Posted by Mariafernanda Ayin.

Best Buy is considered one of the biggest electronic selling corporations, but not even the biggest companies can avoid problems. Best Buy has been selling products like TVs, computers, and appliances such as washing machines that have had recalls.  These recalls have been one of the biggest headlines in the past couple of months in the electronics industry.

Federal Law states that it is illegal to sell and distribute products to consumers that have been publicly recalled. Best Buy, allegedly knowing that they were selling recalled products, told the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that they had created measures to stop the risk of selling recalled products, however they continue to do so. Therefore, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission decided to penalize Best Buy because the company was not able to effectively create procedures to be able to identify, separate, and avoid selling recall products. In addition, Best Buy failed to block the product code which caused them to get erroneous information that indicated that the recall product was not in inventory.

Best Buy is being blamed for selling over 16 different products and a total of 600 recall items from September 2010 through October 2015—400 of the items being Canon cameras. Some of the items sold had a risk of skin irritation, and even catching on fire, which could have caused enormous harm to the customers. Best Buy is a company that has shown a clear lack of ethics by knowingly selling and distributing recall products just to make a profit, not caring about the well-being of their customers. This unethical act caused Best Buy to settle and pay $3.8 million of civil penalty in thirty days and in addition the company needed to create a compliance program to show that they are strictly following the laws and regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Act.

After the settlement was made, Best Buy sent a spokesperson to publicly address the situation, making an announcement after the settlement, “we regret that any products within the scope of a recall were not removed entirely from our shelves and online channels. While the number of items accidentally sold was small, even one was too many. We have taken steps, in cooperation with the CPSC, to help prevent these issues from recurring.” (Kieler).

This whole dilemma that Best Buy has been through has put them in the eye of the public, and could of possibly affected their sales. However, they still remain one of the biggest companies in the electronic business, and most likely will surpass this situation.

Mariafernanda is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Bailey Obetz.

In this article, Stephen Kimble, inventor of a toy that allowed consumers to shoot web-like material from their palms imitating the power of the superhero Spiderman, sued Marvel in 1997 for patent infringement because it was selling a similar item called the “Web Blaster.” In an agreement between Kimbel and Marvel, Kimbel was to receive royalties on past, present, and future sales of the toy. However, it was unbeknownst to Kimble and Marvel that the royalties had no end date. Under Brulotte vs. Thys Co. (1964 decision), royalties only have to be paid until the patent expires. The issue the courts are currently facing is should the decision of the 1964 case be overruled? Specifically, in Kimble vs. Marvel Enterprises, Kimble’s lawyer believes the case is “‘widely recognized as an outdated and misguided decision that prohibits royalty arrangements that are frequently socially beneficial.’” (Liptak p.6).

“Stare decisis” is Latin for “’to stand by things decided,’” which helps the courts be efficient in their reasoning by using prior cases as guides to their decision-making. Additionally, “stare decisis” makes the law predictable for citizens—they can rely on the court to make the best decisions based on what the law has been from previous cases. The courts are obligated to follow precedent, however sometimes they may rule that the case should no longer be followed. Reasons for not following a precedent could be technological or social changes that make the case inapplicable or if the case is no longer considered “good law.” When courts decide not to follow precedent, as they may in this case, they can receive a lot of attention, which is why this case is of particular interest.

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

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington D.C. is the first federal office to set up a unit to identify anyone wrongfully convicted of a crime.  The Conviction Integrity Unit will review cases where defendants offer new evidence that was not available at the original trial, such as DNA evidence, to prove their innocence.  Ronald Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney of the Washington office said in a statement, “As prosecutors, our goal is not to win convictions, but to do justice.”  Machen further said, “This new unit will work to uncover historical injustices and to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to prevent such tragedies in the future.”

The Conviction Integrity Unit follows similar ones established in state offices.  The modus for the creation of a separate unit to review these cases arises from five convictions that were vacated by the court, including that of Donald Gates, who was convicted in 1982 of rape and murder based on hair evidence.  DNA testing made available in 2009 proved that he was innocent.

