Posted by Katherine Gurski.

The Supreme Court had spent an hour debating when a design of clothing becomes eligible to be copyrighted, and this issue is particularly a problem in the cheerleading uniform industry. Varsity Brands Inc., which is a leading producer of cheerleader uniforms, claims that its designs are unique and original to the uniforms. The company sued another leading manufacturer, Star Athletica, for copyright infringement back in 2010. Star Athletica responded by claiming that the striped and zigzag designs were signals to the public that those wearing the uniforms were cheerleaders. Star Athletica accused Varsity of “improperly seeking a century-long copyright monopoly on cheerleader-uniform designs” (Kendall).

Chief Justice John Roberts responded to this argument by giving an example and comparing the issue at hand to a lunchbox. Roberts stated, “The design on a lunchbox doesn’t make the lunchbox a lunchbox. It’s still a lunchbox. But the design on a cheerleading uniform is what makes it a cheerleading uniform, as opposed to a plain dress.” However, from another perspective, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg believed the designs to just be “two-dimensional artwork.” The designs are not crucial to the uniforms because they are simply printed on.

Fashion designers support Varsity Brands by stating that copyrights protect creativity. On the other hand, library associations and costume hobbyists support Star by stating that copyrighting extensively for just the appearance of an item could potentially harm creativity and put a limit to expression.

There is no ruling to the issue yet, and one will be expected by the end of June; but a few justices have commented on the potentially lasting consequences that the case could result in. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “If suddenly in this case we say that dresses are copyrightable, and they are because every one of them has some design, perhaps we’ll double the price of women’s clothes.” Justice Sotomayor also commented on the consequences by stating, “We are now going to use copyright law to kill the knockoff industry.”

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

Posted by Shalin Thomas.

The article that caught my attention and that I will be discussing is titled, “Companies Face Lawsuits Over Website Accessibility For Blind Users” by Sara Randazzo. Various world famous companies are being sued for not having accessibility on their websites for disabled users, specifically the blind. This means that website does not have a speaking feature which allows the customer to hear correctly what they are purchasing. Some of the companies that are facing these lawsuits include Toys “R” US, Burger King, and Anthropologie. Over 240 business like these are facing lawsuits and many of them are settling for between $10,000 and $75,000.  The American Disabilities Act constrains the prejudice against all persons with disabilities and this issue violates that precedent.

Although this is an issue because it takes away the opportunity for the disabled to lead regular lives with outside hassle, these lawsuits are said to only be “a legal-fee shakedown and don’t improve accessibility”, as quoted from the article. The lawyers that take on these cases are ones that are ones that are trying to find “the next great cause of action”. Juan Carlos Gil, a legal blind resident of Miami, has sued over 30 businesses because their websites are not accessible to the disable. In one instance, he ordered racing wheels for his wheelchair online, and it was the wrong item because the website dictated it wrong. He along with his lawyer just want to make sure that no one is excluded from being able to surf the web.

Carlson Lynch is a partner of the law firm that brings to court many of these lawsuits. He has been sending letters to several companies before looking toward solutions for these issues. These lawsuits are given to judges who, most of the time, send them to mediation which results in the settling of the issue in private. The companies have a period of time where they can resolve the issues brought upon them. These suits are said to extend to mobile device applications as well.

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

Source:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-face-lawsuits-over-website-accessibility-for-blind-users-1478005201

In a recent NJ.com article, expert lawyers in DUI laws revealed how they attack drunk driving charges.  Normally, defense lawyers rely on plea bargaining when a client is charged with a crime. Plea bargaining involves an agreement between a prosecutor and defendant where the defendant will plead to a lesser charge in return for dismissal of other charges or to the original charge in lieu of a lighter sentence. Sometimes it may involve a quid pro quo to the prosecutor for information leading to other crimes. But New Jersey does not allow plea bargaining in DUI cases. As a result, defense lawyers have no choice except to work to dismiss the DUI case entirely or prove the evidence results in a downgrade to a lesser charge.

According to the article, oftentimes, defense lawyers will find a technicality. For example, lawyers will challenge a blood draw (which now under both state and federal law must be preceded by a warrant) by demanding an explanation as to how it was performed. The results can be suppressed if the draw was not done by a physician or nurse, or the area was cleaned with alcohol instead of iodine. Some of the sample must be made available to the defense to conduct their own independent tests; failure to do so may result in suppression.

Blood results corroborated by field sobriety tests is stronger evidence of DUI; however, in cases involving injuries to a driver, field tests are foreclosed, leaving only the blood tests. If challenged, again, the case can be dismissed. Issues can arise from the accident scene itself, which can also result in a dismissal. As stated, warrants are necessary in order to perform a blood draw. According to William Proetta of Edison, a defense lawyer that was interviewed, “[I]f a person doesn’t consent or is unconscious, you need to call in a telephonic warrant. If emergency workers are asking the driver questions, without having Mirandized him, an attorney would argue those statements can’t be used against him.” Telephonic warrants are faster to obtain and are encouraged by the courts.

