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.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  Abercrombie allegedly denied a muslim woman a job at a Tulsa, Oklahoma store during an interview.  She was wearing a headscarf, which Abercrombie determined violated its “look policy.”  The “look policy” at the time was classic East Coast collegiate style.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie ruling the muslim woman never indicated she needed a religious accommodation as required under federal law.  The EEOC argued Abercrombie was on notice that an accommodation was warranted because the woman was wearing the headscarf at the interview.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business operating with less than 15 employees (religious institutions exempted) must provide an accommodation for an employee’s religious observances, unless doing so is an undue burden for the company.  Examples of undue burdens could include, but are not limited to, costing the company more than ordinary administrative costs; workplace efficiency diminished in other areas of the business; infringing upon another employee’s job rights or benefits; impairing workplace safety; adding burdens on co-workers by forcing them to carry on the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work; or conflicts with another law or regulation.

The High Court will decide the case next year.

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

A threat to European nations, Facebook is being seen as a social media giant who are stripping Europeans from their freedom. Facebook is being accused of “collecting digital information about people who are not its users,” by the Belgian Court’s. Many of the “Continent’s data watchdogs,” including the European Court of Justice, have been giving Facebook and other American technology companies a difficult time for the way they “gain access to, manage and use people’s digital information” because to these European “watchdogs,” Facebook is violating Europe’s strict data protection rules that preserves individual’s privacy to the same power as the “fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

The hearing was held in Brussels, Belgium on Monday, November 9th, where Facebook was denied the ability to “collect and store online information from people in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network” stating that Facebook did not have “individuals’ consent to gather the information.” With this decision, the Belgian Court took further action by stating that if Facebook fails to comply with the court’s decision, they’ll receive a “daily fine worth up to $270,000.” Facebook didn’t settle and in response they stated that they have used “cookies for more than five years without facing privacy complaints,” and that they are going to appeal the decision to the Belgian Court of Appeal. As the wait continues, Facebook is being further investigated by five European privacy regulators, which are from Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, to see whether or not the “company’s new privacy conditions run afoul of their countries’ domestic data protection rules.”

In the end, Facebook is trying to combat these accusations by stating that only the Irish data protection authority has jurisdiction over its new privacy conditions because Facebook’s international headquarters are in Dublin. The position grew vastly in the last month after the European Court of Justice “gave national authorities greater powers over how companies like Facebook and Google store online data.” Facebook will continue to fight for what they believe are their rights, despite the judges’ ruling that the United States do not offer sufficient protection for Europeans if their data was misused by companies or by government agencies. The issue is still recently new and there are many situations yet to be settled.

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Posted by Philip Lacki.

Trump’s tax plan will make it simpler to pay the government. After graduation, I plan on moving to Atlanta, GA and work for Delta Air Lines. Why am I getting into my future? Well because, U.S. companies pay the highest corporate taxes in the world, and as an aviation geek and enthusiast, U.S. Airlines pay some of the highest tax rates in the United States. U.S Airlines pay 38% in taxes, the highest in the industry. These numbers are ridiculous; only alcohol and tobacco companies pay these fees.

Delta Amsterdam, which is a foreign subsidiary based in the Netherlands of course, has a corporate tax rate of 25%. Delta has a large presence and hub at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam and has brought some parts of its operations into the Netherlands. Donald Trump’s tax plan will help companies such as Delta come back into the United States and compete fairly.

Trump’s 15% tax rate will allow many U.S. based companies to be more competitive, provide more jobs, and operate more efficiently. Rates this high should be against the law and they need to be brought down. This post applies to business law because it applies to the laws of corporations and in this case, these companies aren’t being treated in a lawful way.

Philip is a public relations major at Seton Hall University with a minor in business administration at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  Abercrombie allegedly denied a muslim woman a job at a Tulsa, Oklahoma store during an interview.  She was wearing a headscarf, which Abercrombie determined violated its “look policy.”  The “look policy” at the time was classic East Coast collegiate style.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie ruling the muslim woman never indicated she needed a religious accommodation as required under federal law.  The EEOC argued Abercrombie was on notice that an accommodation was warranted because the woman was wearing the headscarf at the interview.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business operating with less than 15 employees (religious institutions exempted) must provide an accommodation for an employee’s religious observances, unless doing so is an undue burden for the company.  Examples of undue burdens could include, but are not limited to, costing the company more than ordinary administrative costs; workplace efficiency diminished in other areas of the business; infringing upon another employee’s job rights or benefits; impairing workplace safety; adding burdens on co-workers by forcing them to carry on the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work; or conflicts with another law or regulation.

The High Court will decide the case next year.

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 Natalie Kenny.

The parent company that makes Old Spice, Proctor & Gamble, is being sued by Rodney Colley of Alexandria, Virginia because of a defect in the deodorant. The plaintiff shared photos of himself with burns under his arms which he claims are from Old Spice deodorant. The plaintiff says he suffered “severe rashes, burning, and discomfort” after he used the product and he had to stop using it. In the photo, the rashes look severe.

Procter & Gamble, the parent company that owns Old Spice said that the people who experience rashes and irritation from using the deodorant are in the minority and only make up a small fraction of the company’s overall users. After news broke of this lawsuit, several other individuals came forward with stories about how the Old Spice deodorant gave them rashes and scabbing. The five million dollar lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio and is awaiting trial.

In my opinion, it is not okay for this deodorant to be giving people severe rashes. Even though Proctor & Gamble stated that only a small percentage of users get burns or rashes from the product that is simply not good enough. Consumers should not have to be concerned whether or not they will have a severe reaction to a product that they use every day.

I think that Proctor & Gamble should have to pay for the medical bills of the people who got severe reactions from this product as well as punitive damages to stop them from doing this and to get other companies to make sure their products are safe before selling them to the public.

