Posted by Ivanna Klics.

There has been quite a ruckus at Wells Fargo as they made headlines for causing fraudulent transactions that have not been authorized by the customers themselves. Wells Fargo is being accused for creating banking and credit card accounts without the permission of its customers. Who are the customers more to blame then the CEO, John Stumpf; however, in his defense, he is not capable of overlooking every branch in the bank. Stumpf’s leaders have not only stepped out of their comfort in the company but the reputation of the company, as well as opening up the door to a criminal investigation case.

The investigation has put the company to shame. Stumpf appears to be clueless of what has been going on literally right under his nose. Because it is almost impossible for these events to occur overnight, management should have known about it for a long time. Whether Stumpf admits it or not, Charles Gasparino stated “he and the bank will still face numerous civil and criminal inquiries for years to come.”

Although the company does not mean all harm, Wells Fargo is still one of the most profitable banks worldwide; however the company’s perception has had a dramatic change. Currently the company is facing a congressional investigation, and who knows if they will be able to build back their reputation.

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

Criminal law is certainly an important part of the study of business law, and Fourth Amendment questions always seem to come up in class.  Students are very interested in learning about when the police can search a person’s car, office or home, or when and where can they arrest someone. Generally, police need a warrant either to search a person’s property or to arrest, unless it falls within a constitutional exception.

Most students do not know that there is a difference between an arrest warrant and a search warrant.  An arrest warrant is an order by the court directing a sheriff, constable or police officer to find and arrest a person who is wanted for a crime.  In contrast, a search warrant permits a law enforcement officer to search a person’s place of residence or other location for evidence of a crime.  An arrest warrant, however, does not permit the police to search a home or building for a person where the police reasonably believes the person named in the arrest warrant may be found without the consent of the owner.  The question then becomes whether there are any other times police may enter certain areas of a third-party home and search for a person even though they are only acting pursuant to an arrest warrant.

In the New Jersey Appellate Division decision, State v. Craft, 425 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 2012), Judge Graves held that exigent circumstances permitted the police to enter a bedroom of a third-party home to arrest defendant for a shooting even though they were operating solely under the authority of an arrest warrant.  The facts are as follows.

The Newark Police Department’s Fugitive Apprehension Team is responsible to dispatch officers to certain addresses where fugitives may be found based on certain intelligence.  James Craft was wanted for a shooting.  Officers arrived at the location noted in the arrest warrant.  It was a three-family dwelling located on South 13th Street.  The police believed that defendant was residing there with family on the second-floor.

The front door to the residence was open, and the police proceeded to the second floor.  The officers were in plain clothes, but at least one of them was wearing a badge around his neck. Defendant’s mother opened the door and permitted the police to enter.  The officers told defendant’s mother that they had a warrant to arrest her son. Defendant’s mother told the police that her son was not there, but offered to call him on her cell phone.  Upon dialing the number, the police heard a phone ringing behind a bedroom door. The officers believed it was defendant’s cell phone ringing and that he would most likely be in the bedroom.

When they opened the bedroom door, they found defendant attempting to escape.  The police testified they saw defendant drop a handgun as he climbed through the window.  They also discovered five vials of cocaine in plain view on the top of a dresser.  Defendant was arrested and charged.  The trial court suppressed the evidence finding that the “coincidence of a phone ringing” was insufficient evidence to justify entry into the bedroom without a search warrant and that the police did not have an “objectively reasonable belief” that “defendant both resided at and would be found at” his mother’s apartment.

On appeal, the court reversed, holding that “there was no constitutional violation by the police, and it was error to suppress the items that were seized. The arrest warrant provided probable cause for defendant’s arrest; the officers entered the apartment with [defendant’s mother’s consent]; and [the police] had reason to believe defendant was present in an adjoining room when a cell phone began ringing after [defendant’s mother] called her son.  In addition, the officers knew the arrest warrant was for ‘a shooting’ and, therefore, defendant was potentially dangerous.  Under these circumstances, there was a compelling need for immediate action to apprehend defendant, and it was impracticable for the officers to obtain a search warrant.  Thus, their entry into the bedroom was objectively reasonable, and the items seized were in plain view.”

Here, the exigency to protect persons inside the home from being shot by a potentially armed individual excused the police from failing to consider the possible “coincidence” of the phone ring. According to one of the officers, upon hearing the phone ring at the time defendant’s mother dialed, he reasoned since people generally stay close to their cell phones, he would find defendant next to his.  As a result, the search into the bedroom was reasonable.

Posted by Sheyenne Hurt-Lewis.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Connor Lynch. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

This article “Injury on Weight Bench Results in Lawsuit But Ruling for Club,” discusses a lawsuit, which was filed by a fitness facility member at the gym center where he routinely exercised. The plaintiff, La Fata, filed a lawsuit towards the center, LA Fitness International, because he claimed that his injury was due negligence by the defendant, LA Fitness International. As stated in the article, “the member contended that the facility was negligent and responsible for what the member claimed was a willful injury.” This quotation alludes to La Fata’s perspective that LA Fitness International was responsible for his injury and believed that he was morally and ethically entitled to monetary compensation in this civil case in order to make the defendant compensate him for what he contended was significant injustice in which he was victimized.

