Posted by Dalton Soffer.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Sydney Kpundeh.

A disgruntled New Jersey father has brought products liability design defect and failure-to-warn claims against The New Jersey Port Authority Transit Corporation to recover for injuries arising out of a take-home asbestos exposure. The case’s premise surrounds the father’s daughter, who started to exhibit signs of mesothelioma, which he claims were a result of secondary exposure to friable asbestos fibers through direct contact with her father and while washing his asbestos-laden work clothing. The father is an employee of the Port as a train operator, yard operator, and supervisor. His job duties included the repair and maintenance of asbestos-contaminated air brake systems on the Port’s multiple unit locomotives. When his daughter’s symptoms started worsening, he filed a product liability design defect and failure-to-warn case against the Port and various manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive brake shoes. He claimed that his daughter’s injuries could have been caused by her exposure to asbestos dust created when he replaced the brakes on cars he worked on after hours.

When the case was put before the court, all parties moved for summary judgment. The Port’s argument was that federal legislation and court precedent preempted state tort claims related to locomotives. The automobile defendants argued that there was no evidence that the father’s contacts with automotive brake dust were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate to establish causation.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the injuries were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) under the doctrine of field preemption. The court ruled in such direction because they examined a number of previous decisions that had been considered in the scope of the LIA’s preemptive effect and found that the only way to ensure uniformity is that they must rule the same way.

The failure-to-warn claims that the father filed against the various manufacturers and sellers of asbestos-containing automobile brakes were dismissed summarily because there was insufficient evidence of medical causation linking their products to second-hand exposure. “[T]he evidence showed that the father replaced brakes shoes contaminated with asbestos on four occasions over a period of eight years.”

When he was asked about these times, he could not recall the names of the manufacturers of the replaced brake shoes nor could he recount the number of times he installed new brakes manufactured by the named defendants. Therefore, “it was clear that even if the father was exposed to one of each of the automotive defendants’ products over the eight-year period in question, this exposure was so limited that it failed to meet the frequency, regularity, and proximity test that is required for this type of case.” Hence, this is why the case was dismissed.

Sydney is a political science major and legal studies minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016. 

Posted by Sydney Kpundeh.

A disgruntled New Jersey father has brought products liability design defect and failure-to-warn claims against The New Jersey Port Authority Transit Corporation to recover for injuries arising out of a take-home asbestos exposure. The case’s premise surrounds the father’s daughter, who started to exhibit signs of mesothelioma, which he claims were a result of secondary exposure to friable asbestos fibers through direct contact with her father and while washing his asbestos-laden work clothing. The father is an employee of the Port as a train operator, yard operator, and supervisor. His job duties included the repair and maintenance of asbestos-contaminated air brake systems on the Port’s multiple unit locomotives. When his daughter’s symptoms started worsening, he filed a product liability design defect and failure-to-warn case against the Port and various manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive brake shoes. He claimed that his daughter’s injuries could have been caused by her exposure to asbestos dust created when he replaced the brakes on cars he worked on after hours.

When the case was put before the court, all parties moved for summary judgment. The Port’s argument was that federal legislation and court precedent preempted state tort claims related to locomotives. The automobile defendants argued that there was no evidence that the father’s contacts with automotive brake dust were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate to establish causation.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the injuries were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) under the doctrine of field preemption. The court ruled in such direction because they examined a number of previous decisions that had been considered in the scope of the LIA’s preemptive effect and found that the only way to ensure uniformity is that they must rule the same way.

The failure-to-warn claims that the father filed against the various manufacturers and sellers of asbestos-containing automobile brakes were dismissed summarily because there was insufficient evidence of medical causation linking their products to second-hand exposure. “[T]he evidence showed that the father replaced brakes shoes contaminated with asbestos on four occasions over a period of eight years.”

When he was asked about these times, he could not recall the names of the manufacturers of the replaced brake shoes nor could he recount the number of times he installed new brakes manufactured by the named defendants. Therefore, “it was clear that even if the father was exposed to one of each of the automotive defendants’ products over the eight-year period in question, this exposure was so limited that it failed to meet the frequency, regularity, and proximity test that is required for this type of case.” Hence, this is why the case was dismissed.

Sydney is a political science major and legal studies minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016. 

Posted by Mike Bocchino.

