Posted by Daniella Bucci.

The Real Housewives of NJ stars and Montville residents Joe and Teresa Giudice were each sentenced in Newark federal court to 41 months and 15 months in prison, respectively. The couple pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and three types of bankruptcy fraud. The conspiracy consisted of both Joe and Teresa agreeing to commit the fraud. This white collar offense is inchoate, that is, was complete when the agreement was made. The bankruptcy fraud consisted of the couple failing to disclose assets and used bankruptcy as a screen to get out of the debt they were buried in. It is not surprising that the couple, who each grew up in modest homes,  landed in debt, as we were all exposed to their lavish lifestyle on Bravo TV where they tried to keep up with the Joneses.

The Giudice’s also admitted that they hid assets from bankruptcy creditors and submitted phony loan applications to get some $5 million in mortgages and construction loans. The couple had applied for these loans for over 7 or 8 years, resulting in the banks suffering major losses, one of which faced a $414,000 loss. On top of that, Joe Guidice also pleaded guilty to failing to file a tax return for 2004, and admitted that he didn’t file taxes on income of approximately $1 million between 2004 and 2008. Last but not least, the couple that once believed they were invincible failed to reveal $75,000 worth of assets on a probation form. Teresa, currently serving her time in Danbury Federal Prison in Connecticut, is set to be released on December 23rd of this year. Joe will be sentenced to his 41-month sentence in March.

Daniella is a graduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Robert Santos.

It seems that multiple companies are beginning to merge in an attempt for one company to make a larger profit and the other company to remain alive. Some companies tend to merge in order to both strengthen their profits and publicity. In this specific case, these companies merged in order to create a better and more powerful drug that could be beneficial and a game changer for individuals who suffer from multiple sclerosis. Or so it seemed. Unfortunately for these French companies, there well planned venture did not go as planned.

In 2011, a giant French pharmaceutical company known as Sanofi acquired Genzyme, a small biotech company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sanofi paid 20 billion dollars for the company, and although that seems a bit much for a small-time company, Genzyme was making strides to create a powerful and promising treatment to multiple sclerosis called Lemtrada. It seemed like a good deal that would not only benefit the two companies but the world as well.

Unfortunately things did not turn out for the best with this venture between the two companies. It turned out that Sanofi was developing their own treatment to multiple sclerosis. The drug is called Aubagio and would have been a competitor against Lemtrada. Sanofli was faced with a dilemma: they could have followed F.D.A regulations and worked to seek approval for Lemtrada, or finish working on Aubagio. The only catch would be that by focusing on Lemtrada, Sonafli would have to give additional payments to the Genzyme rights holders in the estimate of 3.8 billion dollars. Of course Sonafli choose the latter option and focused on their drug without the right holders of Genzyme knowing, and now a lawsuit has been issued.

A lawsuit was filed against Sonafli by Genzyme rights holders under the claim that Sonafli failed to fulfil its obligations under their deal. Because of this, the individuals who invested in Genzyme have not received the money owed to them in a sum of 708 million dollars. The lawsuit claims Sonafli may have taken it upon themselves to slow the approval of Lemtrada through the F.D.A in order to avoid having to pay the right holders of Genzyme, while the approval of Sonafli’s drug Aubagio was an easier process and did not have as much difficulty of being approved as Lemtrada did. It has already been noted by F.D.A officials that the time process for Lemtrada to be approved took longer than it should have, therefore, it already seems that Sofali is in the wrong.

Unfortunately, this is a case where the wellbeing of individuals is outweighed by the possibility of profit. If what Genzyme is claiming is true, we would have been witness to another company thinking about their pockets before the health of many. Considering the impact these drugs could have had on the lives of the somewhat 2.3 million people in the world who suffer from multiple sclerosis, it is a sad thing to see money interrupting the process of progress. Hopefully, we see some agreement and it happens as fast as possible so these companies can go back to focusing on what’s important, and that’s saving a life.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Deane Franco.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Abigail Anaemeje. 

Yet, another automobile scandal! In September, the Environmental Protection Agency found that Volkswagen sold 482,000 cars in the U.S. that contained a “defeat device.” This type of software was used in diesel engines, “that could detect when they were being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve results.” The result of this led to the “engines emitting nitrogen oxide pollutants 40 times above what is allowed in the US.” In addition, in November of this year, Volkswagen also found irregularities of carbon dioxide emissions levels in about 800,000 cars in Europe. In response to the emission-cheating scandal, Volkswagen has acknowledge their failure. As a result, they will have to pay a fine to the EPA of $37,500 for every vehicle that goes against the allowed standards.

