Posted by Kimberly Culcay.

In the article, “What the PCAOB’s new related-party standard means for auditors,” Maria L. Murphy captures the new standard put in place by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The new standard will require auditors to perform specific procedures that are intended to strengthen auditor performance in high-risk areas, such as significant unusual transactions and financial relationships, and transactions with executive officers. The reason behind the new standard is that in the areas of accounting mentioned above there was a lack of guidance on how to report or treat certain transactions.

The Auditing Standard (AS) No. 18 requires auditors to understand the relationships and transactions with related party transactions as if they were someone working in the company. The auditors must also understand and document the process of understanding the relationships and transactions of the company just as the internal controls of the company itself. The auditors not only have to record how they gained understanding of the relationships and transactions but the auditors must properly account for the transactions, perform procedures to test that the company’s related parties and transactions with those parties have been completely and accurately identified, accounted for, and disclosed. Before this standard, there was a vague and unstructured way of handling related party transactions. Related party transactions are a way that a company can commit fraud by transferring property to a related party thereby creating a conflict of interest. In the article, it also states that the AU Section 316, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, was amended to require specific procedures to identify and evaluate significant unusual transactions. The main point of amending the standards is for the professional auditors to be able to identify procedures quickly if a situation of fraud exists.

I think amending the standards of accounting to include specific procedures to prevent fraud from happening rather than a professional figuring out what to do if fraud is already done is way more useful. I also think that with the incentive to have these procedures in place, it eliminates some of the gray area of accounting. The need for Forensic Accountants has increased ever since the recession in 2008, with all of the fraud that was done due to the lack of strict standards and procedures to be able to detect fraud early. I am currently a graduate student at Montclair State University; I have been striving to complete my combined program in Accounting BS/MS with a Certificate in Forensic Accounting. Personally, I find that in the emerging economy people have learned from the mistakes made in the past with the scandals, fraud and so on. I think it is important to be a Forensic Accountant in order to apply sophisticated set skills in other aspects of accounting and litigation. I think that if you already know how to be an accountant and with some background knowledge on Forensics, then it could be easier to detect some of the common problems that lead to fraud.

Kimberly is an accounting major with a certification in forensic accounting at Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:  Murphy, Maria L. “What the PCAOB’s New Related-party Standard Means for Auditors.” Journal of Accountancy. 22 July 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2015. .

A federal court has ruled that the House of Representatives, collectively, has standing to sue the Executive Branch over a provision in the Obama-care legislation dealing with cost-sharing subsidies. These subsidies are intended to help lower income people with their deductibles and co-pays. “Many legal observers expected the lawsuit to fail on standing: that Congress wouldn’t be able to show a way in which the Obama administration had harmed legislators, a prerequisite for a court challenge.”

House Republicans argue these subsidies are being illegally paid by the Treasury to insurers and claims the House “never appropriated” the funding. The House alleges it “has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by the unconstitutional actions of defendants . . . which, among other things, usurp the House’s legislative authority.”

Courts hear cases and controversies, and unless a plaintiff has sustained some type of injury, courts cannot take the case and will dismiss it for lack of standing. But here, the court found the House has standing to sue because they are allegedly harmed as an institution, not as individual members. The court held, “The Congress is the only body empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing monies to be spent from the U.S. Treasury. . . . Yet this constitutional structure would collapse, and the role of the House would be meaningless, if the Executive could circumvent the appropriations process and spend funds however it pleases. If such actions are taken . . . the House as an institution has standing to sue.”

Posted by Renaldo Nel.

Uber is considering leaving the state of New Jersey if a proposed bill passes. This proposed bill’s main objective is to implement tough regulations regarding commercial insurance.  There is currently an ongoing debate whether there is a gap in the insurance coverage of Uber drivers. Insurance industry experts and New Jersey law makers argue that Uber’s operations are not covered sufficiently. Currently Uber’s commercial coverage, which it buys for its drivers, kicks-in the moment the driver accepts a ride request. Lawmakers want to change this and require that the insurance is in place from the point which the driver logs onto the Uber Application. They argue that there is commercial benefit whilst the driver is waiting for someone to request a ride.