The office is working with defense lawyers and the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, a non-profit organization which fights wrongful convictions.  Over the last four-years, more than 2,000 files involving hair or fiber evidence have been reviewed by the FBI.

Posted by Sara Firnstein.

Everybody knows that General Motors, or “GM,” has had its fair share of issues throughout the years. Many recalls have been raised based on multiple different issues. In 2014, GM came out and recalled over 3.4 million cars because of an ignition switch issue on top of the already 2.6 million small cars they recalled four months earlier to fix the same issue. GM said that they needed to change the keys to these cars. The major issue that prompted this recall is that the switch could rotate out of “run” if the key has excess weight on it. This could lead to the car shutting off the engine and then the power steering with become disabled, leaving the driver without any control. This recall had an effect on cars ranging from 2000 to 2014.

The most surprising facts about this recall is that after the first recall of 2.6 million small cars, GM has only repaired seven percent of the vehicles. This leaves ninety-three percent of the recalled cars not fixed yet, and another 3.4 million cars just recalled, which obviously haven’t been fixed yet either. Also, the effect of the first recall has caused a minimum of 54 crashes and 13 deaths, but lawyers who are suing GM say that there have been at least 60 deaths. The deaths from this issue are the most surprising, but also “GM has acknowledged knowing about the problem for more than a decade, yet the cars weren’t recalled until this year” (CBS News, 2014).

An issue that arose from these ignition switch recalls are the massive amount of lawsuits filed against GM. This has led to many different court cases and GM has tried to avoid lawsuits that deal with cars that were made by the old, pre-bankruptcy GM.  Recently in July, the “U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a bankruptcy judge’s ruling this week that had protected GM from those lawsuits because of the company’s 2009 bankruptcy restructuring” (Bomey, 2016). Because of this ruling, it may expose the new GM to liabilities for a defect that killed a minimum of 124 people and injured over 275 more in the small cars that were made by the old GM before bankruptcy. This ruling gives life to hundreds of cases where the victims decided to take their chances in court and refused to settle. Attorney Robert Hilliard says that he is happy for his clients because for years “the victims of the GM ignition switch have had their claims languishing in bankruptcy court and now these folks will have their day in court” (Bomey, 2016). These victims aren’t going to back down and GM has to continue to deal with the old GM car lawsuits along with the new GM car ignition switch lawsuits. GM is not out of the clear just yet, as they have to deal with these lawsuits that can now proceed based off of the court’s most recent ruling.

Sara is a criminal justice major with a minor in legal studies at the College of Arts and Sciences and the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Works Cited:

GM recalls 3.4 million more cars for ignition defect. (2014, June 16). Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-recalls-3-16-million-cars-for-ignition-problems/.

Bomey, N. (2016, July 14). Court: Ignition-switch lawsuits against GM can proceed. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/07/13/general-motors-bankruptcy-ignition-switch-lawsuit/87029916/.

Posted by Hijab Sheikh.

A long case of a Louisiana man and woman’s car accident in 2014 ended on Tuesday, March 29, 2016. The jury in Manhattan listened to them for more than two hours, blaming their accident over a defective ignition switch while the GM lawyer said there was no evidence that there was a flaw in the ignition switch.

Since 2014, there were more 30 million GM automaker recalls. There were hundreds of claims made against GM automaker. “Under certain conditions, the ignition switch can slip out of the on position, making it difficult to steer or stop as the car stalls” (Niemeiser). GM says that they fixed this issue. But if that’s the case, then why have there been so many recalls? Instead of acknowledging the fact that there was a flaw in the ignition switch, GM blamed the accident on “a key chain pulled down by the weight of other keys might have pulled it out of position” (Nieumeiser).

Randall Jackson, Plaintiff’s attorney, said the GM lawyer’s statement doesn’t make sense. GM attorney Mike Brock blamed the accident on ice and claimed that there wasn’t any major damages to the vehicle or the passengers; there were minor scrapes on the bumper, but that is about it.

GM announced the following statistics, settling “1,385 death and injury cases for $275 million and a class-action shareholders’ lawsuit for $300 million. The company paid nearly $600 million to settle 399 claims made to a fund it established. Those claims covered 124 deaths and 275 injuries.” (Nieumeiser).

