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 Joseph Papandrea.

Chipotle is a company that has had a rough year due to people getting sick from eating at the popular fast-food chain. Steve Ells and Monty Moran, two executives who share the job as CEO, were affected when people started getting sick. Just before that outbreak, the company’s stock reached an all-time high. It was going for $758 a share, but once people started getting sick it was down to a little over $507 a share. Both Ells and Moran brought in around $13.8 million each, with the based salaries increasing by just over $100,000. The outbreak of this health crisis hurt Chipotle’s sales and had a huge impact on their image. For this to happen during a time where stocks and sales were up is tragic. The company did the right thing by temporarily closing their restaurants for the safety of society. The company had to sit down and figure out what was causing this health crisis.

This was the first time the company had a decrease since opening 10 years ago. The company took in only $68 million in profit, which reflected a 44% drop. Things like this are going to happen to companies. A company that is very successful has its down falls. Chipotle did the right thing by closing temporarily. Getting their image back from this crisis will be be tough. The focus for the company should be getting the trust back from their customers. We know this breakout was called E.coli, but the cause was never determined.

The best thing the company could do is advertise to get the trust back. The customers should always come first and their satisfaction should as well. The company still did fairly well even when the health issue broke out. This is an eye opening situation for all businesses, that even though there is a downfall they could always bounce back and get the customers trust back. Customers were hospitalized, and it is best that Chipotle is able to prevent that from happening again.

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

Posted by Michael Larkin.

When one checks into a hotel, one would expect to have their information stored in a company’s database, but one would not expect that database to get compromised. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation was using a property management system that stored customer’s names, addresses, and credit card number. On three separate occasions in 2008 and 2009, Wyndham was hacked and this information was pulled off of over 600,000 accounts. Damage was approximately $10.6 million and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought Wyndham to trial.

Even though Wyndham was the company that got hacked, it was the customers who got hurt and that is why the FTC filed against Wyndham. The FTC argued that the hacks were caused due the very limited security that the management system used. It was found that the credit card numbers could easily be read, passwords were easy to guess, and a firewall was not deployed along with various other issues. Wyndham argued that the FTC had no right to file a suit against them and that the unfairness and deception claims were not sufficiently validated. It was founded that Wyndham didn’t provide a fair system for its customers and the court required the company to change in order to protect its customers. Mainly, Wyndham needs a more comprehensive security program in order to protect account information and also conduct annual information security audits and maintain a safeguard for its servers.

This case was a matter of protection and privacy for the company’s customers. A customer is providing personal information in order to engage in business so Wyndham has a duty to protect that information. Having a higher security will ensure that hackers will not be able to breach the system and steal information. The FTC won the trial, and in doing so, made sure that a company had a high security to protect the customers.

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

Sources:

FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp.

Verdict From: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/wyndham-settles-ftc-charges-it-unfairly-placed-consumers-payment

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.

Hacking into computer systems is nothing new, and government and businesses alike have always been aware that they must be one step ahead of computer criminals. But the attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment was more than that. It was a shot across the bow in what appears to be a potentially rampant future form of warfare. As a result, every cyber attack on government or business systems must now be carefully examined to see whether it is either criminal or an act of war.

In the face of evidence from the FBI that North Korea was responsible for the Sony attack, senior Republican senators disagree with the administration that it was only a form of “cybervandalism.” Sen. McCain stated this attack “is a new form of warfare, and we have to counter that form of warfare with a better form of warfare.” Sen. Lindsey Graham called “the cyberhacking ‘an act of terrorism’ and suggested re-imposing sanctions on North Korea and adding the country to the terrorism list.” In 2001, President George W. Bush called North Korea part of the “Axis of Evil,” along with Iran and Iraq.

The FBI concluded the attack on Sony was evidenced by IP addresses directly linked to North Korea. This attack was similar to those that occurred last year against South Korean banks and media outlets. The FBI stated:

We are deeply concerned about the destructive nature of this attack on a private sector entity and the ordinary citizens who worked there. . . . Further, North Korea’s attack on SPE reaffirms that cyber threats pose one of the gravest national security dangers to the United States. Though the FBI has seen a wide variety and increasing number of cyber intrusions, the destructive nature of this attack, coupled with its coercive nature, sets it apart.

