Posted by Nick Mitwasi.

Throughout the years, there has been numerous lawsuits towards Johnson & Johnson for their use of talcum power in their products, specifically baby powder, for women have been suing the company on claims that it is the link to their ovarian cancer. In this year alone, the company was forced to give up $55 million in May to a woman in St. Louis, Missouri and $72 million to another family also in St. Louis. In addition, just a couple of days ago, a woman was awarded $70 million in California against Johnson & Johnson. Yet, in all of these cases J&J has continued to defend that their product is completely safe.

Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder has dominated the market in the past, and thus is the main reason as to why it is going to defend its products in the mist of all these lawsuits they are being slammed with. In the first case in which Johnson & Johnson was involved, they were sued by Diane Berg for gross negligence and fraud; she was a frequent user of the product and never was informed that long term use of the product can cause cancer. After she sued, the company offered an “out of court settlement of $1.3 million” (Huffington Post); however, she declined and simply wanted to inform the public through her suing the company that this is something people must be informed about.

The main problem, though, with all these lawsuits is that there is no scientific evidence that the product does indeed cause cancer; it is the fact that Johnson & Johnson are not informing their customers that there is a possibility that their product will do harm. This has been damaging the company’s reputation as more and more lawsuits are being filed to different law firms about the same situation. This is still an ongoing situation and time will only tell to see how Johnson & Johnson reacts to the overflow of negativity towards one of their mainstay products.

Nick is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3882192/Cancer-patient-contracted-disease-using-Johnson-Johnson-talcum-powder-wins-70million-payout-company.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-nwazor/the-talcum-powder-lawsuit_1_b_10609474.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baby-powder-cancer-lawsuits/

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

Volkswagen, one of the European auto giants, admitted to “installing defeat device software in 11 million cars.” These “defeat device software” lets carmakers to change performance settings of the engines before a pollution test. These software would not only switch the performance settings of an engine but also detect when “they were being tested for nitrogen oxide emissions.” The installation of such defeat device rose a huge debate as to whether or not Volkswagen’s “emissions-test trickery” is a violation of European testing rules. The question at hand as described by Paul Willis, top Volkswagen official in Europe, was “whether the software officially constituted a defeat device” under European Union regulations.

The Volkswagen scandal, not only questioned whether Volkswagen is cheating or not, but questioned strongly Europe’s permissive testing practices and the compatibility of American and European auto regulations. This scandal led to Trans-Atlantic trade talks to rapidly increase so the United States and European nations can agree to a mutual auto regulation rules. In Europe “the setting of the engine and of the vehicle’s controls shall be those prescribed by the manufacturer;” making Volkswagen alteration of engine settings not a clear cut violation of European rules. But what makes the debate become such a big issue is that roughly 11 million Volkswagen vehicles carry the software, which about 500,000 are in the United States alone. This can cause Volkswagen to lose billions of dollars despite the penalty enforcements by auto regulators in Europe are very passive and rare.

Volkswagen came out by stating they are “committed [themselves] to fixing the vehicles.” Volkswagen is being comprehensible and trying to fix the issue that they commenced. As stated by Ms. Caudet, “European legislation implies that a vehicle must use the same engine setting during the regulatory emission test and in real driving,” which would make Volkswagen’s actions a violation against European auto regulations. The situations at hand continued to cause tension when the Environmental Protection Agency discovered that Volkswagen used another defeat device in some larger cars and sport utility vehicles that had not previously been implicated” making the cost to fix the issue grow substantially. In the end, the European system is known for its loopholes, for “allowing automakers to test preproduction vehicles that will never be sold” but actions need to be done so auto regulation rules in Europe and the United States, through the Trans-Atlantic agreement, can become more enforced. The “phony system of testing” as described by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, must be improved and by “simply making the road emission tests easier to pass,” is simply not the right step by the European government.

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

Posted by Steven Catudal.

How much money should it cost to save someone’s life? Should companies be allowed to create prices on life-saving medications? Over the past few months, there has been more and more cases of pharmaceutical companies taking advantage of their monopoly and increasing prices. The price of an EpiPen, a device used to save someone from severe allergic reactions, has increased 500% in recent years according to the New York Times. Limited regulations and a lack of competition are causing US lawmakers to demand investigations about this large increase in price.

Mylan, the company now producing EpiPen’s, received the item through a merger with a generic German pharmaceutical company. When purchased, the German manufacturer would sell the EpiPen for around $57. Ever since the day of the merger, Mylan has been increasing the price. In May 2016, the price of an EpiPen was $608.61. Lawyers and politicians have been demanding that the price is decreased. They are investigating Mylan for breaking anti-trust laws and gouging customers. New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman said that, “No child’s life should be put at risk because a parent, school or health care provider cannot afford a simple, life-saving device because of a drugmaker’s anti-competitive practices.” Another opponent of Mylan’s strategy, Hilary Clinton, raised arguments against Mylan’s unethicality for charging so much for a life-saving medication.

