are no appeals.

However, if an appeal is filed, the court battle could go on for years, and the settlement payments will also be held up. The prospects are still unclear as Sherri Simpson, former student who spent $20,000 on Trump University in 2010, has made movements to opt out in the March 30 hearing; she has expressed her desire to opt out to file her own fraud case against the University, despite filing an earlier claim to recover damages. Although Simpson’s proposal was rejected by a federal judge, she still has 30 days to file an appeal.

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

Sources:

http://time.com/money/4573705/trump-university-lawsuit/

http://www.courthousenews.com/judge-signs-off-25m-trump-u-settlement/

http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Trump-U-Settlement-FINAL.pdf

Posted by Alexandra Entrup.

In December 2016, the United States v. Nosal (Nosal II) case was heavily questioned. David Nosal worked at KFI, Korn/Ferry International, however, in 2004, he made the decision to leave the company. Despite leaving the company, he resumed working as a contractor under an agreement that forbade competition with KFI. Regardless of the agreement, Nosal among additional employees were in the process of establishing a competing business. The company utilized the database, Searcher, to hold “information about over a million executive search candidates” (Harv. L. Rev.). Though Nosal and his colleagues took information from the database for their own use using their own login information, their credentials were rescinded after their decision to leave the company. Upon noticing that their login information no longer worked, they approached Jacqueline Froehlich-L’Heureaux, Nosal’s assistant during his time at KFI. Froehlich-L’Heureaux remained an employee despite Nosal’s absence so they decided to ask her for her own credentials. She gave them her username and password and Nosal and his partners utilized this information on multiple occasions. The article suggests that they accessed the database using her credentials “on at least three discrete occasions” (Harv. L. Rev.). An anonymous tip was sent to Korn/Ferry International and an investigation ensued.

The defendant was convicted and Nosal was accused of “nineteen criminal counts, five of which alleged CFAA violations under the ‘exceeds authorized access’ clause of §1030(a)(4) while Nosal was a KFI employee” (Harv. L. Rev.). CFAA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, discusses computer use, specifically hacking. The act states that the invasion of a computer system is considered a crime. The article further discusses the CFAA and its application to the case stating, “the CFAA imposes criminal penalties on whoever ‘accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access’ to perpetrate a fraud” (Harv. L. Rev.). This statement is especially important to the case because it dismisses Froehlich-L’Heureaux’s decision to give Nosal and his partners her credentials. Instead, it blames Nosal for using this information in a deceptive manner, perpetrating a fraud. Throughout the case the term “without authorization” was referred to as “an unambiguous term with a plain meaning”, implying that there aren’t any alternate interpretations.

In the Nosal I case, the CFAA nineteen criminal counts previously mentioned were dismissed. However, following the dismissal of these counts, further counts were filed. “In 2013, the government filed a superseding indictment with three CFAA counts resting on accomplice liability for the three times Nosal’s partners, without authorization, accessed Searcher with FH’s credentials after they had left the firm. The government also indicted Nosal on two trade secret misappropriation counts under the Economic Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy. A jury found him guilty on all counts” (Harv. L. Rev.). All arguments that Nosal proposed were rejected by the court. Looking at previous cases, it was certain that authorization much be approved by the computer owner. Nosal was obviously not given authorization, evident through the revocation of access to the system. The importance of authorization is common knowledge which is evident in the article’s statement, “the majority’s view that only the owner of the system has authority to grant access undermines the authorization upon which many forms of commonplace computer access depend.” The article further explains this belief with a comparison to social media, “it could be a crime for an individual to log in to someone else’s Facebook account with that person’s permission, simply because the system owner prohibits it” (Harv. L. Rev.).

Alexandra is a finance and information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source:

http://harvardlawreview.org/2017/02/united-states-v-nosal-nosal-ii/

Posted by Jayce Chavez.

Mark Moskowitz, a 48-year-old Short Hills New Jersey resident, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Katharine Hayden to one charge of wire fraud. He admitted to fraudulently using investment money for his personal use. He ran a trading company and defrauded investors of more than $675,000 and used the money for himself. His company was called Edge Trading which was created in 2012, he, “told his investors that the company invested in equities and contracts and was growing even though it was not.” Moskowitz was fined, separately by the New Jersey Bureau of Securities, for$1 million in civil penalties for the sale of fraudulent unregistered securities and misusing investor’s funds. He will be sentenced July 5, 2017 and could face a maximum of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine.