Tom Brady has been accused of knowing about his team deflating footballs in the 2015 AFC championship game against the Indianapolis Colts. The footballs’ air pressure had been significantly reduced to a point where other players could tell the difference. The NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, investigated and suspended Brady for knowing about the tampering of the footballs. Brady fought the suspension in federal district court and his lawyers persuaded the judge. He ruled that Brady did not need to serve his suspension because it was an unfair punishment for just being accused of knowing about the deflation.

The commissioner then took the case to the court of appeals where they did not look at the facts of whether or not Brady deflated the ball, but rather whether or not Goodell was able to cast such a punishment on a player. They looked solely at whether Goodell, as arbitrator, acted in the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement. Judges Barrington Daniels Parker Jr. and Denny Chin wrote in their opinion, “We hold that the commissioner properly exercised this broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to confirm the award.”

Basically they agree that the commissioner acted on the powers which he, the league, and the players union had all agreed upon in 2011. So those of you out there saying that Goodell has too much power, the players agreed to what he can and cannot do. Plus, the tampering of footballs is cheating and this is not the first time that Brady had been caught cheating, never mind countless times that he did not get caught. It was only a matter of time.

But overall, the court of appeals did a great job looking at whether or not Roger Goodell stepped over the line or acted within his range of duties and whether or not it was the best interest of the league, which it was.

Mike is business administration major with a concentration in finance at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Da’Naysia Aarons.

In an article called, “Lawsuits and Consumer Reporters Fight Home Warranty Companies,” Heidi Turner discusses how home warranty companies are being sued by consumers. An investigative reporter was asked to look into a company called Sensible Home Warranty who was allegedly selling consumers a warranty policy. However, when one consumer asked for a new microwave, Sensible Home warranty refused to pay out her claim. While investigating the company, a reporter name Michelle Mortensen found that Sensible Home Warranty has more than 1,950 complaints. In the article it states, “An investigation into the company was undertaken by the Nevada Division of Insurance but in the meantime, the company reportedly went out of business.”

Due to the fact that the company was mistreating their consumers and taking advantage of their money, the company was fined $5,000 dollars for not complying with the state’s Service Warranty Act. In the article it further states, “The business failed to pay legitimate claims made on home warranty contracts sold in the State of Utah, or to pay them in a timely manner, and the business failed to respond to inquiries of the commissioner.”

Since many other home warranty companies have been taking advantage of other consumers, lawsuits have been filed against them.

Da’Naysia is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has come under fire recently with the release of secret tapes supposedly of regulators planning to “go soft” on Goldman Sachs.  Carmen Segarra, a former employee who was assigned to Goldman, claims in a lawsuit that she was under pressure by her superiors to overlook certain findings she made concerning the company.  The Fed eventually fired her allegedly because she refused to comply and change the findings.

In the recordings, one supervisor tells Segarra that basically consumer laws do not apply to certain institutions.  Michael Lewis, best-selling author of “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt,” said after listening to the tapes that, “The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived.”

Segarra’s lawsuit was dismissed for failing to connect her firing with the alleged Goldman disclosures.  The suit is pending appeal.  Nevertheless, the tapes may prompt a Congressional investigation into the matter.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, stated, “When regulators care more about protecting big banks from accountability than they do about protecting the American people from risky and illegal behavior on Wall Street, it threatens our whole economy.”  She further stated, “Congress must hold oversight hearings on the disturbing issues raised by today’s whistleblower report when it returns in November.”

In a Fortune interview, Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, indicated he may replace Fed chief, Janet Yellen, although it appears he likes it when interest rates are low. Speaking from a business standpoint, he would be correct. On the other hand, he acknowledges that low rates are not good for savings accounts, “The problem with low interest rates is that it’s unfair that people who’ve saved every penny, paid off mortgages, and everything they were supposed to do and they were going to retire with their beautiful nest egg and now they’re getting one-eighth of 1%,” says Trump. “I think that’s unfair to those people.”

Trump is in favor of taking power away from the Fed and have more Congressional oversight.

Posted by Charles Batikha.

Ransomware is similar to a Trojan horse. Imagine receiving an email from a non-familiar email address. The email claims to be the IRS claiming you are being sued for tax evasion and instructed to click on a link to a website. You are skeptical, but what is the worst thing that could happen if you click on the link. Malware was the virus used when ransomware was first introduced, but more recently website URL and deceptive pop-ups are being utilized. Home computers are not the only victims, business and even government systems have been breached as well.

Upon clicking on the link your browser becomes frozen, unable to use your computer a message pops onto the screen informing you of the encryption of your computer. This renders it useless and a fee is charged for the encryption key, which will cost anywhere from $200 to $5000. This is the newest “variant” called Crypto-Wall or Crypto-Wall 2.0. Interestingly enough, the scammers instruct victims to purchase bitcoins to be used for payment. Bitcoins have become much more popular among criminals because of the concealment of their identity.