North Korea’s actions were intended to inflict significant harm on a U.S. business and suppress the right of American citizens to express themselves. Such acts of intimidation fall outside the bounds of acceptable state behavior.

There will most likely be more cooperation between business and government in sharing information and technology. Only together can this new threat to our national security and economy be defeated.

A district court judge has ordered Apple to unlock a cell phone used by one of the shooters in the California massacre. Apple is fighting the order, claiming that doing so could make it easier to for anyone to hack into phones.

Apple has secret keys that can open up the software that it will not give to the FBI. The FBI also wants Apple to create a program that will permit it to hack into phones at anytime. The problem lies with a toggle in “Settings” that will make the phone delete all information on it if someone fails to put in the right passcode more than 10 times. This would make it impossible for the FBI to use a program that can guess random codes.

The case has Fourth Amendment implications for various reasons, including conscripting a private entity to become a government agent.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the summer of 2015, one of the world’s most known Japanese companies broke headlines as a top accounting scandal. Investigators found the company was overstating operating profits by at least 151.8 billion yen ($1.2 billion in U.S. dollars) between the years of 2008 and 2014. Their accounting problems primarily began from company employees understating costs on long-term projects, according to an investigation by a former top prosecutor in Japan.

The investigation also cited issues with improperly valued inventory also as the cause for the enormous overstatement of operating profits. Details of the scandal emerged when an independent investigative panel released a report describing, “Toshiba CEOs put intense pressure on subordinates to meet sales targets after the 2008 global recession.” The investigative report revealed that the CEOs did not directly instruct anyone to cook the books but rather placed immense pressure on subordinates and waited for the corporate culture to turn out the results they wanted. The investigative panel also pointed out that the weak corporate governance and a poorly functioning system of internal controls at every level of the Toshiba conglomerate didn’t mitigate or stop the inappropriate behaviors. Internal controls in the finance division, the corporate auditing division, the risk management division, and in the securities disclosure committee were not functioning properly. The accounting misconduct began under CEO Atsutoshi Nishida in 2008 due to the global financial crisis that immensely lowered Toshiba’s profitability. It continued unabated under the next CEO, Norio Sasaki, and eventually ended in scandal under Tanaka. Toshiba CEO Hisao Tanaka announced his resignation, in light of the scandal.

It has been four months since the scandal broke headlines and much new information has come to light. Since then, Toshiba has amended and restated those losses as to being more than $1.9 billion. As a consequence of the scandal, the Tokyo Stock Exchange has already designated Toshiba’s shares as “securities on alert” and fined the company $760,000 for “undermining the confidence of shareholders and investors.” In addition, Toshiba also faces the possibility of lawsuits from angry shareholders in Japan who have seen the company’s share price tumble.

Such action is already being taken in the United States, where an investor has filed a class-action lawsuit against Toshiba in June. The Rosen Law Firm representing the plaintiff has called for other Toshiba shareholders to join the suit. Despite the consequences Toshiba is facing, the one burning question has yet to be solved. Who did this? How did all this came about? How could their fraud be maintained for so long, and who should take direct responsibility?

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Issam Abualnadi.

Tax is a sum of money levied on incomes, property, sales, etc., by a government for its support or for specific services. (The American Heritage Dictionary). According to the IRS website, the origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913; however, history, it actually goes back even further. During the Civil, War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. In 1894, however, Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.