The EpiPen now brings in more than $1 billion every year compared to the $200 million that it made for the prior German pharmaceutical company. As revenues have spiked, so has the salary of Mylan CEO Heather Bresch. She now earns more than $18 million through her salary and other compensations. That is 671% more than she earned in 2007, when the price spike began. When confronted with the increased price, Bresch defended herself saying that, “No one’s more frustrated than me.” She went on to explain that the high prices are caused by the United States health-care system. In comparison, EpiPens sold in Europe, are subsidized due to regulations on pharmaceutical companies. Bresch has the opportunity to make a change; she can make the EpiPen more affordable once again, but she cannot blame anyone but herself for this large jump. Once an EpiPen’s price returns back to a reasonable cost, then all people with severe allergies will have the opportunity to afford medication necessary to save their lives.

Steven is a member of The Gerald P. Buccino ’63 Center for Leadership Development at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/mylan-expands-epipen-cost-cutting-programs-after-charges-of-price-gouging.html

Posted by Shakil Rahman.

Americans pride themselves on the idea that their country is the land of the free, where people of different parts of the world could have the equal opportunity to live as they wish, pray freely, and be free to live without being persecuted for their beliefs. It is stated in the constitution and laws are created to make sure people’s rights are not infringed upon or people are discrimination for their beliefs. But there are times when the people seem to be discriminated against because of their beliefs and it spills into the national spotlight.

Abercrombie & Fitch are multimillion dollars clothing store and in one of their stores a Muslim woman named Samantha Elauf applied for a job but she was rejected. When inquired about why she was being rejected, the company replied that the company’s dress code is “classic East Coast collegiate style” and since she wore head scarf, a headwear named Hijab that Muslim women wear, which went against the dress code, she was not hired. Ms.Elauf filed a discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch and the case went to the Supreme Court after being going through trial court and appeals court. The defendant claimed that since the plaintiff did not specifically state that the head scarf was worn for religious reasons they did not discriminate the plaintiff. The Supreme Court justices voted 8-1 for the plaintiff stating that the company should have understood that the head scarf had a religious significance, since it is of common knowledge and therefore the plaintiff was being discriminated and that is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit against the company is based around the claim that the company rejected the applicant’s application for a job due to dress code violations knowing that it had religious significance. The reasoning given by the company was that the applicant did not specifically ask for religious accommodation, therefore there was no discrimination. While it is true that the applicant did not request religious accommodation, head scarves are commonly used for religious reasons in various religions and being ignorant of the fact is not valid argument. Therefore, when the company rejected Ms.Elauf’s application due to her wearing a head scarf, they were discriminating her based on her religious practices. Being ignorant of law is not sufficient excuse either, since the company is supposed to know the laws of the land it is conducting its business in.

In the modern world where globalization has brought the world, and the business world, laws are created to make sure that people are not discriminated for their personal life choices. But sometimes the laws are not interpreted in the same manner by people. For instance, for this lawsuit, the trial court granted the Plaintiff $20000 for the lawsuit, but the appeals court saw the same case and decided that there were no signs of discrimination and overturned the ruling, only for the ruling to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Interpretation of the law is an important part of the business world that must be done in a prudent manner by the courts but also by companies and individuals in order to avoid situations where a wrongdoing does not occur due to ignorance.

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

Posted Layla Alzahrani.

Embezzlement is money stolen by an unethical person. According to the article, 40 percent of small businesses in the United States will be targeted for average loss of $ 140,000,00.00, but embezzlement is only reported two percent of the time. Most of the embezzlers are trusted and long-term employees or family friends, or relatives. Victims’ trust usually is shattered after embezzlement happened, especially if embezzlers are their friends or relatives. According to forensic psychologists, victims have lack of judgment to discover the perpetrators before embezzlement happens.

It is difficult to discover employees who follow no pattern and offer no outward signs. Embezzlement sometimes is committed by people who do not have previous criminal records and and may have reputations beyond reproach. There are warning signs, however, that can show as evidence of employees’ behavior before the theft is uncovered, such as: enthusiastic employees who ask questions about business processes and procedures; employees who have excessive debt because of divorce or drug abuse; and employees who refuse to take time of their job, and who want to work when no one is around. Usually embezzlers have a hostile attitude if they get questioned about financial transaction.

Moreover, there are three factors must be present before a person can commit fraud; they are need, opportunity, and rationalization. Some examples of need are addiction to drugs, alcohol, and gambling. Rationalization appears when an employee believes that his/her illegal action fits within a personal code of conduct or ethic, which means that an embezzler steals because they see that as situational fraud. However, embezzlement can be discovered if accountants find amounts of expenses that are not consistent with historical norms or budget, documents are missing or incomplete, problems of bank reconciliations, and documents are adjusted without adequate support.

Preventing embezzlement can be difficult because there is no sure-fire method that can prevent it. Some examples that make it difficult to prevent fraud are issuing fictitious checks, invoking products that a company does not need it, issuing cashing checks for return products that not actually returned, forging checks and destroying them, and charging patients more than a duplicate invoice. There are some precautions that clients can take to prevent fraud such as doing an extensive background check before hiring an employee, tracking a person’s checks and verifying them, making bank deposits nightly, reconciling the bank and credit card statements, and requiring vacations. Those handing funds must be closely and routinely monitored in a company to insure that all profit within the practice and not in someone’s pocket.

