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.

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 Deane Franco.

In a recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal, I read about General Motors being charged with punitive damages due to a defective part causing multiple deaths. General motors had been in the process of recalling millions of vehicles, when a defective ignition switch caused 100 or so deaths.

The punitive damages will be limited to the extent of a lawsuit based on claims and knowledge that GM had of a new company auto maker’s 2009 restructuring. GM attempted to prevent plaintiffs for bringing punitive damages based on personal injury or wrongful death. Unfortunately for GM, Robert Hilliard who is representing all those injured by GM feels that punitive damages “are the only way to properly compensate victims who have been harmed by defect.” This is because punitive damages are meant to be a large enough punishment to the corporation to send a notable message with the intent of assuring the corporation understands its wrong doing.

Although GM tried to fight the punitive damages, the plaintiffs won outright. What this means for GM is that punitive damages could reach millions or even billions of dollars awarded to those affected, depending on the ruling, previous defective GM part cases may also be included.

GM has already paid $935 million in damages and has also agreed to $625 million in compensation for the victims. But we will see if the court will stop there. Moreover, GM is being considered for additional charges because they had acknowledged that they mislead regulators about the defective car parts and still put them into production. The hairy part, however, comes in when GM addresses their bankruptcy filing, because technically, “Old GM” filed for bankruptcy and would be responsible for all these defective parts liabilities and, “New GM,” the product of the bankruptcy reorganization, is a new company separate from the actions of the old.

This article relates to the discussion post this week in class where we discussed the hot coffee spill in Liebeck vs. McDonalds. In that situation, punitive damages were used not necessarily as a fair compensation to the victim, but to ensure McDonald’s knew of its intentional wrong doing and would be more likely to halt such procedures.

The pricing of the punitive damages was said to be very important for Mr. Hillard because he knows that those damages tend to run very high and would lead to fair compensation for the victim’s losses. This is a little different from the Liebeck case, because in that case, there appeared to be dual responsibility as to   both the temperature and the spilling of coffee; in this GM case, all responsibility falls on the manufacturer for selling a defective car which caused death to numerous victims. It does not matter that GM has rebranded itself after going through bankruptcy filings.  At this point in time, there may be products on the market that have not been recalled, which caused injury and or death to numerous victims. For these reasons, the punitive damages should be high to balance out the victim’s loss and GM’s punishment.

Deane is a member of the The Gerald P. Buccino ’63 Center for Leadership Development at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, and a finance and information technology management major, Class of 2018.

Posted by Kristen Czerepusko.

Recently, General Motors has been facing some lawsuits stemming from defective ignition switches in millions of their vehicles. This defect has led to over 100 deaths and 200 injuries. General Motors has decided to block those who are suing for personal injury and those making punitive damage claims. The defective car models were recalled in 2014 and were further proven to have been equipped with faulty ignition switches. With this defect, the switch can disable safety features including air bags which are vital to safety when operating a vehicle.

To make matters worse, not only did General Motors know they had a defective product, they acknowledged the fact that they mislead regulators about the defect altogether. To cope with this, General Motors invoked upon a “bankruptcy shield” to limit legal exposure on account of their defective switch. Today, there are over 1,385 individuals with death or injury claims who didn’t receive anything from General Motors. The company still faces hundreds of cases that have yet to be settled.

Punitive damages are something that should never be limited when dealing with defective products. There should never be a cap on the amount of money somebody should be allowed to receive from the careless act of a company manufacturing and selling a defective product. What makes it even worse is the fact that General Motors knew their products were defective and did not care enough to try and prevent further injuries. They acted very unethically and inhumanely with how they handled their cases by using a so-called “bankruptcy shield.” If punitive damages were ever to have a limit, companies would not care to try and make their products better but would instead continue to make harmful products. It is not yet clear how much will be awarded to the individuals who have had serious damages or to the loved ones to those who lost their lives but I hope justice is served to all who deserve it in this case.

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

Posted by Leandro Iglesias.