GM rejected 90 perecent of the claims that were made, out of the 4,343 they received.

Bibliography

Neumeiser, Larry. “FindLaw | Legal News & Information.” Lawyers Clash over Ignition Switch Claims in 2nd GM Case. Find Law, 29 Mar. 2016. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.

Hijab is a public health major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Brianna Montalvo.

Since 2014, General Motors has been having ignition switch issues with their vehicles which has lead to 30 million recalls. As of Tuesday, March 29 2016, a jury in New York City has yet to reach a verdict on the ignition switch controversy. This case was brought to the jury by a lawyer who is defending a man and a woman whom were in an accident on a New Orleans bridge back in 2014. The couple claim the ignition switch of their GM vehicle is to blame for the accident.

As stated, “Hundreds of claims remain against the automaker after GM revealed two years ago that it had continued to sell flawed vehicles for more than a decade after discovering an ignition switch defect in Chevy Cobalts and other small cars,” (Neumeister). It has been said that the ignition switch itself can slip out of position making it difficult to steer or stop the vehicle, which then would cause the vehicle to stall. GM has claimed they fixed their problem, which I believe is highly doubtful. The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that a key chain had pulled the weight of the keys down which would cause the switch to be pulled out of position, initiating the car to stall and cause an accident. General Motor’s attorney blamed ice as the probable cause in the accident, since there were no serious injuries or dents to the car, only a few minor scratches on the bumper.

Although a verdict has not been reached, I would not be surprised if the ignition switch in fact was the cause of the accident. In September of 2015, General Motors declared it had settled 1,385 death and injury cases for $275 million and a class-action shareholders’ lawsuit for $300 million. The company has given millions towards a numerous amount of claims. $600 million was paid to settle 399 claims to a fund GM established. 124 deaths, as well as 275 injuries were covered with those claims.

I feel that it was unethical of General Motors to continue selling their vehicles with the ignition switch defect. They claim they fixed it, but I do not believe it is something to fix that easily and quickly. There have been hundreds of deaths and injuries due to the ignition switch recall. They will always get business since vehicles will always be in demand, but I believe they should fix the ignition switch so that they wouldn’t have to deal with so many recalls, as well as have any deaths or injuries on their conscious.

Brianna is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Deane Franco.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Abigail Anaemeje.

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

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

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

Posted by Sheyenne Hurt-Lewis.

General Motors created millions of vehicles with defective ignition switches. This defect is linked to more than 100 deaths and 200 reported injuries. Many lawsuits have arisen from these defective switches which makes General Motors likely to face a large sum of punitive damages which, “could amount to millions, if not billions of dollars,” as stated by Judge Gerber. Punitive damages are those intended to punish the wrongdoer and deter others from similar wrongdoing. “GM had sought to block plaintiffs, including those suing for personal injury or wrongful death, from making punitive damages claims.” The recent defects ignited numerous other complaints of other GM cars recalled in 2014 that were “equipped with a faulty ignition switch that can slip out of the run position and disable safety features including air bags.” The effects of these defects have resulted in numerous injuries and lost lives.

Robert Hillard is representing nearly 1,500 plaintiffs suing GM for the injuries and deaths that are tied to the defective ignition switch. Hillard is confident that his clients are capable of being awarded the punitive damages they are seeking. GM has already spent $575 million to settle Hillard’s cases but there are still a large number of cases that remain unsettled. In September, GM agreed to pay nearly $900 million to settle a case similar to this. In addition to this payment, they were also forced to pay a $35 million fine for failing to report the defect themselves when they were first made aware of it. The company created a compensation fund of $625 million for victims.

GM attempted to restructure, and split into “New GM” and “Old GM.” Old GM kept all liabilities but agreed to be held responsible for “future product-liability cases involving other vehicles.” Judge Gerber wrote, “New GM may be held responsible, on claims for both compensatory and punitive damages, for its own knowledge and conduct” on the basis that workers were aware of the defective switch and related accident claims. However, it was made clear by Judge Gerber that punitive damages can only be sought against New GM if and only if it’s solely on the basis of the conduct or knowledge of New GM.