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

Source:

Tranyor, Robert M. (2016) Embezzlement Could it Really Happen to You?, Audiology Today, Vol. 28. No. 4.

Posted by Nick Farkas.

A McDonald’s’ franchise in California has repeatedly gotten into legal trouble throughout the past few years because they were not paying and recording the overtime of their employees correctly. The Smith family owns the franchise and have around 800 employees working for them. They initially settled the claims for $700,000 but did not learn from their mistakes.

McDonald’s is not entirely liable because it is a specific franchise involved; however, they are going to pay the $1.75 million in damages and $2 million in legal fees to protect the brand. McDonald’s has also agreed to train the Smith family on the use of corporate software designed to ensure compliance with California’s distinctively strict employment laws.

This is not the end of McDonald’s’ lawsuits and it is certainly not the beginning. Earlier this month, a union-backed group filed sexual harassment complaints on behalf of workers. McDonald’s has to decide which cases are worth fighting, and which cases they should automatically plead guilty. These decisions are based on risk and image.

Nick is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Navjoat Aulakh.

PepsiCo’s famous ‘healthy’ beverage line, Naked Juice, is being stripped down and exposed for it’s misleading marketing tactics.  The line of beverages features images of various fruits and vegetables, and claims to be ‘all natural’.  The CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) has argued that “a single 15.2-ounce container (the smallest option) contains 61 grams of sugar, about 50% more sugar than a 12-ounce can of Pepsi”.  The American Heart Association’s suggested sugar intake is 37.5 grams a day, PepsiCo’s Naked Juice almost doubles this suggested amount.

Although the lawsuit is less than two months old, it is expected to make impact in due time.  CSPI is asking that the company be more transparent in the ingredients of the drink, and to compensate monetary damages to customers.  Although the compensation of damages is not likely, PepsiCo will most likely have to change it’s marketing tactics.  The CSPI has a strong history of exposing the misleading marketing of products, and has even caused changes in rival companies such as Coca-Cola.

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

Posted by Johanna Ortiz.

An ex-executive Andrew Caspersen at New York investment bank was declared guilty to securities and wire fraud. He admitted defrauding investors of more than $38 million, and the judge gave him four years in prison because the defendant’s attorney asked him for leniency for gambling addiction.

Caspersen was a good worker. He graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School. Unfortunately, for his addictions, he defrauded investors’ money including his family and friends. “I lost their money” he said “I abused their friendship. I destroyed my family’s name” (news.findlaw.com).

He used to go to an organization which helped him with his alcohol and gambling addictions; however, he never finished his treatment. He always quit. His attorney used this as an excuse to let the judge know that he is not under control and he is unable to think or act as a normal person. The judge declared him with a very real gambling disorder and for that reason he gave him short-term prison sentence. He said to the judge that he learned from this and he is going to retake the treatment.

His defense attorney said his client was very ill with his addictions that he did not care about money, and he just wanted to play. At the end of the day, he lost over $100 million. He had hope that no matter how many times he lost, he would win and take the money back.

In my opinion, Caspersen acted without values, morals, and respect to investors. He knew his addictions and he was irresponsible and quit the treatments. All his irresponsibility were not investors’ fault and he had to pay for his mistakes.

Johanna is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Rafaela Andrade.

Costco wholesale store is now using new Visa credit cards and no longer American Express after fifteen years.  Under a new contract, Citigroup, Inc. will now be the issuer for their credit cards along with Visa, Inc. Early this year, Costco reported that their earnings were not met and the stock price had dropped. The reason why the wholesale store left and would not renew the contract with American Express is due to economic reasons. When the news of this broke to the public, the “credit- card company’s stock fell 6.4%.”

Costco only accepted American Express for the past fifteen years. The wholesale store represented around $80 billion of their business and just on interest it was about $14 billion. This was clearly a major hit for American Express. AmEx is also limited in certain retail stores. It is said that even though AmEx offers great rewards it is costly for the merchants, costing the retailer about 3.5% where Visa and MasterCard have a cost around 2-3% or less. Costco members will have rewards and allowing them to use their new Visa cards where they are accepted.

American Express provided deals to the members such as 3% cash back on gas, 2% cash back on restaurants and even when traveling, 1% on Costco purchases and other purchases. Visa offers 4% cash back on gas, 3% cash back on restaurant and eligible travel purchases, 2% cash back on purchases from Costco, and 1% on all other purchases. This deal is great way to get extra cash and there is no annual fee for the credit card. Many Customers are happy with the results while others are not as happy. Costco had to do what is best for the company (enter a new contract) in order to keep generating business.

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

Sources:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-costco-visa-20150302-story.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-things-to-know-about-the-costco-and-amex-breakup-2016-02-11

Posted by Agnieszka Baj.

