Many companies provide workers with cell phones for company business. And they expect that their workers respect its proper use. But companies should afford their workers the same respect in terms of privacy.

In a recent report, a woman was fired for deleting an app her employer used to track her movements. She sued for invasion of privacy–a concept covered in Business Law class. Her employer used the phone to follow her off-hours, akin to a “‘prisoner’s ankle bracelet.’”

But the employer is not all wrong. As a traveling saleswoman, her employer had an interest in knowing her whereabouts, however, where they crossed the line was continuing to monitor her off-hours. Employees were not permitted to disable any GPS tracking on the phone and they had to keep it on 24/7.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the government is prohibited from invading someone’s privacy without probable cause and a warrant. The present case deals with the private sector, however. The woman probably had no right to delete the app, because it is company property since it is on a company phone; however, she still could have disabled the phone off-hours and not be in any trouble. Under California law, where she lives, employers are prohibited from following her in this manner when she is off-duty. Many other states have the same prohibitions.

One convenient way (and perhaps the woman in this case could have used) of stopping someone from using a cell phone as a GPS tracker is to put the cell phone in the refrigerator. Apparently, that will block the signals coming in and going out.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

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

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

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

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

Los Angeles will pay 24 million dollars to two men who spent decades in prison for crimes they did not commit. In one case, lawyers and a team of students from Loyola Law School challenged a key witness’s testimony. In 1979, Kash Delano Register was charged with the armed robbery and murder of Jack Sasson, 78, after eyewitness testimony placed him at the scene at the time of the shooting. The witness told police she heard gunshots and she saw Register fleeing the scene. The witness selected Register out of a photo lineup, but her sisters told police that her story was untrue. No murder weapon was recovered and no fingerprints were found. Based solely on this witness’s testimony, a jury found Register guilty and he spent 34 years in prison.

The witness’s sister testified she tried to tell a detective that her sister had lied, but in response, the investigator allegedly put a finger to his lips indicating she should keep quiet about it. Her other sister told the police that she was lying, but even her pleas were ignored. Register’s attorneys claimed that the witness selected him under the threat of being prosecuted for credit card forgery and a recent theft if she failed to choose someone out of the lineup.

In the other case, Bruce Lisker was accused of murdering his mother. “At the time of the murder, Lisker, who had a reputation for fighting with his mother and a history of drug abuse, told police he saw her lying in the foyer and broke into the home to help her. They did not believe him.” During a hearing challenging the conviction, lawyers undermined or disproved key elements of the prosecution’s case, including that a bloody shoe print that could not have been made by Lisker’s shoes. His attorneys claimed “that the lead detective ignored evidence that Lisker’s friend may have been a possible suspect.”

In every arrest and criminal prosecution, someone’s liberty is at stake, and these cases illustrate the importance that prosecutors and police get it right. Money can always be replaced. But no one can ever get back all those years lost in prison, as a result of being falsely accused.

Posted by Bailey Obetz.

A contract is an agreement that can be enforced in court; it is formed by two or more parties, each of whom agrees to perform or to refrain from performing some act now or in the future. For a contract to be enforced something of value must be exchanged by all parties involved. Other elements that are considered in determining if a contract is enforceable are meeting of the minds, duration, and value of things exchanged. Meeting of minds is merely a phrase used in contract law that describes the intentions — a mutual understanding in the formation of the contract. The element of duration refers to the length of time it will take for the parties will complete their part of the contract. Confusion and interferences of duration can disrupt the meeting of the minds regarding the contract. The consideration element is something of value received or promised such as money. The best way to avoid hindering enforceability of a contract is to make all provisions clear and be sure they are understood by all parties involved.

Many times a dispute arises when there is a promise of future performance and in many cases it is uncertain if any contract exists at all. This article recommends that the best way to ensure an enforceable contract is to hire an attorney. Many future problems can be avoided if an attorney is hired and creates a detailed agreement. Also, an attorney can help a party avoid creating illegal or unenforceable provisions in a contract. Contracts are particularly important in the business atmosphere because they can enhance or break relationships that business men/women encounter on a daily basis.

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

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.’”

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.

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/.

Members of organized crime, drug dealers, and terrorists transact their “business” in cash to hide their tracks. As part of a scheme to launder money (make it look it was earned legitimately), criminals will deposit their ill-earned cash in bank accounts. In response, Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act, requiring banks to assist the government in catching money launderers.

Under the Act, banks are required to report any cash transaction or combination of cash transactions in excess of $10,000 to the IRS.  Knowing this, criminals resort to structuring. Structuring is the deliberate parcelling of a large cash deposit into a series of smaller transactions in order to avoid detection by regulators. When bank officials suspect structuring is occurring, they are required to file a suspicious activity report, or SAR, and notify regulators of what they believe is happening.

In Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994), the Supreme Court found that government had to prove that defendant acted with knowledge that structuring is unlawful. As a result, Congress removed the “willfulness” requirement making it easier for the government tor prosecute structuring cases. The IRS, however, has been seizing assets of legitimate businesses and individuals without any proof or any charges filed. Small business and individuals can be a target. In one case, the IRS seized $66,000 from an Army sergeant’s college savings account, even though the sergeant was told by the bank teller to make smaller deposits in order to avoid taxes. Removing the “willfulness” requirement makes structuring a strict liability crime.

In a written statement, Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, said, “After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year . . . IRS-CI will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with ‘legal source’ structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level.”