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

Posted by Shakil Rahman.

For a car to be eligible for sale, it has to pass various tests which are placed in order to make sure that the cars for safe for use by the customers. Certain improvements are made to cars to also make sure that during an accident, there are some protections for the customer inside the car. GM motors ignition switch for the some small cars in the late 1990s and early 2000s were defective and it would shut of the engine during driving and this also prevented from the airbags from deploying during a crash. While GM executives and engineers became aware of the defective ignition switch, they did not attempt to fix the problem as it was assessed to be too costly. But by 2012, it was discovered that the defective switch also prevented the air bags from deploying. GM did not disclose the safety hazard to its customers, which led to over 120 deaths and multiple injuries. In 2014, GM started recalling cars with faulty ignition switch in order to fix it, and after the recall, multiple customers filed lawsuits against GM for the injuries caused due to the defective ignition switch. Lawsuits were filed against GM for false advertising due to not disclosing the defect to customer before buying the product. GM came to a settlement with the customers and agreed to pay $575 Million as compensation and also paid $900 million pay to US.

There are various points of interest in the case that are related to corporate responsibility, advertisements and negligence. The lawsuits that were filed against General Motors were for false advertising, and for injuries caused from malfunctioning products created by General Motors. General Motors car’s ignition switch was faulty and therefore sometimes it would shut down the engine while driving and since the engine shut down, the air bags would not deploy during an accident. So the defective ignition switch would cause the car to shut down while driving and therefore causing car accidents and also the air bags would not be deployed which would lead to the injury from the crash to be amplified. Therefore, General Motors is liable for the injuries caused by the defect, because their product is directly causing the accidents and the injuries that are related to it.

The other portion of the lawsuits was about false advertisement by General Motors about their cars. General Motors did not know about their defective ignition switch before 2005 but decided to not recall the cars after a risk assessment about the expense that will needed to fix the ignition switch. Now even if they decided to stop selling cars with faulty ignition switch, they still did not make an effort to fix the ignition switch for cars that were already sold and also did not warn the customers about the product’s defect. This is not only false advertisement but also negligence because the customers were going to be harmed even after using the product as it was intended to be used. So in conclusion, General Motors was liable for the injuries that were caused by their defective products because they did not inform the customers about the hazard of using the product and also for not attempting to fix a defect that could injure the customers.

The irony of the whole situation is that General Motors decided not to recall the vehicles in 2005 to fix the defect because of the fact that they came to the conclusion that it would too expensive. And now in 2015, their insistence on not recalling the cars back for repairs back in 2005 has led to a federal fine of $900 million and settlements of $575 million for the customers who were injured due to the cars faulty switch.

In the business world, when a company is attempting to look at the direction the company is going they need to see how their actions might affect the company in the long term. While paying for the repairs in 2005 may have been expensive, right now they have paid around $2 billion dollars in fine and are predicted to pay around $2.7 billion for repairing the recalled cars. And on top of that, the break of trust between GM and the customers are surely going to affect the company’s progress and profit.

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

Posted by Jessica Page.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a huge salmonella outbreak traced to peanut butter produced by the Peanut Corporation of America. Nine people died from this incident and 700 were reported ill. The $30 million company was shut down and liquidated after the incident and the CEO, Stewart Parnell, was indicted and prosecuted. In late September, he was sentenced 28 years in prison.

What’s intriguing about this article is the comparison to the GM faulty ignition case. In this particular incident, the defect caused 124 deaths and over 200 injuries. GM has recently settled for $900 million and a three year prosecution agreement. The major difference between the two cases though – indictment of employees. Preet Bharara, one of the best federal prosecutors in Manhattan, explained, “it is unusually difficult to prosecute auto industry executives” and because of the national auto safety laws, there is a call for punishing the corporation as a whole, rather than any one individual.