In this digital age, User Generated Content has been described as an exceptional marketing strategy. Onibalusi (2016) argues that “its potential value is great, but you’ll need to do a lot of navigating to unlock its true potential”. This is based on also legal issues that need to be considered when posting information on the online platform.

Copyright issues have been a major legal pitfall, and corporations have addressed this issue with regard to the content posted on their online platforms. For large businesses, UGC is a preplanned strategy, and thus they have a legal team that address the legal issues involving it. Small businesses should have a “well-defined” legal policy its users can access. For this reason, emerging businesses using UGC should consider all the legal issues before venturing into the strategy. Onibalusi (2016) points out that “your company should consider issues such as copyrights, responsibility for stolen content and ownership of content”. In this way, the business may be able to protect itself from imminent copyright suits. The article also cites the importance of content management in the use of UGC. Both the audience and online optimization firms need to see quality content in online platforms. For this reason, it is important to ensure that all content posted are within a certain level of quality.

User Generated Content is an effective trend for marketers, but proper management is required to access the full benefits. Firstly, the legal considerations of posted content should be ensured to avoid copyright issues. Also, the quality of posted content should be always managed to suit a certain level.

Agnieszka is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Karolina Staron.

A lawsuit was brought against Dannon Company, Inc for falsely advertising their yogurt brand. Dannon Company for years has claimed their popular product to be the healthiest on the market, ultimately pricing higher than competitors. Stating that daily consumption of the yogurt will reduce occurrences of colds and strengthen individual’s immune system. Consumers profoundly believed in the advertising, willing to pay a higher price.

One individual, however, challenged those claims. Trish Wiener suffered with digestive problems, the consumption of the yogurt that guaranteed digestive system improvements was intended to aid with the discomfort. Inspire of this, with time the yogurt failed to relieve the daily burden and Wiener began to question the accuracy of the advertisement.  “In its ads for the yogurts Dannon claims the products use exclusive strains of what are known as probiotic bacteria, [which] are live microorganisms, usually bacteria, similar to the beneficial ones found in the human digestive system. In the right amounts, they ‘confer a health benefit on the host.’” While, in fact no clinical testing has been accomplished to support the existence of probiotics in the dairy product.

Dannon Company, Inc. although denying any allegations against false advertising, has agreed to settle the Federal Trade Commission law suit. The settlement required acceptance to omit disclosing “scientific proof” benefit of their products. “Claiming that any yogurt, dairy drink, or probiotic food or drink reduces the likelihood of getting a cold or the flu, unless the claim is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.” The Company’s intention behind settling was forgo incurring additional expenses.

In the modern times, busy work schedule and daily tasks often take away time from properly planning meals and force people to rely on quickly obtainable foods. With a busy lifestyle people neglect the need to educate themselves on the quality of products they purchase. If the media states a specific food is beneficial to ingest, the statement is relied upon by the public without further questioning. This is only one case that has been brought to the public’s attention that addresses the topic of food quality and false advertisement. Many of the goods consumed on a daily bases possesses even lower value, yet are an accepted norm.  The lesson taken from this case is to inform ourselves on the supposed benefits of the purchased products, because in truth unless we grow and produce foods ourselves, we won’t know the true ingredients embedded in every product.

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

Sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/dannon-settles-lawsuit/story?id=9950269

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/12/dannon-agrees-drop-exaggerated-health-claims-activia-yogurt

Posted by Francesca Mecionis.

The owners of America’s Test Kitchen filed a 39-page lawsuit against Christopher Kimball, and some of his other associates, on November 3. According to the suit, Kimball and his accomplices “conspired to literally and conceptually rip off” the Boston TV show. The reason for his actions were said to be for his personal benefit in order to help launch his new brand, Milk Street. There are accusations of “stolen customer lists and trade secrets, sneaky tactics to secure a radio deal, and new office space.” Kimball had a fiduciary responsibility to the show. However, the owners believed he had stolen their entire business model, “right down to how recipes are written,” and also had worked on his own project while still being employed by America’s Test Kitchen.

Kimball, in response to the suit, claims it is “absurd” and “was meant to generate publicity and to shore up the America’s Test Kitchen brand.” Yet, there is proof of his actions in writing. There was a forensic search of his emails, which showed “Kimball’s scrambling to set up his new business before he left the old one, securing copies of his work contacts and packing up his belongings.” In another email, Kimball wrote to his assistant, “Want to get ahead of the partners!” in regards to using the America’s Test Kitchen name to find a new office space for his business.

The lawsuit was issued in the Superior Court of Suffolk County of Massachusetts. The owners are hunting for “unspecified monetary damages, repayment of some of the compensation that America’s Test Kitchen paid Kimball and the people who left with him, and asks the court to prevent him and his new company “from exploiting information, assets and opportunities stolen from America’s Test Kitchen.” Lawyers are arguing that Kimball’s motivation to steal secrets from the show stemmed from when the board and investors pushed him out. In 2013, America’s Test Kitchen’s rating decreased dramatically, and the show responded by hiring a new set of employees. By 2015, a new CE whom outranked Kimball had taken over, and eventually he stopped showing up to work, telling his coworkers “he had been fired.” “Kimball, in an interview Wednesday, cautioned not to read too much into the allegations, saying most were false or twisted interpretations.” His legal team is preparing to go against these accusations, within this month. Hopefully, the truth will be revealed and both parties receive what they deserve.