This issue has not only effected the U.S. and Europe, but also France, South Korea, the UK, Italy, Canada, and Germany. In total, 500,000 cars in the U.S., 2.4 million in Germany, and 1.2 million cars in the U.K. have been recalled as a result of the emissions scandal. So far, no employees have been directly fired over the incident. However, the management board member and the head of sales and marketing, Christina Klingler is leaving the company on an unrelated issue.

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

Posted by Abigail Anaemeje.

In September of this year, a settlement was finally reached involving GM and their issue involving small- car ignition switches. In the last year, the company has had to recall over 2.6 million of their older cars to replace defective switches that, “shuts off the engine and disables power-assisted steering, power brakes and the air bags.” Such problems have been found in models such as the Saturn Ion and Chevrolet Cobalt. This deadly case drew even more attention when it was the cause of at least 124 deaths and 275 injuries. GM, the Detroit automaker, admits that, “some of its employees knew about the problem for more than a decade, but no cars were recalled until early last year.” After hiring a federal prosecutor, Anton Valukas, he discovered that there has been no wrongdoing made by the top executives. However, in light of the incident, 15 employees of GM have been fired for falling to act in correcting the issue.

Overall, GM Motors will have to pay a wire fraud charge of $900 million in a late prosecution agreement. As for the families who have lost their loved ones, each will receive at least $1 million. In addition, $625 million has been set aside to compensate people who will agree with the settlement. Ironically, this case occurred a year after Toyota was caught hiding information about its defects that caused similar outcomes. Since it was much severe, Toyota agreed to pay a penalty of $1.2 billion; making it the largest penalty enforced on an automobile company.

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

Posted by Dana Domenick

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company is Asia’s largest pharmaceutical company and one of the most successful in the world. In the late 1990s, Takeda globally released an antidiabetic drug known as Actos. According to the FDA, the purpose of pioglitazone, the generic name for Actos, is to “improve control of blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus” (fda.gov).

Eli Lilly and Company is an American pharmaceutical company based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Takeda entered a partnership with Eli Lilly in which the American company would market Actos in the United States. In 2011, a New York resident, Terrance Allen and his wife filed a suit against Eli Lilly and Takeda claiming that the drug caused Terrance Allen to develop bladder cancer. The defendant had evidence to prove that the company failed to warn that Actos increases the risk of cancer. The trial took place in Lafayette, Louisiana. The jury sided with the plaintiff and awarded $9 billion in punitive damages. Lilly had to pay $3 billion while Takeda had to pay $6 billion. Both drug companies appealed the verdict and the damages were slashed to $36.8 million.

This suit was just one of the almost 9,000 pending claims toward Takeda made by Americans who had used the drug. All litigants argued that the company failed to warn them that use of the drug heightened their risk of cancer. In April 2014, the Japanese pharmaceutical company came to a settlement of $2.4 billion to cover the damages in all of the suits and costs against them in the United States. According to the New York Times, the damages given to each plaintiff will vary depending on individual factors including the amount of drug consumed and each individual’s physiological history (Andrew Pollack). According to Business Insider, Takeda expressed that the company is not concerned about the large settlement and they will continue to sell the drug.

Dana is a psychology major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/business/international/japanese-drug-maker-ordered-to-pay-6-billion-over-cancer-claims.html http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm109136.htm

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-takeda-warns-of-loss-after–2.4-bn-diabetes-drug-settlements-2015-4

Posted by Philip D Lacki.

‘The lid popped off”? How does a lid pop off without someone doing something to cause it to pop off? Just like the Liebeck v McDonald’s case, I find this case involving someone suing Starbucks for a faulty lid to be morally wrong in the sense of business law. “The stress activated [the plaintiff’s] Crohn’s disease, and as a result, he lost part of his intestine. He claims damages of $50,000. His wife also sued for loss of companionship.”

The eggshell skull rule is a well-established legal doctrine used in some tort law systems. It means that saying the injured person is frail is not a defense in a tort case.

In class, we discussed the McDonalds case and looked into the case. When do ends justify the means? In my discussion post about the video, we watched the video about the case and talked about how one may use bad or immoral methods as long as you accomplish something good by using them. (Not everyone agrees with this idea). The man suing Starbucks for $50,000 used immoral methods to accomplish something bad.

In class, we also discussed the Gucci case where a person in China was selling counterfeit Gucci products and selling them online. Gucci, who realized what was happening, notified the person in China without getting a response. The man in China was using immoral methods to accomplish something bad, and though it might be a bit extreme to compare, you can see how these two cases have similarities in both business and legal aspects.

Philip is a public relations major with a minor is business administration at Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Rilind Dauti.

$18 billion in goods alone in 2004. Every supplier wants to make deals with the inventory giant, Wal-Mart. To keep the deals going for the prices,Wal-Mart wants to negotiate, and these suppliers are forced to cut their costs (pay their workers less), in order to keep their contracts with Wal-Mart.