The 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, removed this objection by allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals without regard to the population of each State. (IRS Website). The sole purpose of income tax is based economics and social goals.( Income Tax Fundamentals 1-2). While the government tries to maximize its revenue, at the same time, Congress tries to make the tax law suitable and fair for each individual. Therefore, the tax law not only divides the taxpayers into categories upon their income, but also it allows them to minimize their taxes due by structuring their tax return in different methods. Unfortunately, not every citizen is law-abiding in this respect, and accordingly, some taxpayers break the tax law. In the foregoing, I will discuss the differences between tax avoidance, tax fraud, and tax evasion.    Avoidance of tax is not a criminal offense. According to the IRS, taxpayers have the right to reduce, avoid, or minimize their taxes by legitimate means. One who avoids tax does not conceal or misrepresent, but shapes and preplans events to reduce or eliminate tax liability within the parameters of the law. Take for example, Warren Buffett. Buffett wrote in The New York Times in 2011 “ Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent” ( The New York Times). But how Buffett can do that?

Buffett and many other super rich people use different tax rules to avoid paying taxes, like the “cash-rich split-off.” This code mechanism is used when Company (A) puts cash or other “investment assets” plus a business into a subsidiary that it then swaps tax-free to Company (B) in return for B’s holding of A’s stock. In 2010 Graham Holdings and Berkshire (Warren Buffett’s corporation), saved a total of about $675 million in federal and state income taxes by going the “cash-rich split-off” route. Graham Holdings is trading cash, Berkshire stock that it owns, and a TV station for most of Berkshire’s 23 percent stake in Graham Holdings. Tax avoidance matches the well-known saying, “Work smarter not harder.” Also, it is worth mentioning that massive tax avoidance draws attention to the notion of the efficiency of the tax codes, and the need to produce new rules or restrictions prevent such legal tax evasion. (The New York Times).

Tax fraud is another way some taxpayers use to minimize their tax liability. According to the IRS website, tax fraud “is deception by misrepresentation of material facts, or silence when good faith requires expression, which results in material damage to one who relies on it and has the right to rely on it. Simply stated, it is obtaining something of value from someone else through deceit.” (IRS Section 25.1.1.2). According to IRS’s definition of tax fraud, not all the mistakes in preparing a tax return are considered a fraud, and in order to consider a case as a fraud, two elements should be presented:

1. An additional tax due and owing as the result of a deliberate intent to evade tax; or

2. The willful and material submission of false statements or false documents in connection with an application and/or return. (IRS Section 25.1.1.1). Generally the expression “Tax Fraud” used for civil and criminal cases.

The third area is tax evasion. Tax evasion, “Involves some affirmative act to evade or defeat a tax, or payment of tax. Examples of affirmative acts are deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, attempts to color or obscure events, or make things seem other than they are” (IRS Section 25.1.1.2.4). “It is typically used in the criminal context, and it is a subset of the tax fraud.”

Tax fraud and tax evasion are very close in their meaning; both are illegal way to reduce the tax liability. The IRS indicates tax fraud by two major indicators. The first indicator is when the taxpayer knowingly understates their tax liability often leaving evidence in the form of identifying earmarks. The second indicator is that serve as a sign or symptom, or signify that actions may have been done for the purpose of deceit, concealment or to make things seem other than what they are. Usually the IRS cannot prove that to court, because taxpayer can easily claim a good faith misunderstanding of the law or good faith belief that one is not violating the law negating willfulness. Therefore, the IRS chooses to prosecute the taxpayer civilly for underpaying taxes. In such cases, the IRS can impose a tax fraud penalty, which is 75% of the tax owed plus the interest on this penalty. On the other hand, tax evasion is a subset of tax fraud. In tax evasion cases, the very difficult burden for the IRS is to prove the willfulness, which means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. (IRS, Section 25.1.1.1) To prove fraud, they must show the court that the taxpayer did the act deliberately for the purpose of deceit. Examples include omissions of specific items where similar items are included; concealment of bank accounts or other assets. (ISR Section 25.1.1.3). So if the IRS can prove that, then it is a tax evasion case. In tax evasion cases, the penalty range is up to five years in jail plus a big fine and plus the costs of prosecution for each separate tax crime.

In conclusion, the tax law was created to enable the government to support the economical and social activities in the American society. The lawmaker enacted some tax codes to help eligible taxpayers reduce their tax liability under exact conditions, but some still try to deceive the government by using illegal means.