Francesca is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Paul Della Vecchia.

The recent Bloomberg article “Wal-Mart Balks at Paying $600-Million-Plus in Bribery Case” written by Tom Schoenberg and Matt Robinson, depicts a long standing bribery case Wal-Mart participated in. The article is dated October 6^th, 2016. Wal-Mart is said to have been paying foreign officials in Mexico, India, and China. They did this to take a fast track into getting into those countries. A fast track is speeding up the process to start a business in a country, and it allows them to get their business permits. Wal-Mart reported sales of $482 billion, and $14 billion in profits. In this case alone, “Wal-Mart has already spent $791 million on legal fees and an internal investigation into the alleged payments and to revamp its compliance systems around the world, it said” (Schoenberg and Robinson). These legal fees are starting to add up as the investigation goes longer, but Wal-Mart is not looking to settle. To settle the case, it would be $600 million.

Bribing foreign officials is illegal under the 1977’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Wal-Mart tried to outsmart the system by “Calculating a fine based only on the amount of the alleged bribes, as the department has done in some cases, would yield a lower penalty, they said” (Schoenberg and Robinson). Companies are in the business of making money, and Wal-Mart looked at the pros and cons of this bribery. They believed that they would be able to actually make a profit off breaking the law, and to do that they ran calculations to see whether the fine would outweigh the benefit. Clearly it did not, because they were able to bribe their way to the top, and open more foreign companies. The case is so long standing, because the evidence the officials have is outdated. To work around this, the investigators are trying to look to more recent allocations of bribery from Wal-Mart in Brazil. As each day goes by, evidence becomes more outdated and less reliable. In 2011, “Wal-Mart disclosed possible violations in Mexico to the justice Department and SEC” (Schoenberg and Robinson). There wasn’t much done at the time, and now we fast forward to 2016 and that 5 year old evidence is not looking as clear. So the investigators are beginning to look elsewhere to try and solve this problem. The article also makes reference to attempts to find bribes in China, but to no avail.

Wal-Mart is looking to fight this case, because they are unsure what the criminal charges against them would be. If they decide to settle, the settlement “would rank among the highest levied under 1977’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” (Schoenberg and Robinson). The article relates the Wal-Mart case to the similar VimpelCom Ltd. and Siemens AG case. Both cases deal with bribing foreign officers to win business, and both settlements were higher than Wal-Mart. Judging the case off precedent and the increasing costs of legal fees, settlement should be a viable option for Wal-Mart. A company making $14 billion in profits should be able to sponge any damages done by their illegal acts. Wal-Mart does not want to settle, because they are unaware how it would affect their company. The timing is just not right at the moment to be spending the settlement costs, the article alludes to. “Wal-Mart said Thursday that net income for the year through January 2018 will be “relatively flat” as the company invests in its website and mobile app” (Schoenberg and Robinson). So if they have the option to clear their name and spend a little extra money or settle and have their brand slightly tarnished, they are going to fight for now. This way they are able to compete with Amazon in their work on their mobile app and website for online shopping.

Paul is an graduate accounting student with a concentration in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Cecylia Bigos.

Non-Compete agreements are a good method of protecting a business from former employees but their provisions must be reasonable or else the important limitation provisions (distance from business, duration) will not be enforced or worse yet the entire agreement will be declared void by a court. I came across an interesting article on Non-Compete provisions on the Entrepreneur.com. The article does an excellent job in summarizing how restrictive or broad the limiting provisions should be in order to protect the business yet still be enforceable in just a few sentences. “Your business is your baby. It may be tempting to be heavy-handed in your non-compete provisions, but it’s important to be reasonable. Excessive restrictions in your non-compete make it more likely that a judge will not enforce it.”

There are many fears in hiring new workers, yet new workers are essential to developing and evolving your business. One of the worst fears a business owner has is hiring and training an employee, introducing them to clients so they can perform their duties, to later learn that the employee left and is working for your former clients, essentially stealing your business right from under your nose. Yet we live in a country that encourages free thinking, expansion, new ideas and capitalism, and preventing employees from leaving businesses to start their own businesses would run contrary to our capitalistic beliefs; therefore, the limiting provisions cannot be too restrictive. The article uses one or two years as a reasonable restriction on time before a former employee can start performing the same work: longer for higher level/high skill employees. “You may reasonably demand a longer duration for higher level employees, like CEOs, where three to five years is not unheard of, depending upon the facts and the jurisdiction.” And the article explains that the geographical restriction should not be “any larger than the area in which you ordinarily conduct business.”