Breath tests using an Alcotest have a different set of procedures–all of which can be challenged in a suppression motion. Repair and calibration records may be subpoenaed, and failure by the State to do so may result in a dismissal. Officers conducting the test must get two successful readings and change the mouth pieces between each reading. The person must be observed for 20 uninterrupted minutes and cannot regurgitate or vomit, as this will produce a false reading. No cell phones or electronic devices can be present in the room.

Lawyers say there are many other ways to challenge the results. They recommend that people pulled over for a DUI not refuse the test, because refusal is a separate charge. The challenge becomes a little trickier in that they have to show the officer read the driver “the wrong statement” when asking if they will take the test. Also, the driver has to clearly say “No.” not once, but twice, to be considered refusal and ambiguous answers, such as, “‘I don’t know.’” or “‘I want a lawyer.’” are not enough.

Defense lawyers will employ experts, often former police officers who are trained in the Alcotest, to testify as to what the officers should have done. Also, discovery challenges are commonplace. If the prosecutor fails to produce discovery within 30 days, that can result in a dismissal. Dashcam video must produced as well; but that can be a double-edged sword. It can be used to impeach an officer’s testimony, or in the alternative, prove that the defendant in fact could not stand or was slurring his or her words.

A DUI can be proven by an officer’s observations as well, without the aid of other evidence. According to Ernesto Cerimele, a DUI defense lawyer in Newark,

If the officer’s report says the driver reeked of alcohol and admitted to drinking several beers, that still counts . . . . Even if the blood or Alcotest evidence is thrown out, if the officer’s observations of the driver and the ‘totality of the circumstances’ point to a driver being intoxicated, he can still be found guilty. The harder cases to defend against are frequently those where the officer fully documents everything he heard and observed in his police report.

Finally, the case can be dismissed if a trial is delayed beyond 60 days, pursuant to New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts’ guidelines. Based on hardship, inequity and the right under the Sixth Amendment to a speedy trial, a defense lawyer can move for dismissal if the prosecution does not have his or her case ready in time. In one case cited by the article, a prosecutor was given an extra 30 days to produce discovery and failed. That resulted in an immediate dismissal by the judge.

Posted by Sheyenne Hurt-Lewis.

Customer reviews are extremely important to the reputation of a business. In today’s technological era, it is becoming imperative for businesses to manage their online reputation though social media and other outlets. Reviewing sites such as Yelp, Twitter, and Facebook can be used as means of reforming and promoting businesses. Dan Simons, a restauranteur in the Washington area expressed the importance of customer feedback by saying, “You could open a business and do everything right, but if you’re unaware of these social media you well perish. Social media can take a business and put a bullet in it.” Positive reviews generate business but the impact of negative reviews has a greater impact on businesses than one may think. The best way to keep a healthy reputation for your business is to continue providing satisfactory goods and services to consumers, and ensure that negative experiences are at a minimum, and addressed promptly if they must occur.

Monitoring what is being said about your business is the first step in ensuring that your businesses name rings satisfaction. One may do this by simply using one of the many available online resources to search yourself and tune into the varying customer opinions. Technology even goes as far as alerting a business person when the name of their business is mentioned on a social media network. Managing reviews is the next step in guaranteeing a good name for your business. Thanking customers who left good feedback and inviting them to come again is a good way to keep the customers satisfied and returning. Addressing negative reviews in a professional manner with intentions to “win back the customer” is another way to improve the business environment. It is more than likely that new customers will look at these pages before deciding whether to visit or purchase a product. Businesspeople should “try to put yourself in the customer’s place” and make certain that they are doing their very best to make sure every customer leaves pleased and willing to return.

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

Healthcare providers, small business, and individuals have filed antitrust lawsuits against Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They allege the 37 independently-owned companies that make up the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association are colluding to avoid competition, raise prices on premiums, and clamp down on payments to providers. Plaintiffs are seeking class action status.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield covers about a third of the nation. In the 1930s, doctors provided insurance under the Blue Shield name and hospitals used Blue Cross. Eventually, the names were trademarked and now companies that use the names operate within an exclusive territory–many in a single state.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, defendant says “its licensing deals simply codify trademark rights that date back decades and ‘do not constitute an agreement to do anything unlawful.’” They claim their model has been around for long time and has withstood government scrutiny. But plaintiffs contend this is cartel-like behavior. The model stifles competition and leads to inflated premiums.