Furthermore, lawmakers assert that the personal insurance cover of the driver often does not cover any incident that occurs if the driver is logged-on to the application. They argue that it is vital that the driver is insured between the time that he logs-on and the time he or she gets a ride request. Uber disagrees.

Uber states that more often than not, personal insurance will pay for any incident that occurs between the time the driver logs-on and waits for a ride. Uber furthermore states that they have insurance in place in the event that the personal coverage of the driver does not pay. If this is true, one would not know at this stage. Uber does however claim that “rides on the platform, beginning to end, from when the driver turns on the app to when they drop a person off is insured. Any claim to the contrary is incorrect” (Mohrer). Christine O’Brien, president of the Insurance Council of New Jersey, states that “It is clear under New Jersey law that people who engage as an UberX driver are not covered by their private passenger auto policy. That is a very clear conclusion.”

I believe the problem here is to find out what the actual truth is. We need to determine whether these drivers are sufficiently covered or not. If not, then extra commercial insurance would most definitely be needed. If Uber claims that they provide insurance for the time frame in controversy, then they should provide proof of this insurance.

I understand that law makers are only trying to protect the common citizen, however, I also understand Uber’s argument that the proposed law is burdensome. Uber claims that the level of coverage proposed is higher than that of what is expected from taxi operators. Furthermore, Uber states that four states, including Washington D.C., have passed transport network regulation, and that these regulations are not nearly as burdensome as those proposed in New Jersey.

Uber is many people’s livelihood, and I understand their frustration as it can easily be seen as a vendetta against Uber drivers. New Jersey lawmakers should take into consideration what other states have done and see how they can accommodate both parties.

Renaldo is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Melissa Nomani.

Lawsuits filed against Lumber Liquidators claim that homeowners who put certain laminate flooring into their home are being exposed to high levels of formaldehyde. This puts them at risk and also lowers the value of their property. As of this July, the number of lawsuits filed against the company has gone up from only a mere ten in June. Many lawsuits began being filed after a 60 Minutes episode that aired on March 1, 2015, exposing the high levels of formaldehyde in laminated flooring made in China. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and has been linked to cancer and respiratory problems. A study done by 60 Minutes showed that 30 out of 31 of the tested flooring samples (all of the sample were Lumber Liquidators products).

According to a study conducted by 60 Minutes, 30 of 31 flooring samples from Lumber Liquidators did not meet formaldehyde emissions standards. It is estimated that thousands of people have Lumber Liquidators flooring in their homes. Some lawsuits claim that homeowners have suffered from respiratory problems after installing the laminate flooring.

Another issue that has risen is that Lumber Liquidators is being accused of false advertising and selling products comprised of particles that come from endangered habitats and trees. The US Department of Justice is investigating the company for their alleged use of wood. The wood was illegally cut down from Russia–this directly violates the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act does not allow for the importation of products made from woods that are illegally logged.

Furthermore, this past May, Lumber Liquidators CEO, Robert Lynch, resigned. During this month the company also announced that it would be suspending the sale of flooring from China. The company offered homeowners free  indoor air quality screening, if they had purchased laminate flooring from China.

The number of lawsuits against Lumber Liquidators continues to grow.

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

Posted by Dan Udvari.

On December 3, 2015 Donald L. Blankenship – the CEO of Massey Energy, Co. – was convicted of a single misdemeanor for conducting a conspiracy to violate safety rules in his coal mines just before the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster that occurred on April 5, 2010.

Massey Energy was the fourth largest publicly traded coal extractor by revenue ($2.69 billion) in the United States. It was founded in 1920 by the Massey family and operated in Richmond, Virginia. The company consisted of approximately 5800 employees right before Alpha Natural Resources acquired the company for 7.1 billion dollars. Interestingly, 99% of the shareholders voted in favor of the acquisition, which shows how poorly the company was governed by management. Don Blankenship took control over the company in 1992 and created a culture that favored profits over safety. In total, the coal extractor giant had around 369 citations and orders, which totaled a staggering 10.8 million dollars.