In my opinion, the article does not give too many examples, but using my understanding of non-compete clauses I can give some examples. Time and geographical limitations in non-compete clauses in the medical profession typically depend very heavily on how specialized a doctors practice is. For example a neurologist can limit a former practicing neurologist from working within 30 miles of the practice in which the young neurologist left. However, the geographical limitation for a general practice/family doctor would be much less than 30 miles maybe as little as 5 miles. Non-complete provisions restricting lawyers from practicing law are completely unenforceable. My hair stylist who works for a big salon and cuts my hair is not allowed to open her own salon within 5 miles of the salon and 3 years after leaving the salon. She may not even cut hair for her friends and family in her own house.

In summary, non-compete clauses are helpful in protecting entrepreneurs expanding their business yet the restrictions cannot be too restrictive or broad or else they will not be enforced by a court of law. “While a court may modify an unreasonable term or terms of a non-compete agreement, it can also invalidate an entire agreement if it finds credible evidence that the employer deliberately included overly broad language that renders an agreement unreasonable and oppressive.”

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

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 Ali Paladino.

Recently, on September 1, 2016, the electric car maker Tesla Motors was called out for attempting to sell their vehicles directly to their customers in Missouri. The judge ruled Tesla’s efforts to rule out the middleman, car dealerships, violated state law.  The Missouri Revenue Department “gave the California-based manufacturer a license for a University City dealership in 2013 and a franchise license for a Kansas City dealership in 2014.” Both of these licenses allowed Tesla motors to sell their vehicles directly to their customers, disregarding any use of dealerships.

The court ruled this was not suitable, and Missouri Automobile Dealers Association agreed. The Association sued the State claiming that “it had given Tesla special privileges,” in their attempts to disregard using franchised dealerships to sell their vehicles. The court ruled that Tesla’s action was not technically unconstitutional, but held the licensing was not allowed. Tesla argued the ruling against them was going to damage the company and suppress their ability to compete with other motor vehicle companies. The company also argued the order was an “attempt” to “limit consumer choice in Missouri.” Yet, Tesla appears to be determined to try and continue to sell to their customers directly in the hopes that this will improve their bottom-line. Doug Smith, head of the Dealers Association, however, does not agree with Tesla’s actions and believes that it is not fair to other manufacturers. He believes all manufacturers should be “treated the same in Missouri.”

I have to agree with Doug Smith. I do not think Tesla should have the right to sell directly to their customers and completely bypassing dealerships, only because it puts the company on a different playing field than other motor vehicle companies. I do not believe that is fair.

Tesla has looked at other ways to get around laws in other states in order to improve their sales; however, I do not agree with this either. In this situation, the law stands blurry and unclear and it is intriguing to see how far Tesla will go in attempts to get around the law.

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

Posted by Justin Ihnken.

For many years, especially those who found themselves in an area of economic success, investors who succeeded because they worked with a financial advisor. The roll of the advisor is to assist individuals in asset portfolio management. Investments in both fixed market vehicles, and those driven with equity in the market, have [for the majority of advisors] been the number one and two sources of financial security investments. Both of these categories are tied together with the strategic planning and goal orientations of specific individuals. This theory comes primarily because “your advisor” would allocate dollars in a way that would ultimately secure monies for specific reasons and even more so, provide an aspect of future practical growth.

As time continues, there are still many individuals that work with advisors and insist that they do planning and individual investments on their own. Coming changes in investments will show that there is a driving need for RIA’s (Registered Investment Advisor). Unfortunatly, the traditional fixed income and equity allocations are rather lacking for specific individuals that wish to diversify their portfolios accordingly. A recent study done by Bridget Bearden, director of retirement research at fund industry consultant, Strategic Insight, went as far as to say many folks do not understand that the effects of falling short on their diversification strategy may have a serious impact in the long run.

“The fund industry generally advocates a 10 percent to 20 percent allocation to liquid alternatives for risk mitigation. But many off-the-shelf asset allocation portfolios seem to fall short of that.”

Many RIA’s are of traditional thought, however the coming realization of alternative investments is proving itself to be a more prominent tool to properly advocate clients. An example of a small and “up and coming” firm that shows its mindset is multiple footsteps ahead of the curve would be that of Circled Squared Alternative Investments. Circled Squared was founded in 2014, by Jeffrey Sica, CEO and President of Sica Wealth Management. With the changing times and ability to allocate dollars properly will prove to be a huge outlet for this small powerhouse. In an interview with a Berkshire Hathaway associated press, Sica spoke on his outlook and thoughts on the future for both Circle Square and alternative investments.

Add to this the inescapable conclusion that investors are growing increasingly dissatisfied with the stagnant performance and unacceptable volatility they’re getting from traditional investments like stocks and bonds, and you have a situation in which advisors have fewer and fewer ways to provide value to their clients.

As the stock market continues to be a murky water, few dare to try to understand the various inlets and outlets of the market. With the change of alternative investments slowly phasing themselves into our everyday planning as RIA’s, we must work above and beyond the curve and enable our’ clients and potential clients alike to take advantage of the various opportunities that alternative investments withhold.

**About Circled Square Alternative Investments

“Circle Squared Alternative Investments is a firm devoted to providing independent financial advisors with access to a range of innovative alternative investments previously available only to institutions and ultra-high net-worth investors. The suite of investment products will include real estate, private equity, private credit, natural resources, private placement offerings, entertainment and media.”

