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 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 Jen Suarez.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

127 N.J. 328 (1992).

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

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

Posted by Rizzlyn Melo.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Jen Suarez.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Keith Cleary.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Victoria Gencarelli.

Product liability is a prevailing issue and concern for companies and businesses who are marketing and selling their products. It is a company’s duty to take the liability for manufacturing and selling a product that is defective or damaged. By creating and issuing a defective product to the public, it increases the risk for dangers, damages, or harmful occurrences to take place with the use of the product. If in the case that a product is defective and capable of any danger, it is the company’s responsibility to issue a warning or a recall on the product. In this way they can they attempt to protect themselves from any legal issues and also protect the general public from encountering danger while using their products.

POM Wonderful is a company who produces fruit juices and fruit extracts, but is most commonly known for the produce of pomegranate juice. The Coca-Cola Company introduced a new “pomegranate blueberry” juice product, but POM wonderful believed the product to be false advertising to consumers. The juice was actually a blend together of apple and grape juices and only consisted of 0.2% pomegranate juice in it and also included the phrase “from concentrate with added ingredients and other flavors” in small typing. POM Wonderful presented this to the court in compliance with the Lanham Act because they believed that the name of the juice and the false advertising of the Coca-Cola Company’s “pomegranate blueberry” juice was misleading and contributing to a loss of sales for POM Wonderful.

In California federal district court, they deliberated the case and had not found POM successful in proving that the Coca-Cola Company was misleading their consumers into thinking that their “Enhanced Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored 100% Juice Blend” did not actually contain a high percentage of pomegranate juice. When the case reached the highest court, they disregarded POM Wonderful’s claim against the Coca-Cola Company and stating that Coca-Cola was not violating the FDA guidelines on product labeling. The POM Wonderful Company did lose out on millions of dollars in revenue and sales, but it was not seen as unfair competition and the jury ended the case in favor of the Coca-Cola Company. All in all, an issue such as this one has an overall impact on the food industry to be careful when labeling, marketing, and advertising their products to the public. It is always important to keep product liability in mind when generating products and selling them in order to avoid any potential problems in the long run.

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

Posted by Amber Piskunov.

GNC is a widely known and trusted nutritional health retailer that is now being sued for allegedly selling products known to contain an illegal amphetamine-like stimulant. The two chemicals are called Picamilon and BMPEA. In addition to selling the illegal drug, GNC clearly intended for it to be hidden because the chemical was not listed under the nutritional facts or ingredients. In today’s world, many people want to see fast results, such as losing weight or gaining muscle. Stimulants can do that by reducing digestion and hunger, while also increasing your energy output. However, it should be known that these drugs are illegal, addictive, and sometimes deadly. GNC didn’t properly label the product, making it dangerous for the consumers without prior knowledge of purchasing. The investigation is being aided by the US Food and Drug Administration; they have announced that the chemical is illegal and should not be sold to consumers. After this was found by the FDA, GNC has taken all products containing the chemical off the shelves for sale.

The lawsuit states that “GNC sells products obtained from third-party vendors that GNC knows or should have known it contained unlawful and potentially unsafe ingredients.” Being a previously trusted 2.6 billion dollar retailer of “nutritional and healthy supplements,” GNC has now publicly hurt their name because of the chemicals found. Consumers are most likely going to be worried about buying products from GNC because of the secret ingredients that were previously hidden. GNC has since denied any knowledge of the drug in their products or on their shelves, and the ones in question have been removed. They have also mentioned they are protected by federal regulations. The company is denying the claims against them and is strongly defending themselves against the lawsuit.

GNC has caused their company to have bad publicity, a decline in stocks, and also a decline in profits. This is a serious lawsuit regarding consumer safety. GNC was not properly selling their product and did not have the best intentions for the well being of the consumers. With that being said, GNC is now trying to gain sales back by promoting lower prices and a better store experience. This is a way for the company to try to stay stable while dealing with the negative attention the lawsuit has brought. The warning made by the FDA stated the product is, “a substance that does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary ingredient.” The laws were not followed when the company decided to not only put the chemicals in the product but to also not have it labeled for consumer knowledge. The public will now be safer with the product being off shelves. GNC ended up losing profits instead of gaining profits because statutory laws were not met.

Amber is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business at Montclair State University, Class 2017.

Sources used:

http://www.bidnessetc.com/56383-gnc-holdings-inc-gnc-hits-new-52week-low-whats-instigating-the-crash/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/22/news/companies/oregon-ag-lawsuit-gnc/

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/the-pulse/2015/11/gnc-targeted-in-5m-class-action-lawsuit.html

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 Jen Suarez.

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

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

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

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

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.