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

Works Cited

“Sixteenth Amendment.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008. The Gale Group 17 Nov. 2014. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixteenth+Amendment

tax.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2003. Houghton Mifflin Company 23 Nov. 2014 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tax

“Brief History of IRS.” Brief History of IRS. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. .

Whittenburg, Gerald E., and Ray Whittington. “The Individual Income Tax Return.” Income Tax Fundamentals. 2014 ed. St. Paul: Cengage Learning, 2014. 1-2. Print.

“Internal Revenue Manual – 25.1.1 Overview/Definitions.” Internal Revenue Manual – 25.1.1 Overview/Definitions. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. .

BUFFETT, WARREN. “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.” The New York Times 14 Aug. 2011. Web.

Posted by Melissa Nomani.

Farmers across the United States are filing suits against Syngenta. As stated in the article, “The lawsuits allege the biotechnology company’s genetically modified Agrisure Viptera and Duracade seeds contaminated US corn shipments, making them unacceptable for export to China.” China does not allow the importation of GMO products that it has not tested. In February of 2014, China learned that the corn shipments from the U.S. contained Viptera. Agrisure Viptera is a seed that is genetically modified (known as MIR162) to prevent damage to crops by earworms and cutworms. As a result, China has rejected corn imports from the U.S.

Over 1,800 suits have been filed. Lawsuits filed against Syngenta state that the company put seeds on the market even though there was no approval from foreign markets. This has led to some farms having great financial losses. Even farmers who do not use GMO seeds could be affected due to accidental contamination from other fields. Syngenta has tried to refute the lawsuits by stating that they are not responsible for protecting farmers from GMO seeds. This arguments were rejected in September by Judge Lungstrum, who refused to dismiss the suits.

It has been estimated by The National Grain and Feed Association that as of April 2014 almost $3.0 billion worth of losses were caused by Syngenta’s Agrisure Viptera MIT162 corn seed.

The first of the lawsuits are expected to go to trial in June 2017.

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

The President signed into law a bill passed by Congress banning U.S. imports of “fish caught by slaves in Southeast Asia, gold mined by children in Africa, and garments sewn by abused women in Bangladesh.” The law closes a loophole in an 85-year-old tariff law which allowed these products to be sold.

Due to high demand of certain products, the previous law allowed these goods to be sold in the U.S. regardless if they were produced by slave labor. Sen. Sherrod Brown has pressed U.S. Customs to make sure the law is enforced.  He said, “It’s embarrassing that for 85 years, the United States let products made with forced labor into this country, and closing this loophole gives the U.S. an important tool to fight global slavery.”

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Friday morning, two days after the judge presiding the Uber class action lawsuit decided that drivers attempting to arbitrate can be included in the law suit, Uber sent drivers a new agreement. The document undermined the judge’s ruling by revising the arbitration clause.

Liss-Riordan and her team are filing an emergency motion that will be heard in front of Judge Edward Chen next Thursday; it asks the court to block Uber from enforcing this new driver agreement. “Uber has tried to fix the problem that Judge Chen ruled made the agreement unenforceable,” Liss Riordan told TechCrunch in an email.. The Private Attorney General Act gives “a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. It also allows that private citizen to “seek civil penalties not only for violations that he personally suffered” but also for violations of “other current or former employees.”

According to Chen’s Wednesday ruling, the Uber driver agreement of 2014 and 2015 illegally waived drivers’ rights under PAGA, which informed Judge Chen’s decision that the arbitration clause could not be honored because it contained an illegal provision. This was the reason for the provision of the agreement, to quickly remove the illegality and include new provisions to the agreement.

The Private Attorney General Act protects uber drivers from what uber has tried to prevent, a large action against the company. Uber has agreed to resolve any claim against the company but only on an individual basis. Uber’s driver agreement provision also attempts to prevent workers from participating in any class collective or representative action against the company. Uber also rewrote the agreement to remove a requirement that arbitration between a driver and the company remain confidential. The language makes it clear that the agreement goes into effect only when a driver accepts it  not when a revision is published, therefore, protecting drivers who previously signed the agreement.

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