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

Sources:

1. D’Allegro, Joe. “A Retirement Riddle Placing $1 Trillion at Risk.” Cnbc.com. CNBC, 10 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

2. Healy, Andrew. “Jeff Sica Launches New Alternative Investments Firm for RIAs; Unlocks Door to ‘Real Economy’.” Business Wire: A Berkshire Hathaway Company. Berkshire

The regulatory process and its role in the legal system is a fundamental concept in business law. Federal, state and local governments received the authority to regulate activities from Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 also referred to as the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause dictates the enumerated powers of Congress in professional and private settings.

The regulatory process is performed by administrative agencies. Some commonly recognized administrative agencies are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The recent GlaxoSmithKline bribery scandal focused on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative agency. The mission of the SEC is to “protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.” (Securities Exchange Commission)

The SEC recently alleged that GlaxoSmithKline’s Chinese subsidiary had engaged in bribery activity for four years, 2010 to 2013. The SEC accused GlaxoSmithKline subsidiary of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. According to the SEC, GlaxoSmithKline’s subsidiary had been providing foreign officials and health-care professionals with gifts incongruous to the law. These gifts included shopping trips, cash, travel, entertainment, etc. for the purpose of boosting sales. Further, the SEC suspected that GlaxoSmithKline’s subsidiary deceptively recorded these payments as expenses. The bribery scandal investigation eventually captured the attention of a second agency, the U.S. Department of Justice.

GlaxoSmithKline has not admitted nor denied these bribery charges, but has agreed to pay $20 million to settle the matter. Nonetheless, this is not GlaxoSmithKline’s first bribery settlement. In 2014, the company paid $491.5 million and several managers were convicted with charges and suspended imprisonment for a similar matter. Since the 2014 bribery controversy, GlaxoSmithKline stated it “installed several reforms, including shifts to the compensation of sales representatives and the end of payments to health-care practitioners for advocating for Glaxo products to other prescribers.” (Minaya)

My opinion on the matter is that GlaxoSmithKline was rightfully accused by the SEC and DOJ, specifically for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Act has a firm anti-bribery provision that GlaxoSmithKline and its Chinese subsidiary had a legal and ethical responsibility to follow. The fact that GlaxoSmithKline and its subsidiary’s records were not a true representation of its payments is a clear piece of evidence suspecting its violation. In addition, having read the SEC order and learned that GlaxoSmithKline had engaged in this activity before, I believe that the company and the subsidiary did participate in bribery.

Melissa is a marketing major with dual minors in public relations and legal studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Lindsey Pena.

In business, ethics are strong guiding principles that aid managers, employees, and investors to correctly conduct business transactions. When ethical matters are disregarded, the end result is fraud, embezzlement, among many other illegal actions. One of these illegal actions is called a Ponzi scheme. Perhaps the most famous Ponzi scheme was devised by Bernie Madoff, a well-respected financier, who conned investors out of an estimated $65 billion. Madoff was caught in December of 2008 and charged with 11 counts of fraud, perjury, theft, and money laundering. He ultimately faced 150 years in prison as a result of his decades long Ponzi scheme.

Because of the magnitude of this Ponzi scheme, eight years later, the consequences are still being addressed. Recently, the estate of Stanley Chais, one of Bernie Madoff’s friends, agreed to pay the victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme $277 million to settle claims that insisted Chais profited from the scheme. Irving Picard, a trustee liquidating Madoff’s firm, has recovered more than $11.2 billion for the investors who were conned. They achieved this my suing the banks and offshore accounts that hid the money in addition to investors who profited from the fraud. In the 2009 lawsuit against Chais and his wife, Picard claimed that they “reaped about $1 billion in profit from fake securities transactions at Madoff’s firm.” Chais also reaped rewards through fees that he would earn when he gave his customer’s money to Madoff’s firm. In addition to this, Chais was also sued by the SEC in 2009 because he “steered assets from three investment funds to Madoff, “despite having clear indications Madoff was engaged in fraud.”

Chais, along with five of Madoff’s employees, were not the only ones who received consequences. Thousands of innocent investors trusted Bernie’s reputable, veteran background hoping to make profit from their investments. While reading this article, I could not help but to think about the Kantian ethics which states that a person should evaluate their actions by the consequences if everyone in society acted the same way. Bernie Madoff made the exception for himself when he decided to execute the treacherous plan and the consequences of his actions will cost him the rest of his life.

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

Posted by Radhika Kapadia.

The real cost of bribery is a question that often lacks a definitive answer.  It seems that Och-Ziff Capital Management, a hedge fund headquartered in New York City, is learning a hard lesson for allegedly engaging in bribery in Africa.  The firm is set to pay a hefty price of $412 million dollars, but the SEC has added the implicit cost of hindering fundraising by insisting that the firm clear any potential deals with investors with state regulators, adding considerably lengthy minutes and cumbersome dollars to the fundraising process.