The main conviction in the salmonella case is the fact that Parnell committed fraud by “knowingly introducing tainted peanut butter paste into interstate commerce.” The fact of the matter is though, there were GM executives who knew about the faulty ignition but failed to report it within the five-day span. The company itself was fined as a corporation for this matter, but there was not specific indictment of GM executives. The real issue at hand is how much harder it is to prosecute auto executives when it comes to cases of product liability. There is currently a bill that many senators are working to pass that would make this process easier and hold executives accountable, if they were knowledgeable of the faulty auto product or provided false statements to consumers, as GM did. This could change future product liability cases within the auto industry and as Senator Blumenthal stated, “one sentence like Parnell’s [within the automotive industry] would change auto safety dramatically and enduringly.”

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jessica Page.

General Motors Co. has recently been in the news for its faulty ignition switches in over 2.6 million of the company’s Chevrolet Cobolts and other models that were recalled in 2014. The faulty ignition switches were found to “slip out of the run position and disable features including air bags.” This product defect has been connected to over 100 deaths and over 200 injuries. In September, the U.S. Justice Department brought a criminal case against GM. They agreed to pay $900 million to settle and a $35 million fine for not reporting the defect.

On Monday, Judge Robert Gerber stated that it is possible GM will also face punitive damages to compensate consumers who were harmed by the defect, even though the company sought to block plaintiffs making these claims. Judge Gerber has suggested the punitive damages could amount to billions of dollars if the legal claims are settled or successful. This is partially due to the fact that GM admitted in the original settlement that they “[mislead] regulators about the defective switch and [failed] to recall millions of vehicles.”

Another interesting factor for this case is the bankruptcy restructuring GM went through. In the restructure, they assumed responsibility for “future product-liability cases involving older vehicles.” Since this is so broad, it is likely that GM could be held responsible for claims on both compensatory and punitive damage because of its knowledge of the defect and conduct, but only to the extent that the “New GM” holds. GM has agreed to spend over $500 million to settle these cases and over the next few months, the company is expected to face even more death and injury cases that have yet to be settled.

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Connor Lynch. 

An article from The Wall Street Journal titled, “General Motors May Face Punitive Damages Over Ignition Switches” is a perfect example of short-run profit maximization versus long-run profit maximization. As of November 9, General Motors can face punitive damages in several lawsuits regarding defective ignition switches in millions of vehicles. Although those vehicles have all been recalled, the defective part has been linked to more than 100 deaths.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber has linked GM to the deaths and injuries caused by the defective part in millions of their vehicles. After the case has been discussed, “Texas lawyer Robert Hilliard, who represents people suing GM for injuries and deaths tied to the defective ignition switch, called the decision ‘a major win’ for plaintiffs, contending that punitive damages are the only way to properly compensate victims who have been harmed by the defect.” Although it seems as if it was a complete loss for the defendant, a GM spokesperson said the company disputed the statement that the ruling was an utter victory for plaintiffs.

Punitive damages are damages intended to deter the defendants and others from getting involved in conduct that is similar to the actions that formed the basis of the lawsuit. Punitive damages are also used to punish corporations for wrongdoing such as selling defective products. Those defective products usually lead to death/injury which often can lead to large awards from the jury. It is unclear to what the punitive damages of this case will amount to: “Judge Gerber at one point in his ruling suggested GM’s punitive damages exposure could amount to millions, if not billions, of dollars, though any actual exposure will depend on whether legal claims against the company are settled or ultimately successful.”

This is not the first time that General Motors has been involved with a defective product recall resulting in punitive damages. Last year GM agreed to pay $35 million for failing to alert the public about the specific defect in a timely manner. Judge Gerber’s ruling stems from separating the “Old GM” and “New GM” because of the controversial belief that GM has retained liabilities pertaining to their restructuring.

“Old GM” had so many problems at one point that they were forced to restructure and become a new and reformed company. This has resulted in product-liability, “GM, as part of the bankruptcy restructuring, agreed to assume responsibility for future product-liability cases involving older vehicles, or those under the purview of Old GM.” General Motors’ reconstruction has allowed them to avoid several lawsuits because of their “bankruptcy shield.” Judge Gerber has ruled that “New GM” may be held responsible for the recent defective ignition switch that has caused over 100 deaths. Punitive damages may be sought out to the extent of new GM’s knowledge on the subject matter involving the defective ignition switch. Because of all the injuries/deaths, there are over 1,000 plaintiffs represented by Texas attorney, Mr. Hilliard. General Motors seems as if it is doomed to pay more money in punitive damages in addition to the $575 million they have paid recently to settle cases involving defective products.