Joseph Meli, a 42 year old Manhattan New York resident; and Steven Simmons, a 48-year-old Wilton Connecticut resident were arrested in late January this year, “on charges alleging they enticed wealthy individuals to make multi-million-dollar investments.” These gentlemen were caught by a civil complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission, claiming that this Ponzi scheme led people in 13 states to invest $81 million. This scheme included investments in businesses that would purchase large sections of tickets for concerts and musicals. The SEC says that at least $51 million of the $81 million was used to pay off other investors and for personal expenses for Meli, Simmons, and other coconspirators. Only Meli was charged with the civil complaint but both men were charged criminally with conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud. Both men were then freed on a $1 million bail after a prosecutor’s request for them to be held without bail was rejected.

Both of these cases are similar not only because they were both people scheming investors of their money but large sums of the money were used for personal expenses. These cases had criminals who fraudulently used investors’ money for everything but what they had promised the investors. In the first case, Moskowitz had used most of the $625,000 for himself, while on the second case, the 63% of the $81 million was fraudulently split amongst Meli, Simmons, and other co-conspirators. Moreover, this shows that there are Ponzi schemes that range between hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Thus, we must be careful when investing into corporations which are not well-known or established.

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

Sources:

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2017/03/short_hills_man_admits_to_675k_ponzi_scheme.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/28/2-men-allegedly-raised-81m-in-hamilton-ponzi-scheme.html

Posted by Michael Martin.

Six former executives and managers of the pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics Inc. were arrested “on charges that they led a nationwide conspiracy to bribe medical practitioners to unnecessarily prescribe a fentanyl-based pain medication and defraud healthcare insurers” (Dep. of Justice). The spray drug, named “Subsys,” is a strong opioid that is typically prescribed to cancer patients suffering from breakthrough pains. Insys bribed doctors to prescribe their drug to patients, many of which did not even have cancer, in high doses. Insurance companies became skeptical of the drug, because it was not prescribed to cancer patients, which resulted in the former executives of the company to mislead providers with the ““reimbursement unit” which was dedicated to obtaining prior authorization directly from insurers and pharmacy benefit managers” (Dep. of Justice).  Employees of this unit were pretending to call insurers from a doctor’s office. “Insys also set up its phone system to block the origin of the calls” (Thomas).

Insys was writing off the bribes and kickbacks to the doctors as speaking fees. The issue with the speaking fees is that the “events” held by Insys were usually entirely fabricated on paper, and were really just a few Insys members having dinner with a “speaker” doctor at a fancy restaurant. On one occasion, Alec Burlakoff, the former vice president of Insys, texted a sales representative about the communication skills of the doctors saying “They do not need to be good speakers, they need to write a lot of” prescriptions for Subsys. In the case of an Alabama doctor, after becoming a paid speaker, his prescription count increased from two a week to about eleven (Thomas).

The actions of the Insys executives are not only illegal, but are also highly unethical. Harold H. Shaw, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said “[Insys] contributed to the growing opioid epidemic and placed profit before patient safety” (Dep. of Justice). Michael L. Babich, 40, the former CEO and President of the company, “is charged with conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Law.” Burlakoff, Richard M. Simon, 46, former National Director of Sales; and Regional Sales Directors, Sunrise Lee, 36, and Joseph A. Rowan, 43 “are charged with RICO conspiracy, mail fraud conspiracy and conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Law.” And former Vice President of Managed Markets, Michael J. Gurry, 53, “is charged with RICO conspiracy and wire fraud conspiracy” (Dep. of Justice).

The charges for RICO and fraud crimes are “no greater than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000, or twice the amount of pecuniary gain or loss.” Plus a mere $25,000 fine for violating the Anti-Kickback Law, with a maximum of five years in prison.” This minimal punishment becomes even more disturbing when you realize that the “actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties” (Dep. of Justice).