Because of the massive bribery allegations, the firm was unable to obtain a waiver for the penalties corporations subject to civil law enforcement sanctions or criminal charges, such as bribery, typically face.   As a result, the company will be faced with the tremendous cost of an increased fundraising process and the more-than-ever watchful eye of the SEC over future investment transactions.   In the burgeoning era of bribery cases, the question of whether dollar penalties are truly enough to deter corporations from engaging in illegal acts is often difficult to assess.  However, the SEC is beginning to believe that financial consequences, coupled with other implicit penalization costs will truly begin to reduce bribery within the corporate world.

The allegations against Och-Ziff are primarily as a result of their dealings with Dan Gertler, an Israeli diamond-trade millionaire.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Gertler was known to use political connections in Africa to defeat competitors.  The Wall Street Journal noted that approximately “$250 million of Och-Ziff dollars were used to bribe the current president of the Democratic Republic of Congo in exchange for diamond mining rights.”  Despite blatant warnings and advisement from their lawyers, Och-Ziff executives, such as chief executive Daniel Och, chose to deliberately ignore corruption allegations against Gertler. Subsequently, the African subsidiary of Och-Ziff pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery, resulting in one of the largest settlements under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.   It seems that Och-Ziff is slowly learning that the true cost of bribery is pervasive, and that ignorance truly is not bliss.

Radhika is a graduate student with a concentration in Forensic Accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Gabriella Campen.

Unfortunately, in this day and age being well-known in Wall Street circles also happens to be synonymous with being well known by the SEC. The SEC has recently charged hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman, 73, of insider trading by using his easy access to executives to gather information, which he used to buy securities from a company called Atlas Pipeline Partners.  Cooperman’s information led him to buy more securities in the firm, right before the stock’s value soared over 30% due to the company’s $682 million dollar sale of a natural gas processing facility.

After the suspicious buy, the SEC filed a federal lawsuit in Philadelphia, and accused Cooperman of abusing his access to executive information, “By doing so, he allegedly undermined the public confidence in the securities markets and took advantage of other investors who did not have this information,” said SEC Enforcement director Andrew Ceresney.  Along with barring Cooperman from any positions as a director or officer in the future, the SEC is seeking restitution of profits as well as money penalties from Cooperman and his firm, Omega Advisors.

However, Cooperman’s attorneys, Ted Wells and Dan Kramer have released a statement claiming that these allegations are “entirely baseless” and that “Mr. Cooperman acted appropriately at all times and did nothing wrong. We intend to vigorously defend against the charges and will not allow the SEC to tarnish the legacy Mr. Cooperman has built over the course of a legendary career spanning five decades.”  Cooperman is firing back and defending his career and reputation, to which the SEC is saying that they “will continue to pursue relentlessly those who engage in insider trading, regardless of their status or resources.”  This comes as a lesson that no matter who you are or how much power you have on Wall Street, you are still not exempt from following the law.

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

Posted by Justin Gandhi.

Cuban was originally accused of ditching a stock in 2004 called Mamma.com, a metasearch Internet company. He was accused of ditching this stock due to obtaining an inside tip on an upcoming offer that would have diluted his shares.

The SEC didn’t have much evidence on its side and claimed that Cuban ditched the stock in order to avoid $750,000 dollar losses. The SEC had to prove that Cuban received confidential, significant, nonpublic information which is the reason for him selling his stock. The SEC received this information through an eight-minute phone call recorded between Cuban and Mamma.com’s CEO.

During the phone call, the CEO stated he told Cuban confidentially that he was planning a stock offering called Private Investment in public equity. Cuban responded with, “Now I’m screwed. I can’t sell.” This was an indication the insider information and decided to sell anyway.

Cuban testified that there were many reasons he ditched the stock, and that he was never told to keep the information secret. In addition to that, the information wasn’t important in his decision and said the public had this information too, as shown in a website posting. This was basically one man’s word against the others.

Lastly, insider trading requires that a trader act on “material, nonpublic” information, meaning that this information must be significant as well. It wasn’t significant, as shown in a study by Dr. Erik Sirri, a former high-ranking official at the SEC.

Overall, if Cuban went to trial, he could have faced about a 2 million dollar fine, which was less than the amount he spent on lawyers to prove the SEC wrong.

Justin is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Giancarlo Barrera.

Goldman Sachs was infamously named “The Wolf of Wall Street.”   Goldman created, convinced, and sold mortgage investments that had been designed to fail in the first place.corruption at its finest.  It was corruption at its finest.  Goldman even went as far as betting against the same derivatives it was promoting and selling to their own clientele.  Goldman accepted that it misled investors the wrong way, but did not admit to any scheming or wrongdoing.

In July 2010, Goldman paid an enormous SEC fine of 550 milion dollars.  It was one fine after another.  Then in April 2012, Goldman paid a fine of 22 million dollars for allowing insider trading of non-public information to Goldman’s clients and traders since 2007.  On the link, the story goes into further detail of how much fraud and dishonesty was played under the table and behind the backs of its own clients, who the company was supposed to help invest their money in the first place.

Business is business.

Giancarlo is an economics and finance major at Montclair State 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.