The article “There Should be No Special Deal for Tax-Evading Cameco,” written by Murray Dobin describes Cameco, a Canadian based uranium mining colossus, that is currently facing charges in Federal Court by the Canada Revenue Agency for avoiding $2.2 billion in Canadian income taxes. As the article states, this case has been delayed for years and the fact that it has finally made it before a judge is good news. However, as we discussed in class, a lot of these forensic cases end up with companies settling and individuals are usually not held responsible. Because of that, it is important that Cameco’s case does not follow the same path, and that Cameco is held responsible for all its wrongdoings and not allowed to settle for any less. Cameco has been so arrogant in its tax avoidance, that it does not even bother to justify their tax planning and just states that they are following relevant laws and regulations. In order to bring attention to off-shore tax havens and to stop companies from abusing such tactics, Canada needs to make an example of Cameco.

As the article states, Cameco’s tax avoidance started in 1999, where they drafter Cameco drafted a 17-year uranium supply agreement at a fixed price of $10 a pound. In 1999, $10 a pound was the reasonable market value. However, as you can imagine, over the 17-year period it is obvious that price would change. As Dobin notes, “That world price went to almost $140 a pound in 2007 and is now around $35.” In order to understand the problem with the above scenario, we need to mention that the Canada corporate income tax is 27%, compared to the 10% tax rate in Switzerland. By the transfer pricing agreement, Cameco was paying Canadian income tax on revenue up to that $10 threshold, but any revenue above that was being paid in Switzerland, at a much lower 10% tax rate. As stated above, prices increased substantially from the 1999 market value, and so Cameco was benefiting of this transfer pricing agreement. The reason why this is a big deal is because the uranium was in Canada, and most of the uranium was also sold in Canada. Cameco would purposely sell its uranium at a lower $10 price to its subsidiary in Switzerland, and then recognize any revenue above $10 in Switzerland instead of in Canada, in order to avoid paying a higher Canadian income tax rate. However, as noted, an insignificant amount of revenues was actually coming from Europe.

This case sheds light on the intriguing topic of transfer pricing. Although Cameco is not a known company in the US, this case relates to the current news on Apple. Apple is facing a US$15 billion tax bill from the European Commission for its abuse of transfer pricing in Ireland. Many companies use transfer pricing to avoid paying higher taxes, which is not illegal. However, Cameco’s revenue is not generated in Switzerland, and they have no full-time employees or even an office location in Europe. Dobin states, “Virtually all the substantive work was performed in Canada. All of the uranium is mined in Canada, all of Cameco’s sales are negotiated and completed in Canada, and literally all of its profits are generated in Canada. The company’s scheme is pure scam which is why fair-tax activists in Saskatchewan call the company Scameco.”

There are ways in which transfer pricing can legally be used to decrease their tax burden, however companies are not allowed to create operations in foreign countries with the sole purpose of tax avoidance. As the article states, there is no operating business reason for Cameco to be in Europe; they neither mine uranium there or make sales abroad. The sole purpose of Cameco in Europe is tax evasion, and as a result they should be found guilty of tax evasion.

Finally, I found this article intriguing because it relates to topics we discussed in our “Legal Issues” class, and also in our Forensic Accounting class. Transfer pricing is just one of the ways in which corporations are boosting their profits, and loop-holes will always exist, hence why tax law and accounting law is always changing. Because of this reason, I believe the demand for forensic accountants is increasingly growing. Furthermore, when cases like Cameco are brought up, they usually all end up the same way, with corporations settling with the Government. I think it is important for corporations and individuals to be held responsible for their wrongdoings, and until that happens, corporations will keep on believing they can get away with it. Forensic accountants should play a bigger role in discovering and investigating cases like the one described in this article.

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

Research proposal posted by Jessica Page.

Topic

The principle of double effect creates a set of guidelines to “determine when it is ethically permissible for a human being to engage in conduct in pursuit of a good end with full knowledge that the conduct will also bring about bad results” (The Principle of Double Effect). Generally, the principle states that when someone is deciding a certain conduct that has both good and bad effects, the course of conduct they choose is “ethically permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result” (The Principle of Double Effect). The moral criteria for the principle of double effect generally states the action in itself must be good or indifferent, the good effect cannot be obtained through the bad effect, there must be a proportion between the good and bad effects brought about, the intention of the subject must be directed towards the good effect and merely tolerate the bad effect and there does not exist another possibility or avenue (What is the Principle of Double Effect?).