The case will pit antitrust law against trademark rights. Plaintiffs may have a point, especially since at least in one area, California, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans “compete directly against one another . . . where Anthem Blue Cross battles Blue Shield of California.” That fact appears to cut against defendants’ contention that the deals among licensees are only made to protect trademarks.

A district court judge has declined to dismiss the case, ruling plaintiffs “‘have alleged a viable market-allocation scheme.’”

Posted by Kirsten T. Rewekant.

A somewhat recent case, Ellis Vs. Cartoon Network, Inc. shows how old statutes can be in conflict with the new and always updating technology. Ellis uses the Cartoon Network app on his android device to watch popular television shows that Cartoon Network airs. This is a free service, which you could choose to upgrade to pay for exclusive content that the free app does not allow others to see. When signing up for this extended service, you would create a profile with personal information that Cartoon Network would be available to see. Ellis had decided the free version was good enough for him, and therefore, did not give Cartoon Network permission to obtain any personal information.

Cartoon Network uses a service called Bango, which allows them to assign an ID number to everyone who views their content, free service or extended. This service does not know exactly who you are with any personal information, but is essentially learning who you are by linking all the shows you watch to your ID number, and therefore, learning what you like to watch. Through the service, the company is getting an understanding of who you are. Ellis tried to argue this to the court.

The court heard arguments as to whom is considered a consumer or producer. Cartoon Network argued Ellis is not considered a consumer under the definition of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) because he does not provide any “personal identifiable information.” But Ellis argued, this ID number does show a side of his personality and gives the company his personal information. Finally, the court needed to decide whether Ellis can be considered a subscriber to Cartoon Network, which makes him a consumer under the VPPA. To be a consumer under the VPPA, you do not have to pay for a service, log in, or create a profile.

Overall, the court ruled Ellis as not a subscriber under the VPPA for not signing up for an account, providing no personal information, having no profile, not paying for the service, and he is not considered to have a committed relationship with Cartoon Network to obtain the exclusive content they offer.

Some issues with this ruling includes the fact that if you were to visit Cartoon Network on your web browser, you would not be assigned an ID number, as the app does. Another issue with this case is the very little distinction between downloading the app and being a subscriber to Cartoon Network and how these two do not show a difference in commitment. After this case, there are still questions regarding the VPPA regarding privacy, and therefore, there may need to be some revising.

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

Posted by Deena Khalil.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

Just recently, on May 12 in Philadelphia, an Amtrak train derailed and killed eight people and sent over 200 to the hospital. A question everyone is asking is why the train was going that fast and why it curved. Brandon Bostian, who was the engineer, has agreed to be interviewed and many feel that he will be able to answer some important questions.

Bostian claims that he has no recollection of the accident and denies a lot of claims made about the way he operated the train. It was proven that Bostian was going 106 miles per hour when the train should have only been going at 50 miles per hour. Bostian has refused to talk about that part of the case, as he has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and has only said that by the time he tried to pull the safety brakes, it was too late. Bostian has already gotten a lawyer and is prepared if he is sued. Even though there are not yet any charges against Bostian, he knows that he must prepare himself for what is to come. Mayor Michael Nutter said, “He doesn’t have to be interviewed if he doesn’t want to at this particular stage. . . . That’s kind of how the system works.”

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

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 Aliyah Ponton.

A former executive, Andrew Caspersen, at a New York investment bank admitted swindling investors of more than $38 Million. As a result, he was sentenced to four years in prison. During court he told the U.S. District Judge, Jed Rakoff, “I chose gambling over everything.” The Judge cited his gambling as a reason for leniency. Andrew Caspersen is 40 years old and is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School. He also defrauded his job, PJT Partners Inc., of over $8 Million.

Caspersen is the son of the late Finn M.W. Caspersen, who was a philanthropist and former chief executive of Beneficial Corp. “I destroyed my family’s name,” said Caspersen. In the court room it was packed with family and friends as well as members of organization he has joined. Many of his friends and families argued for leniency to the judge. Rakoff imposed Caspersen’s prison term by giving him way less then the 15 years that was entitled for by the sentencing guidelines and also less than the 7 ½ years recommended by the Probation Department.

Caspersen stole from his friends, family, and from investors. He took advantage of his Wall Street pedigree and even stole from charities. “Using his Wall Street pedigree, Andrew Caspersen deceived and defrauded investors – including his own family and friends and a charity – out of tens of millions of dollars,” said the U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. When faced by the judge Caspersen said that he was dedicated to continuing treatment for his gambling addiction but Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Magdu said Caspersen failed to follow through with his gambling addiction treatment. She also added that Caspersen quit therapy after only seven sessions. In the end, after going to court and fighting for leniency, Caspersen was sentenced to 4 years in prison.