Contrary to La Fata’s assertions, there was significant evidence omitted from what he claimed was a vindictive, immoral, and an unjust situation in which he was harmed and expecting compensation for the wrongdoing. This evidence significantly neutralized his claims for wrongdoing and negligence by the defendant LA Fitness International. The defense completely destroyed his argument in the statement, “At the time the plaintiff joined the defendant’s facility he signed a double-sided membership agreement which contained a release/waiver of liability. The release contained the usual language including a provision that the facility was relieved from any liability for injuries suffered “in, upon, or about LA Fitness premises or arising at LA Fitness facilities, services or equipment.” A bold face typed provision of the release indicated this member had “read and understood the entire agreement.” This quote indicates that the plaintiff knowingly signed a waiver for liability in the event of getting injured on the premises of LA Fitness, and most importantly, signed the contract that he had read and agreed regarding the rules and regulations. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed on summary judgment because La Fata knowingly signed this contract, which shields LA Fitness from liability. The clause defends the corporation from lawsuits such as these that could result in a significant financial award for damages.

Conclusively, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, LA Fitness International. Perceiving the deciding factors in this case, the judge placed significant importance upon the evidentiary support and the notion (as was taught in class) that it is not necessarily about who is right or wrong, but what one can prove. Within the domain and the rules of the law, it is more important who can provide more evidence to support a claim. In the end, it is about whichever party can ascertain more concrete and factual information to provide justification to decisively conclude who is righteous in the perception of the law. That will separate which individual, or party, is morally and ethically innocent by contemporary societal norms and beliefs.

Herbert, David L. “Injury On Weight Bench Results In Lawsuit But Ruling For Club.” Exercise Standards & Malpractice Reporter 23.6 (2009). Web. 14. Feb. 2015.

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

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Stephanie Ramos.

Like no other company, Google has revolutionized the way we conduct web searches over the last ten years. However, in the years after it went public, Google’s increasing market dominance was generating both “sky-high profits and unwanted regulatory attention.” In April 2015, the European Union’s antitrust chief formally accused Google of abusing its dominance in web searches, bringing charges that could “limit the giant American tech company’s moneymaking prowess.” This is the first case that antitrust charges have been brought against Google, despite a years long faceoff between the company and regulators in the EU. Most importantly, it “will almost certainly increase pressure on Google to address complaints that the company favors its own products in search results over its rivals’ services.” In addition, a formal antitrust investigation into the company’s Android smartphone software is underway.

Regulators have focused on accusations that Google “diverts traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site.” However, Google has defended its business practices, by stating that “[P]eople can now find and access information in numerous different ways—an allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide of the mark.” In today’s modern world, privacy laws and consumer protection laws have come under intense scrutiny. Big companies, such as Amazon and Facebook, have become subjects of investigations in matters such as low-tax arrangements and protecting people’s online data. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission investigated “antitrust complaints against Google, but closed that inquiry in 2013 without reaching a formal finding of wrongdoing” in the way it arranges its Web search results. In addition, the investigation into Google can increase political tensions between the European Union and the United States.

Antitrust laws are statutes developed to protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring that fair competition exists in an open-market economy. In this case, the EU is accusing Google of abusing its powers by “diverting traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site. This case raises the issues of corporations and ethics. In this case, Google is a big company that generates billions of dollars in revenue. However, whether these revenues are generated through ethical practices is an ongoing question that EU is trying to solve. “Google will have [ten] weeks to make a formal response to the charges.” It “can also request a formal hearing during a procedure that commonly takes a couple of years and often results in companies’ eventually making appeals at the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

Stephanie is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

In class, we discuss organized crime and its effects on business and society. Recently, Italian special agents, SCO, and the FBI arrested 13 persons in Calabria, Italy, allegedly connected with the ‘Ndrangheta crime family.

With affiliates in the U.S., the suspects were organizing cocaine shipments out of Costa Rica. Authorities arrested them in the middle of the night while they were sleeping and charged them with conspiracy to run an international drug trafficking ring.

The year-long investigation was named “Operation Columbus” and was jointly-led by federal authorities in Brooklyn and prosecutors in Calabria. Gregorio Gigliotti, an owner of pizza shop named “Cucino A Modo Mio” (I Cook My Way), located in Queens, NY, was arrested along with his wife and son. Italian investigators said they had information that he spearheaded the ring. “The Italian restaurant was the command center for bringing some drug shipments to New York and sending others to Europe or Calabria,” Grassi told reporters in Rome. The suspects allegedly shipped cocaine in crates containing cassava, a South American root vegetable.

According to the article, the ‘Ndrangheta has become Europe’s biggest cocaine dealer and has supplanted the Sicilian mafia as the major partner to the New York crime families.

The Supreme Court issued an order denying an application to vacate the Fifth Circuit’s stay of a district court’s final judgment enjoining the enforcement of a Texas voting statute. The statute requires voters to produce identification before they vote. Business law students learn about injunctions (in this case, the court’s power to stop a party from acting) as a equitable remedy.

Congressman Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, sued Governor Perry and Texas Secretary of State John Steen in federal court, challenging the enforcement of the voter ID law, named SB 14. Veasey claimed that the law had the potential of preventing hundreds of thousands of people from voting. The strict Texas statute “requires the state’s estimated 13.6 million registered voters to show one of seven kinds of photo identification” before casting their ballot. Defendants responded SB 14 was designed to prevent voter fraud and argued voter ID laws were already approved by the Supreme Court in an Indiana case.

After a hearing, the district court agreed with Veasey that enforcement of the law “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.” The district court determined the strict Texas statute was unconstitutional and enjoined defendants from forcing voters to produce ID. The Fifth Circuit issued a stay of the order, meaning defendants were temporarily permitted to enforce the law. The Supreme Court denied Veasey’s application to vacate the stay pending appeal. Led by Justice Ginsberg, three Justices wrote a scathing dissent (and in a rare circumstance, later corrected) expressing disagreement with the court’s decision not to vacate the stay.

Voting rights are analyzed under strict scrutiny. As of now, voters in Texas must show proper ID before they are allowed to vote in the midterm elections on November 4th.

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.

Posted by Mariafernanda Ayin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Bailey Obetz.

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

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

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