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

Posted by Abigail Hofmann.

Francisco Garcia of the Sacramento Kings was lifting weights on a Ledraplastic exercise ball on October 9^th, 2009. The 195 pound player was lifting two 80 pound weights while on the ball when it suddenly burst beneath him. This supposed “burst resistant” ball advertised its ability to withstand weight up to 600 pounds. In the fall, Garcia suffered a fracture to his forearm, causing ineligibility for upcoming games. This injury came shortly after signing a five year, $30 million contract. Because of this, the Sacramento Kings wanted “to recoup the more than $4 million in salary, medical expenses and other costs it incurred after Garcia’s injury, as well as prejudgment interest.” (Bricketto)

Ledraplastic initially refused to reimburse the Kings or Garcia for the financial loss or issue a statement recalling the products or forewarning about potential dangers. In the Kings’ product liability case, they were able to prove that the ball burst at weights of mere 400 pounds, rather than the advertised 600 pounds, and that “for a very small expense, the ball could have been made thicker and would have provided the burst resistant capacity as represented.” (Bricketto) Eventually, a settlement was done in private, but the Kings “sought reimbursement for the salary they paid Garcia,” and “Garcia had also sought damages for pain and suffering as well as loss in future earning capacity.” (Lu)

Ultimately, this product liability case was pretty clear on who was at fault: Ledraplastic claimed to have a ball that withstood weights up to 600 pounds, yet failed to hold even 400 pounds. This caused an injury resulting in millions of dollars of damages, and up until the settlement, Ledraplastic refused to forewarn others about this potential danger. Although the settlement was private, we do know that Ledraplastic is now required to warn users of the dangers of using the ball while lifting free weights, hopefully preventing many similar injuries.

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

Works Cited:

Bricketto, Martin. “NBA Team Sues Exercise Ball Cos. Over $4M Injury – Law360.” NBA Team Sues Exercise Ball Cos. Over $4M Injury – Law360. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Sept. 2016.

Lu, Andrew November 1, 2012 5:54 AM. “NBA Star Francisco Garcia Settles Exercise Ball Lawsuit.” Injured. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Sept. 2016.

Los Angeles will pay 24 million dollars to two men who spent decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. In one case, lawyers and a team of students from Loyola Law School challenged a key witness’s testimony. In 1979, Kash Delano Register was charged with the armed robbery and murder of Jack Sasson, 78, after eyewitness testimony placed him at the scene at the time of the shooting. The witness told police she heard gunshots and she saw Register fleeing the scene. The witness selected Register out of a photo lineup, but her sisters told police that her story was untrue. No murder weapon was recovered and no fingerprints were found. Based solely on this witness’s testimony, a jury found Register guilty and he spent 34 years in prison.

The witness’s sister testified she tried to tell a detective that her sister had lied, but in response, the investigator allegedly put a finger to his lips indicating she should keep quiet about it. Her other sister told the police that she was lying, but even her pleas were ignored. Register’s attorneys claimed that the witness selected him under the threat of being prosecuted for credit card forgery and a recent theft if she failed to choose someone out of the lineup.

In the other case, Bruce Lisker was accused of murdering his mother. “At the time of the murder, Lisker, who had a reputation for fighting with his mother and a history of drug abuse, told police he saw her lying in the foyer and broke into the home to help her. They did not believe him.” During a hearing challenging the conviction, lawyers undermined or disproved key elements of the prosecution’s case, including that a bloody shoe print that could not have been made by Lisker’s shoes. His attorneys claimed “that the lead detective ignored evidence that Lisker’s friend may have been a possible suspect.”

In every arrest and criminal prosecution, someone’s liberty is at stake, and these cases illustrate the importance that prosecutors and police get it right. Money can always be replaced. But no one can ever get back all those years lost in prison, as a result of being falsely accused.

Posted by Kristen Czerepusko.