On April 5, 2015 a massive explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia occurred that killed 29 people. This tragedy was the worst since the 1970 Hyden disaster. Massey Energy operated the Upper Big Branch Mine and later turned out that they operated the mine in a manner that was against several rules set up by the MSHA. The investigation later determined that the ventilation system in the mine did not work properly and failed to get rid of the toxic gases that caused the explosion. Massey intentionally neglected all the safety rules and citations issued by the MSHA for the purpose of increasing profits. However, this case goes deeper than one thinks. According to reports, Massey Energy is very influential on political figures and officials in West Virginia. Using this power, they were able to bribe and manipulate MSHA regulators so they look the other way when inspecting the mines.

In November 2014, Don Blankenship, was indicted by a federal jury on four criminal counts including conspiracy to violate safety laws, securities fraud, defrauding the federal government, and making false statements to the SEC. Even though he was charged with these, he was only found guilty of one on December 3, 2015. Had he been convicted of all four, he could have been sent to prison for approximately thirty years. Now, he is only serving one year in jail.

I do not believe that Blankenship should only serve one year in jail. It seems unfair to those who had lost their lives because of profits. It baffles me that people as greedy as him get away with conspiracy and murder charges. It seems that money can literally buy your freedom in the United States. All you need is a good lawyer or lawyers.

Dan is a graduate accounting student with a certificate in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Arben Bajrami.

Sweatshops, or a workplace with unacceptable working conditions, have remained a problem up until recent years in business and in our economy.  Companies such as Nike and Adidas have workers in foreign countries sewing and producing equipment, apparel, and footwear for very little pay.  It is said that these sweatshop workers receive something called “living wage,” which is only five hundred dollars a month, or just enough money to survive.

Laborers that work in sweatshops are considered highly unethical.  Also, these items cost very little money to make but sell at outrageously high prices in retail stores.  For example, if it costs Nike four dollars and eighty cents to make a shirt, retail stores often mark up the product for eighteen dollars.

At least certain companies, such as Knights Apparel, are making a conscious effort to raise awareness to the horrors of sweatshops. Knights Apparel works closely with a program called Worker Rights Consortium.  They work “‘to combat sweatshops and protect the rights of workers who sew apparel and make other products sold in the United States.’”

Arben is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Research proposal posted by Valentina Reyes.

Tort law carries the “no duty to rescue” principle, which establishes an individual’s freedom to choose whether to intervene in situations of peril while imposing no sanction on those who choose not to act. “While there is properly in law a duty not to harm, there is not . . . a negative duty not to allow harm to happen” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes). So long as there is no fiduciary relationship – which is defined as a relationship of trust or legal obligation of a person to another – between the two parties, an individual is not obliged to intervene, even if refraining from doing so may lead to the impending death of the other. This principle was established with the idea that people should not be held responsible for the demise of others unless they were directly involved with the causation of the incidents that led to the other’s peril, or had some established duty of care to the other, and to protect one’s freedom of choice.

In some instances, some courts may find that if a person began to rescue another and then ceased, the rescuer may be found liable if the reasonable person would have continued to rescue the victim. Under the umbrella of negligence, this is called “undertaking to act.” However, some states provide immunity from liability under specific statutes typically referred to as “Good Samaritan laws.” These statutes are put in place to protect those who, in good faith, decide to help in an emergency situation from being sued in civil court for any damage which may result from their act or omission to act. Depending on the situation, courts may wish to protect a rescuer or deem them responsible for negligent acts if the additional damage caused to the plaintiff resulted from an unreasonable act by the rescuer.