Pros and Cons

The issue with the principle of double effect is that each situation where the principle applies is different. If an act is bad, it cannot become good or indifferent by a good motive or good circumstances. If it is evil in nature, this will not change. That being said, the principle “the end justifies the means” must always be rejected. The idea that needs to be applied to each issue is the fact that a human must never do evil, but they are not bound to prevent the existence of evil. One example we can apply this to is the BP oil spill that was discussed in class. By not mandating a cut-off switch because of how expensive it was, even though the safety benefits were astronomical, when an explosion happened on one of the rigs, eleven workers were killed and seventeen were injured. Not to mention the five million barrels of oil that gushed into the ocean. Had the US mandated these switches like they wanted, even though BP lobbied against them, it could have avoided the deaths, injuries and pollution caused by the exploding rig. In this case, the deaths and havoc caused by the explosion did not justify the fact that BP was trying to save money for their own personal benefit. Another example where the principle of double effect is relevant today is the controversy of euthanasia. It is used to justify the case “where a doctor gives drugs to a patient to relieve distressing symptoms even though he knows doing this may shorten the patient’s life” (BBC). The doctor’s intention is not to kill the patient, but the result of death is a side-effect of reducing patient’s pain. One problem that people argue against this doctrine is the fact that they believe we are responsible for all anticipated consequences of our actions. Another is the fact that intention is irrelevant. A third issue, specifically in the euthanasia issue, is the fact that death is not always seen as a bad thing making the double effect irrelevant. Lastly, the double effect can produce an unexpected moral result.

Ethics and Principles

When looking at the incorporation of Catholic, one of the main issues that concerns this principle and the Catholic religion is that case where a pregnancy may need to end in order to preserve the life of the mother. The example most often given is a woman with uterine cancer. By removing the uterus, it will bring death to the fetus but the death is not “directly” intended and in turn, the mother will live. It is an issue that still is debated today (Soloman). Another similar case having to do closely with Catholic ideals is when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and must receive surgery to remove the embryo. At a Catholic hospital, it can be questioned whether that specific procedure is considered a direct abortion, going against the Catholic ideals and morals, no matter what the means of the surgery are. “The principle of double effect enables bioethicists and Catholic moralists to navigate various actions that may or may not be morally justifiable in some circumstances” (Kockler). The idea of proportionate reasoning has also been condemned by Pope John Paul II. He categorized proportionalism as a species of consequentialism. This is condemned by the Church because no Catholic moralist would agree that a desirable end justifies any means (Kockler). These are serious issues, especially when considering the principle of double effect from a Catholic standpoint.

Works Cited:

Kockler, Nicolas. The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2007/05/pfor2-0705.html

“The Doctrine of Double Effect”. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/doubleeffect.shtml

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/double%20effect.html

“What is the Principle of Double Effect?” http://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132

Posted by Kyle Beck.

When someone is looking for an easy target to steal money from, they do not usually decide pick the US military. That is not the case for Alex Wisidagama, the global manager of Glenn Defense Marine Asia, who overbilled the maritime branch of the US military by more than $34 million. He, along with his cousin Leonard Glenn Francis who is the top executive of GDMA, and ten other naval officers have been charged in the case and “all but one has pleaded guilty.” Wisidagama has been sentenced to five years while his lawyer argues that he should only be given thirty months.

The naval officers pleaded guilty to bribery and “diverting ships to Asian ports where the company owned the port or the port had lax oversight, allowing GDMA to inflate prices.”

While GSMA has done business with US naval ships in Asia for 25 years, investigators are still looking into how long the maritime branch has been getting overcharged. Investigators are currently focused on Francis, because he admitted to providing “an exhaustive list of gifts, including payments for prostitutes, concert tickets and luxury hotel stays for Naval officers in exchange for classified information that helped his company carry out the scheme.” This comes as a huge problem for Wisidagama because, according to his lawyer, no one in Wisidagama’s position after this case would be able to pay off the charges, because he is not allowed to ever work on government contracts.