Recently, General Motors has been facing some lawsuits stemming from defective ignition switches in millions of their vehicles. This defect has led to over 100 deaths and 200 injuries. General Motors has decided to block those who are suing for personal injury and those making punitive damage claims. The defective car models were recalled in 2014 and were further proven to have been equipped with faulty ignition switches. With this defect, the switch can disable safety features including air bags which are vital to safety when operating a vehicle.

To make matters worse, not only did General Motors know they had a defective product, they acknowledged the fact that they mislead regulators about the defect altogether. To cope with this, General Motors invoked upon a “bankruptcy shield” to limit legal exposure on account of their defective switch. Today, there are over 1,385 individuals with death or injury claims who didn’t receive anything from General Motors. The company still faces hundreds of cases that have yet to be settled.

Punitive damages are something that should never be limited when dealing with defective products. There should never be a cap on the amount of money somebody should be allowed to receive from the careless act of a company manufacturing and selling a defective product. What makes it even worse is the fact that General Motors knew their products were defective and did not care enough to try and prevent further injuries. They acted very unethically and inhumanely with how they handled their cases by using a so-called “bankruptcy shield.” If punitive damages were ever to have a limit, companies would not care to try and make their products better but would instead continue to make harmful products. It is not yet clear how much will be awarded to the individuals who have had serious damages or to the loved ones to those who lost their lives but I hope justice is served to all who deserve it in this case.

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

Posted by Kyle Chapman.

Hillary Clinton was accused of using a personal email account out of her home for her official email communication while she was Secretary of State. She used her family’s private email server, instead of using the official State Department email account maintained on federal government servers. Government officials argue that the use of a private server, private messaging system software, and deleting almost 32,000 emails has violated State Department procedures and federal laws of recordkeeping requirements. Some of these emails are deemed to be “Top Secret” and confidential information. In my opinion, this is a violation of federal law.

After a CNN interview, a new opportunity has shown some light for Hillary. Hillary stated, “Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation.” To clarify, the legal requirement to immediately preserve emails from a nongovernment email account was not put into law until two years after she stepped down as Secretary of State. She claims that she has done nothing wrong because there was no law enforced when she committed the act. Hillary stated that other Secretaries of State did the same thing, but there are no records of other secretaries setting up a private email server for all of their government communications. In addition, while Hillary was Secretary of State, she sent a cable containing her signature warning employees to avoid handling official business from a personal email account.

Therefore, Hillary was well informed of her actions. Even though there was not a specific law enforcing to preserve emails from nongovernment accounts, Clinton knew what she was doing. In that case, I find Hillary guilty for her actions.

This whole controversy started when officials were unable to locate emails in the investigation of the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. It looks like as if she was covering her tracks by deleting those emails on her private server. Not only did this interfere with the investigation, but a hacker attempted to hack into her email server.

Mishandling top secret government information is a federal crime. In conclusion, I find Hillary guilty for the use of mishandling government information by using her own private email server.

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

Posted by Deena Khalil.

There are two sides of every story. According to Kelly Wallace who works for CNN, “It’s a case of she said versus they said.”

Rachael Cunnings, a young girl from New Jersey, accused her parents of throwing her out of their house when she turned eighteen. They refused to pay for her private school tuition, and so she sued them for expected future expenses, such as transportation, bills, college tuition, and living expenses.   The teen’s parents argue “that she was not kicked out of the house. Instead, they say she left on her own back in October because she didn’t want to abide by their rules.” There were many claims against each side, such as Rachael’s parents not liking her boyfriend, missing curfews, getting suspended, and apparently the teen’s parents were abusive.

The judge in the New Jersey Superior Court denied Cunnings request for high school tuition and living expenses. “The judge sounded skeptical of some of the claims in the lawsuit, saying it could lead to teens ‘thumbing their noses’ at their parents, leaving home and then asking for financial support.” There was another hearing that took place the following month about other issues in the case including her college expenses. Before the hearing, Rachael dropped the case; she was accepted by Western New England University with a $56,000 scholarship. In the end, the teen did not end up empty handed.

Deena is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Gerald Wrona.