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

Source:

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/feb61e4e2ac8475b9110b70ba45e9928

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/executive-ny-bank-years-prison-38m-fraud-43313982

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 Carter McIntosh.

Valeant is a very large pharmaceutical company that focused on creating a “drug giant that was focused on distribution.” Valeant “was” one of the hottest stocks on Wall Street; this stock was booming; the stock soared all the way to $260 in just months. Wall Street analysts and Hedge Funds loved Valeant and everyone wanted to own it. Valeant has been in the news lately, and it is not good news but rather some very bad news. Allegations now follow Valeant and whether or not they have true success or that there true success can be attributed to “price gouging: a secret network of specialty pharmacies; and fraud.” With these allegations surfacing, Valeant stock has “plummeted 60% in the last three months.”

Valeant has been under scrutiny for a while now, dating all the way back to August 14th, 2015. In August, Valeant was being scrutinized because they raised the price of their drugs. On October 5th, 2015, a study by a Deutsche Bank analyst finds that it is not just two drugs that they raised the prices. The report concludes that Valeant has jacked up prices on 54 other meds this year alone, by an average of 66%.” In response to this issue, Valeant CEO Pearson said during an earnings call on October 19th, 2015, that “Valeant will ease up on its strategy of buying up drugs that are mispriced and hiking the prices.”

On October 20th, 2015 “A report by Citron Research, run by activist short seller Andrew Left reveals more information about Philidor and it’s network of phantom captive pharmacies.” Left accused Valeant of committing accounting fraud; furthermore, Left compared “Valeant to companies like Enron.” Two days later on October 22nd, 2015, Valeant “called Left’s reports erroneous. The company says it hasn’t used Philidor to book false sales. It says Philidor is a separate company, but that Philidor’s financial statements are included in Valeant’s financial statements.” With this allegation surfacing Valeant shares have plummeted 30% in just three days.

As more and more information surfaced about Valeant’s relationship with Philidor, on October 30th, 2015, “Valeant says it is cutting ties to Philidor, and that the pharmacy will shut down immediately. Allegations have emerged that Philidor may have changed prescriptions to push Valeant’s high-priced drugs on patients, rather than the generics.” Bill Ackman, the largest shareholder in Valeant held a “four – hour conference call to defend Valeant,” as he believes in Valeant’s business strategy and that the company would not commit accounting fraud and price gouging. Unfortunately, this course of action did not help Valiant. In fact, after the Bill Ackman conference call, Valeant shares fell another 10%.

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

Posted by Samar Baeshen.

According to an October 21, 2015 news article in The New York Times, “Criminals Should Get Same Leniency as Corporations,” there are many critics arguing that corporations trying to make a big effort to defend their misconducted executives ought to be treated like common criminals. In addition, Emmet G. Sullivan, a federal judge, thought that criminals should be treated like big companies. Due to Obama administration’s method which gives companies the opportunity to not have a criminal record, Judge Sullivan believes that individual criminals should enjoy the same chances. In fact, the Department of Justice officials concur with Judge Sullivan’s opinion, which criticizes the American criminal justice system, and encourage Congress to lower the adjudication standards. Meanwhile, the Justice Department issued a new memo recently and released new approaches to prosecute individual employees after years of accusations about Wall Street criminals.

According to Judge Sullivan, the court is frustrated that the postponed prosecution agreements are not being utilized to give the same chances to individual criminals without causing any negative effects on the criminal conviction. Moreover, there are lack of the postponed prosecution agreements, according to the Justice Department, for both corporations and individuals. However, comparing the number of cases against individuals and companies, cases against individual criminals are enormously more than companies.

In general, the target of the Judge Sullivan’s argument is to reduce the long Sentence for prisoners who did not commit violent crimes.

Samar is a graduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University. 

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has come under fire recently with the release of secret tapes supposedly of regulators planning to “go soft” on Goldman Sachs.  Carmen Segarra, a former employee who was assigned to Goldman, claims in a lawsuit that she was under pressure by her superiors to overlook certain findings she made concerning the company.  The Fed eventually fired her allegedly because she refused to comply and change the findings.

In the recordings, one supervisor tells Segarra that basically consumer laws do not apply to certain institutions.  Michael Lewis, best-selling author of “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt,” said after listening to the tapes that, “The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived.”

Segarra’s lawsuit was dismissed for failing to connect her firing with the alleged Goldman disclosures.  The suit is pending appeal.  Nevertheless, the tapes may prompt a Congressional investigation into the matter.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, stated, “When regulators care more about protecting big banks from accountability than they do about protecting the American people from risky and illegal behavior on Wall Street, it threatens our whole economy.”  She further stated, “Congress must hold oversight hearings on the disturbing issues raised by today’s whistleblower report when it returns in November.”

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.