Kyle is an economics major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Luis Ferreira, Jr.

Volkswagen, who recently met the goal of becoming the world’s biggest car making company, has gotten themselves into some legal troubles. The accusations stem from excessive amounts of pollutants caused by their cars and using emission cheating software to cover it up. The company has installed the software into 11 million engines worldwide. The software is supposed to limit the amount of a toxic nitrogen oxide that is released from the car, however, the company’s device instead lets the vehicle release pollutants about 40 more times the legal amount. Volkswagen did this because it lets the car have better acceleration and fuel economy. This device is illegal in the United States and in many other countries.

The court gave the company until April 21, 2016 to fix all of their cars. The court told the German car company that if the cars were not fixed by this specific date, then they would a breach trial. The company is also getting fined in all of the countries it sold the cars in and facing many legal suits from car owners that are very upset over this dispute. Everything, including cars fixed, payments to unpleased customers, and timing, must be resolved by April 21^st or the company will be going to trial.

Volkswagen has said they are “’committed to resolving the US regulatory investigation into the diesel emissions matter as quickly as possible and to implementing a solution for affected vehicles.’”

The company has said they are going to follow all of the orders by the judge to be able to avoid trial and get the company out of these legal troubles.

Luis is a business law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Nikolina Stojkovic.

Insider trading just got a little easier, if you can use the right defense.  Based on the case United States v. Newman, insider trading charges were dropped based on what was considered wrong jury instruction and failure to show sufficient evidence for conviction. The case was tried in a New York district court. New York has joined the cavalry in trying to take down Wall Street crimes.  US Attorney General Preet Bharara took office about six years ago and arrested 100 people for insider trading, of whom 87 have been convicted¹.

A little background of the case will help demonstrate what defense attorneys were able to accomplish in appeals. In January 2012, hedge fund portfolio managers Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson were charged with securities fraud. In December 2012, they were convicted and, in May 2013, sentenced to lengthy terms: 54 months for Newman and 78 months for Chiasson¹ for using information tipped to them about Dell and Nvidia via an intermediary. Newman earned $4 million and Chiasson earned $68 million as a result of the information received.²  The charges were overturned because the prosecution never linked a personal benefit received by the original tipper, not because Newman/Chiasson denied receiving the information.

According to the defense, their clients did not commit any crime because the tipper received no known benefit of relaying the information, nor did the intermediaries that passed along the information to Newman and Chiasson.  Rather, their actions were part of a business transaction based on information received.  It sure sounds like insider trading without the benefit requirement.

Nonetheless, the appeals court decided otherwise.  Their decision spurred a flurry of review on pending and previously decided cases, where guilty verdicts were found and admissions of guilt were allowed on insider trading matters. Based on the defense attorney’s argument, insider trading cases will become more challenging for the US Attorney General’s office.  In this matter, based on the charges, the defendants are not guilty.  However, had the tipper received quid pro quo in exchange for the information, Newman and the like, would be guilty of insider trading. Quid pro quo seems trivial in the matter, either you acted upon the information or you didn’t.

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

Sources:

¹ http://fortune.com/2015/09/23/supreme-court-insider-trading-newman

² http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-05/insider-trading-cases-imperiled-as-top-u-s-court-spurns-appeal

Posted by Shakil Rahman.

For a car to be eligible for sale, it has to pass various tests which are placed in order to make sure that the cars for safe for use by the customers. Certain improvements are made to cars to also make sure that during an accident, there are some protections for the customer inside the car. GM motors ignition switch for the some small cars in the late 1990s and early 2000s were defective and it would shut of the engine during driving and this also prevented from the airbags from deploying during a crash. While GM executives and engineers became aware of the defective ignition switch, they did not attempt to fix the problem as it was assessed to be too costly. But by 2012, it was discovered that the defective switch also prevented the air bags from deploying. GM did not disclose the safety hazard to its customers, which led to over 120 deaths and multiple injuries. In 2014, GM started recalling cars with faulty ignition switch in order to fix it, and after the recall, multiple customers filed lawsuits against GM for the injuries caused due to the defective ignition switch. Lawsuits were filed against GM for false advertising due to not disclosing the defect to customer before buying the product. GM came to a settlement with the customers and agreed to pay $575 Million as compensation and also paid $900 million pay to US.

