Posted by Briana Brandao.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Briana Brandao.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Rizzlyn Melo.

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

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

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

Posted by 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 Joseph Locorriere. 

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

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

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

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

Posted by 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.

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 Chase Mulligan.

On October 21, 2016 a coordinated distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) was made on internet systems operated by Domain Name Systems (DNS) provider Dyn resulting in massive disruption of internet services across the United States and Europe. Internet services along most of the east coast, west coast, and southern parts of the country were affected. The cyber-attack has been called an “historic attack”; (flashcritic.com) the first robot-based digital assault using the Internet of Things that linked millions of on-line devices in a coordinated operation. This tactic uses a novel approach of manipulating electronic devices connected to the Internet of Things for the attack capitalizing on the weak security of these devices and raising the question of responsibility and liability.

Anonymous and New World Hackers using recently released malicious software (malware) called Mirai, created a robot network for the attack. The significant aspect of the attack is the use of the Mirai botnet code to take control of devices that are used on what is called the Internet of Things. These devices are electronic devices not directly connect to computers but are connected through the internet and include such items as webcams, smart TV’s, routers, security cameras, DVRs, and similar devices. By using these electronic devices the hackers were able to take control of a virtual army of attackers. While the multiple attack across multiple directions is considered sophisticated, the actual use of the electronic devices is considered uncomplicated. Many of the compromised electronic devices are used by homes or small business and often lack security capabilities or contain elementary security that is easily compromised. The hackers had little difficulty installing the Mirai malware and taking control of the devices when needed for the attack.

Security organizations are taking measures to identify the comprised devises and developing ways to combat the Mirai command and control system. However, the cost and potential liability for placing unsecured or poorly security protected electronic devices on the Internet of Things is a looming question. If someone or a company experiences a significant loss of money, compromise of data, or destruction of assets; who is liable? Surely the hackers, but are the companies that market poorly or non-secure smart electronic devices; is the person or concern that uses the devices responsible, jointly or wholly? An area of Cyber-law is now in the making.

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

Posted by Chase Mulligan. 

On October 21, 2016 a coordinated distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) was made on internet systems operated by Domain Name Systems (DNS) provider Dyn resulting in massive disruption of internet services across the United States and Europe. Internet services along most of the east coast, west coast, and southern parts of the country were affected. The cyber-attack has been called an “historic attack”; (flashcritic.com) the first robot-based digital assault using the Internet of Things that linked millions of on-line devices in a coordinated operation. This tactic uses a novel approach of manipulating electronic devices connected to the Internet of Things for the attack capitalizing on the weak security of these devices and raising the question of responsibility and liability.

Anonymous and New World Hackers using recently released malicious software (malware) called Mirai, created a robot network for the attack. The significant aspect of the attack is the use of the Mirai botnet code to take control of devices that are used on what is called the Internet of Things. These devices are electronic devices not directly connect to computers but are connected through the internet and include such items as webcams, smart TV’s, routers, security cameras, DVRs, and similar devices. By using these electronic devices the hackers were able to take control of a virtual army of attackers. While the multiple attack across multiple directions is considered sophisticated, the actual use of the electronic devices is considered uncomplicated. Many of the compromised electronic devices are used by homes or small business and often lack security capabilities or contain elementary security that is easily compromised. The hackers had little difficulty installing the Mirai malware and taking control of the devices when needed for the attack.

Security organizations are taking measures to identify the comprised devises and developing ways to combat the Mirai command and control system. However, the cost and potential liability for placing unsecured or poorly security protected electronic devices on the Internet of Things is a looming question. If someone or a company experiences a significant loss of money, compromise of data, or destruction of assets; who is liable? Surely the hackers, but are the companies that market poorly or non-secure smart electronic devices; is the person or concern that uses the devices responsible, jointly or wholly? An area of Cyber-law is now in the making.

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

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 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.