Ransomware has also begun to hit smartphones, locking them as well. I personally have fallen victim to this type of ransomware. A message popped up stating that I must contact Apple to unfreeze my phone, but every time I closed the pop-up the notification would come up again not allowing me to use my internet. I called the phone number on the message, and I noticed that the phone line was a Google number, which made me a little suspicious. Immediately after someone answered the phone, they gave me a scripted explanation of how my system was locked and I need to give them my credit card number for a fee for them to unlock my phone. Fortunately enough, I did not pay the fee and hung up on the pleading receptionist.

A way I have found to refresh your phone from ransomware is to clear your website data in the setting of your phone. This has given me the use of my internet after being hit with ransomware. Updated anti-virus software on your computer is another preventative tactic. Using a pop-up blocker and not fumbling with unsolicited emails are other great tips as well.

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

Posted by Nadia Haddad.

Throughout the article, “Intellectual Property,” the author Darren Dahl talks about four different common fallacies that small business is unaware. The two most precious resources for any small business owner are time and money. Small business owners believe that it is not worth the time or effort to secure intellectual property rights. A patent can cost up to $25,000 to secure, in comparison to trademarks and Web addresses, which are cheap and can be obtained with the help of a lawyer.

In one case, Daniel Lubetzky, chief executive of New York City, Kind Snacks, heard that one of his competitors had copied the packaging, look, and feel of his bars. Lubetzky had secured components for his property like trademarks, trade dress, and Web addresses after founding his company. Mr. Lubetzky sent a competitor that was stealing his IP a cease-and-desist letter in order to stop the offender.

The above example stresses the erroneous belief that “once I get a trademark, my brand is safe.” In another case, Tracey Deschaine, who runs a restaurant called Dixie Picnic in Ocean City, N.J., secured trademarks, logo and name of her signature item, cupcakes. Even though she had trademarks for her business, someone else was monitoring the activity on the United States Patents and Trademark Office’s website and her spotted her application. They secured the Web address, or URL, before she could. This shows that, just because you have a trademark, it does not mean you are completely protected.

The third topic mentioned was about how “having a patent gives me the right to produce something.” What a patent does is gives you the right to prevent someone else from producing what your patent covers. Mr. Kocher of Cryptography Research says, “having a strong IP position helps ensure that other pay you for your innovation like they would on a toll on a road.” (Dahl).

Another fallacy mentioned is “If I have a patent or trademark in the United States, I don’t need to worry about the rest of the world.” In some countries, like Japan, it is expensive to acquire patents. The author suggested when deciding what your international IP strategy should be, consult a lawyer, and conduct some cost-benefit analysis to see if expanding your IP rights makes proper sense.

The last fallacy the article states “people who collect patents but don’t actually make anything are ‘patent trolls.’” In many cases, companies invent something, obtain a patent, and license it out for manufacturing by another. An example described was how a patent for wireless e-mail delivery held by NTP, a small holding company, something that R.I.M eventually would pay millions of dollars to license from them. The problem with this was NTP was trying to enforce its patent when it did notmake any products itself from the beginning.

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

Posted by Da’Naysia Aarons.

In an article called “Forced Arbitration,” Gordon Gibb, describes how citizens in the United States are taken advantage of by popular rich companies, such as, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, Wells Fargo and several others. Many consumers who buy products from these companies do not realize that they are facing forced arbitration.

Companies forced arbitration through a contractual clause that waives any rights to purse a dispute through courts. For example, a consumer decides to purchase a phone from T-Mobile. Before the consumer can buy the product he or she has to sign a document. In many cases, the force arbitration clause occurs in fine print at the bottom of the page, so many consumers are not aware of what they are signing. If the consumer does not sign the contract, they are not able to purchase their item. However, if the consumer signs the contract they receive their item.

If the consumer decides that he or she wants to sue the company, because something went wrong with the product, that consumer will never get their day in court because he or she signed the contract giving over that right. In the article, an appellate attorney, Deepak Gupta, states, “[Forced arbitration] is really an exit clause from the civil justice system and people aren’t aware that they’re even entering into these contracts.”

Force arbitration has become a popular issue in the United States. Several people are now starting to challenge its use. It is not right on how the government and companies are taking advantage of these consumers.

Da’Naysia is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Michael Larkin.

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

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

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

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