While the “no duty to rescue” principle was put in place to protect people’s liberty to choose, it also gives people power to allow others to perish. On the one hand, people are free to choose whether to get involved, but if they choose not to help when they are capable of helping and when the help may save a life, then they have the indirect power over another’s life. The principle also reinforces individualistic behavior that is already very much present in American society and culture which is often noted as being extremely averse to collectivism. Further, if a person intends another to perish by doing nothing, they may be able to get away with being the indirect cause of the other’s demise by choosing to do nothing out of a desire to cause the other harm. In this case, we have the element of mens rea without actus reus (so long as the bystander was not involved in the proximate cause of the victim’s accident or ailment), and the person intending to do harm by doing nothing could be protected under the law. In the case that the defendant was involved in the proximate cause of the victim’s accident, as was the case in Podias v. Mairs, the defendant could be found guilty for doing nothing because at that point, a fiduciary relationship is formed because but for the defendant’s actions, the victim would not have been put in danger.

Catholic social teaching teaches us that we should love everyone and show a sense of community towards our neighbors. We should treat everyone how we would like to be treated and respect and protect all forms of life. Whether we are free to choose, we should do the correct thing and provide help when we can for those who need it because if we are the difference between life and death for another, it does not take much away from us to give another what they can never get back. Gaudium et Spes states “[…] the duty which is imposed upon us, that we build a better world based upon truth and justice. Thus, we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by this responsibility to his brothers and to    history.”

Works Cited

http://www.siue.edu/~evailat/i-mill.html

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/specific-legal-duties.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1187493.html

https://www.stthomas.edu/media/catholicstudies/center/ryan/conferences/2005-vatican/Uelmen.pdf

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/specific-legal-duties.html

http://negligence.uslegal.com/specific-duties/duty-to-rescue/

https://www.shrm.org/legalissues/stateandlocalresources/stateandlocalstatutesandregulations/documents/goodsamaritanlaws.pdf

Research proposal posted by Brian Kane.

In the digital age, the rights and laws regarding privacy are being contested now more than ever. Today personal privacy, both digital and physical, is being discussed. One of the earliest examples of privacy laws in the United States is the 4^th amendment. Under this amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). This and other laws, including the Federal Wiretap Law of 1968, are designed to protect the individual against unlawful searches of personal property by an unfair government. The individual right to privacy is held sacred in this country.

However, the laws of privacy protection are not absolute. Communications and interactions in general areas, such as online chatrooms, and digital communication used for work. Surveillance monitoring by employers has been contested by employees in courts in multiple cases. In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, for example, a search was justified because there were “reasonable grounds” and done “for a non-investigatory work-related purpose” (Ontario v. Quon).

Some argue that the privacy laws are for the best interests of individuals. Individuals and consumers are protected when the monitoring parties have clearly defined limits and barriers. When the government requires search warrants and the corporations are required to obtain consent, the best interests of those being monitored are kept in mind. The constant surveillance by powerful entities removes the right for individuals to act freely and live their own lifestyle. Gratuitous monitoring dehumanizes the employee and implies guilt without any evidence.

Privacy law is not completely virtuous, however. Like all laws, some may seek to exploit privacy law and use it to shield unproductive, immoral, and unethical behavior. When employees use corporate email accounts for personal business, they often claim a right to privacy when investigation begins. Many act recklessly online in this digital age, assuming that the right to privacy is absolute and unbreakable. There are instances where there is legitimate reasons to investigate an individual. When there is probable cause, public good supersedes individual privacy.

The issue of privacy and surveillance laws raises many ethical questions. The rights of individuals and the definition of individualism is put into question when anyone is monitored by a third party. There is concern for the maintenance of human dignity, as some see these searches dehumanizing and distressing on private lives. Pope Leo XIII spoke out against increased surveillance, saying that it intruded and lead to control over individuals. In Catholicism, the holy sacrament of confession revolves around the private recounting of sins and transgressions. When discussing privacy, the matter common good is raised. Aquinas believes that law is created for the common good, “made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” (2 Bix).

Privacy and Surveillance Law is a widely contested issue in the catholic faith and general ethics. It has its advantages and disadvantages, as any other issue in law, but it will continue to be contested as new innovations shape the information age.