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

Grand juries function to investigate criminal wrongdoing and screen out charges that do not warrant prosecution. Secrecy in the proceedings is paramount to carry out its duty. Therefore, litigants in a civil action cannot request that grand jury proceedings be disclosed, unless there must be a particularized need for the disclosure. That need must outweigh the public interest in its secrecy.

But why should these proceedings remain secret when court proceedings are generally conducted in public? The United States Supreme Court has said there are five reasons why grand jury proceedings should remain secret:

(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.

United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 681 n. 6, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986 n. 6, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077, 1081 n. 6 (1958)).

One of the concerns is keeping witness names secret for fear that exposure could have a chilling effect on future witness cooperation in grand jury proceedings. Another concern is damage to the reputation to those investigated if they are not indicted by the grand jury or if the indictment is subsequently dismissed by a judge for legal or factual defects in it.

Particularized need requires the party requesting the grand jury information to show its relevance to the case and without it the party would suffer prejudice or an injustice. Courts may require the party seeking the information to exhaust all other means provided by the discovery process first. And if granted, the court may opt to review the material in camera to make sure the party’s need outweighs the public policy for grand jury secrecy.

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.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged three software company founders with insider trading and forced them to disgorge $5.8 million in illegal profits, penalties and interest.  Insider trading occurs when people in high levels of management trade company securities based on non-public information.

Lawson Software’s co-chairman, Herbert Richard Lawson, tipped his brother and a family friend (both retired from the company in 2001) about the probable sale of the company to Infor Global Solutions, a privately held software provider.  While negotiations were occurring, the media learned of a possible merger.  Lawson Software’s stock price began to climb based on analyst reports of a possible bidding war with more than one company considering acquiring Lawson Software.  The reports were predicated on an article indicating that Lawson Software conducted a “market check” through its financial advisor to see if there were any other companies interested in a merger.

But Infor Global was the only company interested in buying, as the market check produced “little-to-no interest.”  Lawson Software notified the public that Info Global offered to pay $11.25 per share, however, the media was still reporting incorrectly that other companies were interested in acquiring the company and that the merger would likely be for $15-16 per share.  Those companies listed in the media reports were actually the same companies that declined purchasing Lawson Software in the market check investigation.

The SEC charged defendants both knew the reports were false and Infor Global would not increase its offer any more than $11.25.  But in face of that knowledge, Lawson, his brother and his friend sold shares of the company for approximately $1 over Infor Global’s price, pocketing millions.  Defendants agreed to disgorge the profits and “to the entry of final judgments enjoining them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.”

An associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated, “Richard Lawson conveyed material information that was contrary to what was being publicly reported, and his brother and friend made a windfall when they subsequently sold their company shares at inflated prices.”  He further stated, “When news surfaces about the possibility of a merger and details of the media reports are incorrect, it is illegal for insiders who know the true facts to trade and profit.”

Posted by Shanice Cooper.

On February 15, 2016, in an article by Julie Hirschfield Davis, she details President Obama’s attempts in trying to persuade Congress how important trade is for small business worldwide. The article outlines the importance of small businesses being able to have the global accessibility for trade deals outside of the United States. In hopes of pushing Congress to approve these global trade deals, Obama has been generating various ways to build networking partners to increase business opportunity for more small corporations, such as, “including a series of programs to promote exports from rural areas and help more small and medium-size American businesses sell their goods and services overseas,” says Davis.

In addition to Obama’s local business programs, which allows small businesses to maximize their potential, he has been planning to meet with international firms. The purpose of the meetings will be to have people who have been successful due international trade deals testify to the importance of it: “American workers and businesses have benefited from previous trade deals and stand to gain substantially from pending agreements with Asia and Europe.” Due to the trade deals, much of our everyday living essentials are met. If it was not for Asian or European trade deals would tech remain the same? “Mr. Obama’s team is armed with statistics that it says show that the United States has essentially no choice but to strike trade deals to open more markets to American goods.” However, the only issue the President faces in his attempts to help American business owners are the Congress itself.

While Obama makes a compelling case to the law makers in how the restrictions in international trade is harming American owned businesses, Congress is slowly changing, understanding how strongly the President feels about it. “Getting these trade deals done will benefit our businesses and middle-class workers, not just in rural communities, but across the country,” said Bruce H. Andrews, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce. According to administration officials, they believe the new agreements will help American workers by opening markets to United States products and improving environmental and labor standards around the world. I think it is important for the American economy to be able to continue to negotiate internationally, because we may need it for future generations.

Shanice is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Business law students study the corporate entity and learn from the beginning that since corporations are legal persons they can be charged with crimes.  Corporations cannot be imprisoned, because they have no physical body, but they certainly can face monetary penalties. Such was the recent fate of Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse pled guilty to one count of “intentionally and knowingly” helping many U.S. clients prepare “false” tax returns.  For decades, Credit Suisse bankers fabricated “sham entities” to help hide the identities of U.S. clients who did not claim the Swiss accounts on their tax returns. They also failed to maintain records related to those accounts, destroyed documents sought by the U.S. government, and helped U.S. clients draw money from those accounts in ways that would not raise a red flag to the IRS. Out of the $2.6 billion, $1.8 went to the Treasury Department, $100 million to the Federal Reserve, and $715 million to the New York State Department of Financial Service.

The monetary penalty is the only punishment levied on the bank, as government officials feared anything further, such as ceasing operations, would have had a detrimental effect on the global economy. Moreover, top bank officials who were involved in the scheme will keep their jobs, even though there were calls for them to resign by their own statesmen.

Reportedly, the Department of Justice is looking to bringing charges against France-based BNP Paribas for similar offenses. But without some officer or director accountability, there will be no deterrence.