Interesting. That is one word to describe the NY Times report on the pre-trial proceedings of the Libyan Investment Authority’s (LIA) suit against Goldman Sachs (Anderson). Acting as broker-dealer to the sovereign wealth fund, Goldman established a relationship with the fund’s managers in 2007. A year later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was visiting Moammar Gadhafi in Libya’s capital to devise a “trade and investment agreement . . . which will allow the improvement of the climate for investment.” (Labbott). Shortly after that promising convention between the two political heads, Goldman and the Authority finalized the agreement and the bank sold derivative products totaling $1 billion to the LIA. Then the housing market “opened its mouth” and out came the demon of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Understandably, the LIA felt exploited. They bit the bullet. Their lawyers came to the London High Court armed with notions that those managing the sovereign wealth fund were ineffectual in understanding the investments presented to them by Goldman. To add insult to insult, they further asserted that the fund administrators were altered in their judgment by Goldman representatives’ leadership role in incidents allegedly involving the recreational consumption of alcohol and visits paid to what may have been brothels, or some other manufacturer of night entertainment, though a witness statement does not specify. Considering that it would never have been in Goldman’s interest to spend more time carousing then working on the deal with the authority, it is highly unlikely that the time spent in leisure outweighed the hours dedicated to the investigation of the necessary facts of the deal.

Though it is worth noting that Goldman has already been ousted for luring investors into crummy deals and then betting against those deals to increase revenue. This is how Goldman actually made money off the subprime mortgage crisis (Cohan).

Will evidence be disclosed that suggests Goldman dealt with the LIA in a similar way? It’s impossible to know. I believe the judge will find that the heart of the matter is whether Goldman conducted due diligence in their dealing with the LIA. For that reason, Robert Miles, one of the attorney’s representing Goldman, would do well to look to the Securities Act of 1933 for support. It states: “If a Broker Dealer conducts reasonable due diligence on a security and passes the information on to the buyer before a transaction, the Broker cannot be held liable for non-disclosure of information that was not found during the investigation.”  Securities Act of 1933, SEC §§ 38-1-28 (SEC 1933).

The trial is expected to start next year.

Gerald is a Business Administration and MIT major at Montclair State University, class of 2017.

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

The article “Debate On Medical Malpractice Lawsuits,” discusses the intricacy of a singular aspect of business law that involves the controversial aspect of medical malpractice lawsuits. The primary reasoning behind the controversial nature of medical malpractice lawsuits is that they can be perceived from a beneficial and optimistic standpoint in the notion that if a medical professional is negligent then the victim would be able to receive some outlet of financial compensation to justify the negligent actions the physician took towards the patient/victim.

Conversely, however, there are many individuals seeking to intentionally profit off of a malpractice lawsuit in the immoral and unethical attempt to make as commonly referred to as a “quick buck.” In the article, the author eloquently articulated, “Some states have been gradually chipping away at medical malpractice laws seen by some as too plaintiff-friendly. For instance, a New York law limits the size of contingent fees in medical malpractice cases, thus reducing the financial incentive for plaintiffs’ attorneys.” This quote illustrates the belief that there are a multitude of profit-seeking individuals who aspire to take advantage of this law, which was originally created to empower the victimized individual or to allow financial compensation in a civil case to pay the families of the victims in the event of harm that had occurred due to the physicians negligence. As the quote portrays, contemporary legislatures are seeking to minimize this immoral mentality and reduce wrongful malpractice lawsuits that focus on making a significant profit by opportunistic individuals who are suing the doctor in a “get rich quick scheme.”

This article reveals that there is no simple black and white solution for these issues, because there are truckloads of gray areas. Although malpractice lawsuits are occurring in civil cases with righteous reasons and there are a wide spectrum of patients who became victims under the negligence of the physician operating on them, there is a wide-spectrum of profit-seeking fools who are filing malpractice lawsuits in the hopes of getting a financial benefit that the individual should not receive in the first place. In conclusion, this article summarizes both aspects to this controversy and insightfully portrays both sides of the controversy.

“Debate On Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.” Salem Press Encyclopedia (2013). Research Starters. Web. 7. Feb. 2015.

Fadi is a double major in nutrition food science and exercise science at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.