It doesn’t stop at the low wages. Wal-Mart’s healthcare plan has one of the lowest premiums, ranging from $9 to $27 dollars per pay period. What they don’t tell you is that there is a $5,000 annual out-of-pocket fee. If workers make an average of $20,000, the fee is approximately ¼ of an employee’s salary. Employees are forced to take advantage of government-funded programs like Medicaid. This insurance is covered by taxpayers, so taxpayers are forced to spend their money on Wal-Mart employees.

So what does this mean? Wal-Mart is where it is now because of their low wages, worker exploitation, and inadequate healthcare for its employees so that they can guarantee you their lowest prices. Their prices are low because of the unethical practices enforced by their CEO and higher officials in the corporation.

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

Posted by Briana Encarnacion.

The articles by CBS News, USA Today, and Time Magazine below all discuss a case between a woman named Cynthia Robinson and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a cigarette making company. Ms. Robinson had filed suit against R.J. Reynolds on behalf of her husband, Michael Johnson, Sr., who passed away in 1996 due to lung cancer. According to Time Magazine, “Johnson got hooked on cigarettes when he was just 13-years-old, and eventually smoked up to three packs a day.” The article goes on to demonstrate how truly addicted Mr. Johnson was to cigarettes by quoting his wife, “When you’re on oxygen and you have to step outside for a cigarette, you can’t stop. You’re addicted.” So it was clear that Mr. Johnson was addicted to cigarettes and that is why he developed lung cancer, but the question was, how exactly was R.J. Reynolds to blame?

In an article published in USAToday, Christopher Chestnut, an attorney for Ms. Robinson, was quoted stating, “The environment today is completely different than it was in the ’50s and ’60s, when Ms. Robinson’s husband was alive . . . Reynolds knew its product was addictive, but it didn’t market it correctly. The company lied and marketed cigarettes as safe, yet they contained countless harmful chemicals.” This statement alone tells us who was to blame. It was R.J. Reynolds. Had the company been more transparent as opposed to intentionally hiding the negative effects of smoking their cigarettes, the punitive damages would have never been so great. However, because they intended to make profits by lying to their customers and causing harm to them in the process, punitive damages were granted to Ms. Robinson.

Time Magazine quotes Willie E. Gary, another attorney of Ms. Robinson, stating, “We expected every dime and more . . . Johnson started smoking when he was a teen. How aware of the risks can you be at that age? But [the tobacco industry] would market and target kids. To this day they are going after our youth, stuffing their pockets. It’s all about the profits and it’s nothing about the health and safety of the people.” This is exactly right. From what I have learned through studying business law, the ends do not necessarily justify the means, an idea conveyed in the principle of “double effect;” it is all about the intent. However, the means do in fact justify the end and in this case, R.J. Reynolds did not have good intentions. As Gary stated, they were focused solely on profit. Their goal was to make money by selling cigarettes that were addictive and contained harsh chemicals known to cause cancer. They knew that by targeting the youth and hiding the reality that their cigarettes could cause cancer, they would attain a market large enough to bring in a great deal of revenue. They failed to consider the long-run effects of this decision and in the end it came back to haunt them. Ms. Robinson and her son were awarded $7,302,625 and $9,591,208 in compensatory damages, respectively, and not to mention the $23,623,718,906.62 in punitive damages, according to cvn.com.

Still, as stressed in the article published by CBS News, the money was not what was important to Ms. Robinson and her family. What was important was that the tobacco industry learn their lesson and stop targeting the youth. Ms. Robinson’s attorney Gary stated, “The lawsuit’s goal was to stop tobacco companies from targeting children and young people with their advertising. . . If we don’t get a dime, that’s OK, if we can make a difference and save some lives” (CBS News). It was clear that although punitive damages might have been seen as overly excessive by the tobacco industry, especially R.J. Reynolds themselves, that was not the goal of Ms. Robinson. It was merely an added bonus to doing what was right on behalf of her husband.

This case is a great example of the theory of double effect and a good one to study when it comes to the debate on whether or not punitive damages should have a cap. Opinions will vary of course, however, it is interesting to study cases such as these and decide on your own whether or not you agree with the verdict.

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

Sources:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/19/jury-hits-rj-reynolds-with-23b-verdict/12887315/
http://time.com/3016961/23-6-billion-lawsuit-winner-to-big-tobacco-are-you-awake-now/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/r-j-reynolds-tobacco-hit-for-billions-in-michael-johnson-sr-lawsuit/
http://cvn.com/proceedings/cynthia-robinson-v-rj-reynolds-tobacco-company-et-al-trial-2014-03-03

Posted by Deane Franco.

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

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

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

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