There are various points of interest in the case that are related to corporate responsibility, advertisements and negligence. The lawsuits that were filed against General Motors were for false advertising, and for injuries caused from malfunctioning products created by General Motors. General Motors car’s ignition switch was faulty and therefore sometimes it would shut down the engine while driving and since the engine shut down, the air bags would not deploy during an accident. So the defective ignition switch would cause the car to shut down while driving and therefore causing car accidents and also the air bags would not be deployed which would lead to the injury from the crash to be amplified. Therefore, General Motors is liable for the injuries caused by the defect, because their product is directly causing the accidents and the injuries that are related to it.

The other portion of the lawsuits was about false advertisement by General Motors about their cars. General Motors did not know about their defective ignition switch before 2005 but decided to not recall the cars after a risk assessment about the expense that will needed to fix the ignition switch. Now even if they decided to stop selling cars with faulty ignition switch, they still did not make an effort to fix the ignition switch for cars that were already sold and also did not warn the customers about the product’s defect. This is not only false advertisement but also negligence because the customers were going to be harmed even after using the product as it was intended to be used. So in conclusion, General Motors was liable for the injuries that were caused by their defective products because they did not inform the customers about the hazard of using the product and also for not attempting to fix a defect that could injure the customers.

The irony of the whole situation is that General Motors decided not to recall the vehicles in 2005 to fix the defect because of the fact that they came to the conclusion that it would too expensive. And now in 2015, their insistence on not recalling the cars back for repairs back in 2005 has led to a federal fine of $900 million and settlements of $575 million for the customers who were injured due to the cars faulty switch.

In the business world, when a company is attempting to look at the direction the company is going they need to see how their actions might affect the company in the long term. While paying for the repairs in 2005 may have been expensive, right now they have paid around $2 billion dollars in fine and are predicted to pay around $2.7 billion for repairing the recalled cars. And on top of that, the break of trust between GM and the customers are surely going to affect the company’s progress and profit.

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

Posted by Amber Piskunov.

The well known German car maker, Volkswagen, has made headlines regarding a scandal involving software that cheats diesel emissions testing. This software has affected over 11 million diesel fueled cars creating many lawsuits. The cheating software covered up nitrogen oxide emissions and underestimated greenhouse gas emissions and also fuel consumption. This scandal has created many more lawsuits against the car maker regarding the violations of the US environmental laws. Volkswagen has admitted to installing the software due to the investigation which also involves whistle-blowers of the company. There has been a lack of progress with this lawsuit because there is not a valid explanation as to whom allowed the decision for the cheating software.

The investigation is still ongoing; the EPA has called for the employees of Volkswagen to come forward with any information regarding the matter. They have until November 30th to provide information regarding the truth to the scandal. A statement was made by US law firm Jones Day stating, “Those who come forward before the deadline have nothing to fear from the company in the way of repercussions on the job such as being fired or held liable for damages.” However, this offer is only for those protected by the collective bargaining pact. This is a way for workers to feel less threatened by the scandal and to help the law firm gain information to further reach a decision. Volkswagen has said they have no influence over decisions made by other employees who decide to come forward. Volkswagen is trying to cover up as much information as they can to prevent further actions against them.

Volkswagen has been under the spotlight since the scandal was announced. Following the announcement, Volkswagen has had a drop in sales from all around the world. The company also announced they will begin fixing the emissions problem in January. Not only is Volkswagen beginning to fix the problem, they are also offering gift cards as a form of goodwill in hopes to help maintain their reputation. Compensation to car owners is still being discussed as the lawsuit continues.

The impact this has had on the car maker should have been looked upon before the decision was made to install the software. Volkswagen clearly knew this was an issue and still decided to produce the vehicles in hopes of profits. Not only did they get caught with illegally installing software that goes against the Environmental Protection Agency, they now have a massive lawsuit causing bad publicity and a decline in sales. All in all, Volkswagen has affected many aspects of their company along with the public and environment.