Works Cited

Bix, Brian H. “Secrecy and the Nature of Law.” October 2013. University of Pennsylvania School, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. Web. 3/3/2016. Avaliable: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2418-bixsecrecy-and-the-nature-of-law-full

City of Ontario v. Quon. 560 U.S. 746. Accessed 3/3/2016.

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 Luca Aufiero.

In the article, “BizEquity Launches Online Valuation Tool for Accountants,” Daniel Hood discusses how BizEquity, an online business valuation system for businesses to be able to estimate the value of their businesses, launched a new product called Accountant Office. For accountants and advisors, this new business solution of BizEquity successfully improves the valuation process. Using a keen platform for its refined algorithms and big data knowledge, accountants and advisors will be able to provide clients with real-time awareness of what their business is really worth, more efficiently and cheaply. Accountant Office costs less than one-tenth of the average business valuation fee of $8,000. It can also deliver a valuation report in minutes compared to the average time of 3-6 weeks it takes for traditional business valuation firms to deliver a valuation. BizEquity’s business solutions help companies create, manage, and optimize its business valuations. This may revolutionize the business valuation landscape pertaining to forensic accounting as technology and data cloud services are evolving among the profession.

Currently, BizEquity is one of the world’s largest providers of business valuations, valuing more than 29.4 million companies around the globe. PrimePay, one of the nation’s biggest private payroll companies and a network of more than 10,000 accountants, will be exclusively distributing Accountant Office in the U.S. The founder and CEO of BizEquity, Michael Carter, wanted to expand the views of the capabilities that accountants are perceived at by demonstrating their value in business advisory and not just tax planning. Somewhat as their motto and the first thing that stands out on their website, reads “What’s Your Business Worth?” BizEquity conveys the importance of business valuation to owners and to those accountants and advisors who will benefit from these tools in order to better inform them. With proper valuation knowledge, companies are in a more desirable position in determining the fair value of selling a business, ability to secure financing, and striving for growth.

Luca is a BS and MS in Accounting, Forensic Certificate Program, at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University. 

Reference:

Hood, Daniel. “BizEquity Launches Online Valuation Tool for Accountants.” Accounting Today. 20 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. http://www.accountingtoday.com/accounting-technology/news/bizequity-launches-online-valuation-tool-for-accountants-76144-1.html

Posted by Daphine Llosa.

The current legal issue relates to conspiracy and breach. A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more parties to commit a crime to do something unlawful or harmful. A breach is an act of breaking or failing to observe a law or agreement. On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Crystal Banuelos pleaded guilty of a conspiracy to attain personal information and commit cards theft from Michaels Companies Incorporated’s customers. Michaels is an arts and crafts, custom framing, home décor and seasonal products store. Prior to this case, there was another prosecution where Eduard Arakelyan (age of 24) and Arman Vardanyan (age of 26) were charged for being involved in a breach. This breach was discovered in 2011 where devices were installed on point-of-sale terminals so they may obtain Michaels’ customers’ personal information as well as bank account numbers. Both individuals pleaded guilty three years ago for stealing from 952 debit cards; they were sentenced for five years of prison.

Crystal Banuelos, the 28 year old California woman, had participated in a conspiracy to acquire 94,000 credit and debit card numbers. It took Banuelos around four months to admit to her charges and plead guilty in the federal court in Camden, New Jersey. CNBC mentioned that the prosecutors found that the individuals involved in the conspiracy had replaced close to 90 of the point-of-sale terminals in 80 different Michaels stores in “19 states with counterfeit devices that were equipped with wireless technology.” They used these counterfeit devices to acquire customers’ personal identification number information as well as any additional information that they may have found useful for their theft. Crystal Banuelos, along with others, had managed to create an exact imitation of these debit cards using the stolen information they gathered when they applied the counterfeit devices. They were able to obtain and collect more than $420,000 by withdrawing from automated teller machines. Two of the defendants, Angel Angulo and Crystal Banuelos, had 179 of these imitated cards in New Jersey. Some of the banks that were affected include: Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo & Co, etc. It has been announced that Crystal Banuelo’s sentence is scheduled to be on February 23, 2016.

Daphne is a graduate accounting with a certification in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.