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

Sources:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/pharmaceutical-executives-charged-racketeering-scheme

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/business/insys-therapeutics-arrests-fentanyl.html?_r=0

Posted by Nicole Boodhoo.

About 6 years ago, Apple first sued Samsung over the design of their Galaxy S series. Apparently, the designs of the phones infringed on a patent that was created over the design of the original iPhone.  The court closed the case in December of 2016, ruling in Samsung’s favor saying they did not need to pay the $399 million to Apple, but it is now reopened. The court case is not going to be about whether Samsung did or did not infringe on the patents created by Apple but rather how damages will be calculated. Originally, Samsung would have had to pay Apple a percentage of each sale. However, the justices disagreed and stated that they only needed to pay for the components that were claimed to be infringed upon.

According to the article written by Julian Chokkattu, he stated,

“In delivering the court’s majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “article of manufacture” — the legal term that refers to both a product sold to a consumer and a component of said product — has a “broad meaning,” and that an “article” could refer to “a particular thing.” In Samsung’s case, an “article” could be an infringing smartphone’s appearance, for instance, or software feature” (1).

The design patents are at question in this case. A design patent is what protects the look of the product and what makes the product unique. In 2012, the court sided with Apple stating that Samsung did copy the design, featuring “the black rectangle shape and rounded corners, the bezel, and a patent that covered the graphical layout of icons of the iPhone” (Chokkattu 1).  The law states that whoever applies the patented design, without license of the owner, is liable to said owner “to the extent of his total profit, but not less than $250, recoverable in any United States district court having jurisdiction of the parties” (1).  Samsung and all the supporters believe that total profits should not be included in the reward since smartphones are filled with hundreds if not thousands of components that are patented from neither of these two companies.

Apple feels that everything within the phone, as well as the looks of the phone, is what sells the smartphone and states that, “removing the need to pay total profits would hamper legal protection for new products and designs” (Chokkattu 1). Although Apple agreed that “article of manufacturer” could represent only specific features of the product and not the whole thing, financial damage would prevent people in the future from pocketing designs of other products. As the discussion goes on, the design on the Beetle is brought up as a reference stating that one may not buy the car for just its looks, but might be a primary factor into driving sales up. The article states that, “the infringement wasn’t found on the whole phone,” Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan said after the hearing. “It asserted three narrow patents. The patent doesn’t apply to the internals of the phone, so Apple doesn’t deserve profits on all of Samsung’s phone” (Chokkattu 1).  She also states that if they do win and are awarded total profits that it would devalue all of the other patents within the smartphone, which roughly has about 250,000 patents. Apple states that this is the 11^th time Samsung has copied an idea and they have been found guilty of it. They believe that if this continues it will pose risks to future designs.  In the last 100 years, a design patent case has not been ruled on in the Supreme Court.

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

The Justice Department charged fourteen people, including nine current or former FIFA figures and five sports marketing professionals, for allegedly “‘foster[ing] a culture of corruption and greed that created an uneven playing field for the biggest sport in the world,’” FBI Director James Comey said. The government alleged racketeering and corruption involving more than $150 million in bribes and kickbacks spanning two decades.

“The investigation grew out of allegations of payoffs to officials who decided where to hold the next two World Cups, the biggest international event in sports, that landed the games in Russia for 2018 and Qatar in 2022, according to three senior U.S. law enforcement officials. The U.S. was runner-up to Qatar’s win.”

FIFA appears to be relieved with the indictments. In a statement posted on its website, it said it “welcomes actions that can help contribute to rooting out any wrongdoing in football.”  FIFA further said, “We are pleased to see that the investigation is being energetically pursued for the good of football and believe that it will help reinforce measures that FIFA has already taken.”

The Clinton Foundation is under scrutiny for accepting money from FIFA and Qatar.  “In 2014, the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee, set up by the Qatar government to ensure a successful FIFA world cup, awarded the Clinton Foundation between $250,000 and $500,000; the State of Qatar donated between $1 million and $5 million.”  According to the Clinton Foundation website, the money was for “research and development for sustainable infrastructure at the 2022 FIFA World Cup to improve food security in Qatar, the Middle East, and other arid and water-stressed regions throughout the world.”