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

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/13/volkswagen-car-sales-fall-october-emissions-rigging-scandal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-to-offer-whistleblowers-impunity-on-emissions-cheating-scandal-1447317337

Posted by Patrick Osadebe 

Do you think the lawyers in America get paid as much as they deserve? How much do you think a lawyer makes in a year? According to a survey conducted in 2014 by the Association of Law Placement, the highest starting salary of one of the largest firm in the US with about 700 plus employee is $160,000. This number may seem to be high based on our present economy situations but the results are accurate.

From the survey, only 27% of firms actually responded and one third actually start their employees with $160,000. According to James Leiplod who is the current NALP executive director, he stated that “it is fair to say that law firm starting salaries are flat.” In contrast to that statement, the starting salaries was much higher before the economic recession and the figure is basically a reflection of changes in large firm market.

Different firms may have different starting salaries based on size and experience but according to the survey, the median starting salary is about $125,000, which has been unchanged since 2012.

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

Posted by Giancarlo Barrera.

First it was Target, Home Depot, and now, JPMorgan Chase.  They are the next victim under cyber attack. Chase is the biggest bank by assets in the US. They are also the dominate bank in New York City, where the majority of banks’ cooperate headquarters are located . “JPMorgan Chase has 65.8 million open credit card accounts, and 31.8 million of those accounts with sales activity, according to its most recent quarterly report. Chase also has 30.1 million checking accounts.”  According to what the FBI has been investigating, names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails were taken, but no passwords and social security numbers

It was reported that the hackers did not receive any money from this cyberattack. “The bank’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said that the company will spend $250 million this year on cybersecurity, but has been losing security employees to other banks with more “expected to leave soon.”

Giancarlo is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Sydney Kpundeh.

A disgruntled New Jersey father has brought products liability design defect and failure-to-warn claims against The New Jersey Port Authority Transit Corporation to recover for injuries arising out of a take-home asbestos exposure. The case’s premise surrounds the father’s daughter, who started to exhibit signs of mesothelioma, which he claims were a result of secondary exposure to friable asbestos fibers through direct contact with her father and while washing his asbestos-laden work clothing. The father is an employee of the Port as a train operator, yard operator, and supervisor. His job duties included the repair and maintenance of asbestos-contaminated air brake systems on the Port’s multiple unit locomotives. When his daughter’s symptoms started worsening, he filed a product liability design defect and failure-to-warn case against the Port and various manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive brake shoes. He claimed that his daughter’s injuries could have been caused by her exposure to asbestos dust created when he replaced the brakes on cars he worked on after hours.

When the case was put before the court, all parties moved for summary judgment. The Port’s argument was that federal legislation and court precedent preempted state tort claims related to locomotives. The automobile defendants argued that there was no evidence that the father’s contacts with automotive brake dust were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate to establish causation.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the injuries were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) under the doctrine of field preemption. The court ruled in such direction because they examined a number of previous decisions that had been considered in the scope of the LIA’s preemptive effect and found that the only way to ensure uniformity is that they must rule the same way.

The failure-to-warn claims that the father filed against the various manufacturers and sellers of asbestos-containing automobile brakes were dismissed summarily because there was insufficient evidence of medical causation linking their products to second-hand exposure. “[T]he evidence showed that the father replaced brakes shoes contaminated with asbestos on four occasions over a period of eight years.”

When he was asked about these times, he could not recall the names of the manufacturers of the replaced brake shoes nor could he recount the number of times he installed new brakes manufactured by the named defendants. Therefore, “it was clear that even if the father was exposed to one of each of the automotive defendants’ products over the eight-year period in question, this exposure was so limited that it failed to meet the frequency, regularity, and proximity test that is required for this type of case.” Hence, this is why the case was dismissed.

Sydney is a political science major and legal studies minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016. 

Posted by Gerald Wrona.

Interesting. That is one word to describe the NY Times report on the pre-trial proceedings of the Libyan Investment Authority’s (LIA) suit against Goldman Sachs (Anderson). Acting as broker-dealer to the sovereign wealth fund, Goldman established a relationship with the fund’s managers in 2007. A year later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was visiting Moammar Gadhafi in Libya’s capital to devise a “trade and investment agreement . . . which will allow the improvement of the climate for investment.” (Labbott). Shortly after that promising convention between the two political heads, Goldman and the Authority finalized the agreement and the bank sold derivative products totaling $1 billion to the LIA. Then the housing market “opened its mouth” and out came the demon of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Understandably, the LIA felt exploited. They bit the bullet. Their lawyers came to the London High Court armed with notions that those managing the sovereign wealth fund were ineffectual in understanding the investments presented to them by Goldman. To add insult to insult, they further asserted that the fund administrators were altered in their judgment by Goldman representatives’ leadership role in incidents allegedly involving the recreational consumption of alcohol and visits paid to what may have been brothels, or some other manufacturer of night entertainment, though a witness statement does not specify. Considering that it would never have been in Goldman’s interest to spend more time carousing then working on the deal with the authority, it is highly unlikely that the time spent in leisure outweighed the hours dedicated to the investigation of the necessary facts of the deal.

Though it is worth noting that Goldman has already been ousted for luring investors into crummy deals and then betting against those deals to increase revenue. This is how Goldman actually made money off the subprime mortgage crisis (Cohan).

Will evidence be disclosed that suggests Goldman dealt with the LIA in a similar way? It’s impossible to know. I believe the judge will find that the heart of the matter is whether Goldman conducted due diligence in their dealing with the LIA. For that reason, Robert Miles, one of the attorney’s representing Goldman, would do well to look to the Securities Act of 1933 for support. It states: “If a Broker Dealer conducts reasonable due diligence on a security and passes the information on to the buyer before a transaction, the Broker cannot be held liable for non-disclosure of information that was not found during the investigation.”  Securities Act of 1933, SEC §§ 38-1-28 (SEC 1933).

The trial is expected to start next year.

Gerald is a Business Administration and MIT major at Montclair State University, class of 2017.

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.

Snow shoveling always has been a means for young people to learn how to run a business. They learn how to advertise, interact with customers, work for a competitive wage, and learn something about service to the community. All businesses are at the service of others; and, snow shoveling, like delivering newspapers, or running a lemonade stand, give young people a way of learning responsibility.

Governor Christie just signed into law (before a major snowstorm) making it legal for residents to offer snow shoveling services without first applying for a permit. Last year, Bound Brook, New Jersey police stopped two entrepreneurial teens for going door-to-door and offering to shovel snow for a small fee. The police told the boys they were not allowed to solicit businesses without a permit. In Bound Brook, the license costs $450. The case made national headlines.

Republican State Sen. Mike Doherty sponsored the “‘right-to-shovel’” bill, stating it “was incredible that some towns wanted teens to pay expensive licensing fees just to clear snow off driveways.”

“The bill removes only licensing requirements for snow shoveling services, and only applies to solicitations made within 24 hours before a predicted snow storm. Towns with laws prohibiting door-to-door solicitation will be able to enforce those laws in all other circumstances.”

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

In October 2013, Shaneen Allen was arrested for carrying a registered gun across the New Jersey border. Allen, who is a Pennsylvania native, was going on a routine visit to New Jersey when she was pulled over. As she opened her glove compartment, the officer noticed the concealed weapon. Allen was questioned and arrested.

Allen’s punishment could have included up to three years in prison, but thankfully her attorney got her out of serious jail time. Allen was in hot water for almost two years. Recently, Governor Chris Christie issued a pardon to Allen and was praised by many gun rights groups. As an American, I feel that the Second Amendment is very important, not only to people as individuals, but mainly to show what this country was built upon.

Personally, I do not feel that Allen did anything wrong as she was a legal, registered carrier and had no bad intentions. Governor Christie did the right thing and helped defend a very important amendment that supports what our Founding Fathers would have wanted. Not many people would have been quick to pardon somebody in Allen’s situation, but luckily for her, Governor Christie had her back. People like Allen who are legal carriers are what keeps the country the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be. If more gun owners were registered like Allen, crime would be monitored easier and street violence would come to an ease.

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