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.’”

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.

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.

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 Daniel Lamas.

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

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

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

Posted by Shanice Cooper.

In an article by Forbes Magazine entitled, Fake IRS Agent Scam Targets Public, Even Feds, while Identity Theft Tax Fraud is Rampant, Robert Wood outlines the seemingly growing issue of identity theft. This particular article takes a close look at how horrible identity thieves are especially during the inevitable tax season.

Identity theft according to Wikipedia, occurs when someone uses another’s personal identifying information, like their name, social security number, address or credit card number, without their permission or knowledge, to commit fraud or other injurious crimes. Identity thieves use the tax season to their advantage and flourish in it by secretly getting individuals’ personal information. How do they do this? One way is by simply calling an unsuspecting person and asking for their social security number, and bank account data: “The plan is frighteningly simple. Steal Social Security numbers, file tax returns showing false refund claims, and have the refunds electronically deposited.” The person doing the crime would call an individual and impersonate a government official; they would intimidate the person into giving up their personal information. “There is also a massive phone scam in which an impostor claiming to work for the IRS calls and intimidates you. You need to pay right away, and many do.” The article gave two popular ways in which identity thieves often steal information, but there are other ways.

In most cases, the taxpayer finds out that their social security number has been tampered with once they attempt to file a real tax return. However, by the time most people realize that they have been dealing with an imposter, the thief is long gone and often times untraceable. This tax season alone has had over 100,000 people affected by tax scams and is going down as the worst year for scams. “[T]he Treasury inspector general has already received more than 366,000 complaints, more than 3,000 people have been conned out of a total of $15.5 million.” These are outstanding numbers of innocent people who are being victimized by identity theft and tax scamming.

In conclusion, I think identity theft is horrible and no one should have to worry about having their information tampered. I personally know of individuals who have been affected by identity theft and have had to go through incredibly long processes to recover their credit. “In January 2015, a Maryland woman and former bank employee, was sentenced to 87 months in prison for her role in a massive and sophisticated identity theft . . . seeking refunds of at least $40 million.” Once the fraudster is caught they are faced with a number of felonies. In the end, committing the crime is not worth it.

Shanice is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

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 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.

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 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.

IKEA, the popular low-cost furniture manufacturer, recalled 27 million “Malm” dressers.   Three children were recently killed as a result of the defect in design.

The company was on notice of the tendency of the furniture to be top-heavy, but did nothing to address the issue until the death of a 22-month-old child earlier this year.  In addition to the recall, the company offered to send crews to people’s homes to tether the dresser to the wall.

“On average, one child dies every two weeks from falling TVs or furniture. At least six deaths have been connected to Ikea’s Malm dresser.”

Posted by Azhanae Evely.

I am going to tell you about my first encounter with being inside of a court room.  I was given a ticket for “No parking in a handicap zone.”  Through this experience, I learned a lot about how to prepare for a court hearing and what it is like being in court.

I live in East Orange, New Jersey, and there is a requirement for the overnight parking.  In front of where I normally park are two handicap spots back to back.

I woke up one morning finding a parking ticket. The ticket stated, “Court Appearance Required: The undersigned further states that there are just and reasonable grounds to believe that you committed the above offense and will file this complaint in this court charging you with that offense.”

The very first thing to do if you get a ticket is read the ticket. I had never thought to turn the ticket over and read the print there. Had I not read the back of the ticket, I would have been missed these words:  “If you intend to plead not guilty, to the offense charged in this complaint and summons and have a trial, you must notify the court administrator . . . of your intentions at least 7 days prior to your scheduled court date. If you fail to notify the Court Administrator, it may be necessary for you to make 2 court appearances.” The original court date that was printed on the ticket was 3/3/16. However, when I called into the court’s administrator’s office 7 days prior to the court date, I learned that they had never set a court date. Had I not called, I would have gone on the date given to me just to have to come back because it was not scheduled.

The next thing I learned is how to fight a ticket. The first thing I did was take pictures of my car in the spot. I took multiple pictures from different angles. The weather also worked to my advantage because at the time it snowed a lot and the salt on the ground actually made a ring around where my car was which gave sufficient proof that I did not tamper with the car to make it look like I was never over the line.

I looked up the statutes on what is an offense to parking in a handicap zone. The New Jersey Handicapped Parking Law in (C.394:4-207.9) says, “Access to parking spaces, curb cuts, or other improvements designed to provide accessibility, shall be unobstructed.”  I found that having the information helped when going into court because it can aid you in determining whether to plead guilty or not guilty. I had decided that I wanted to plead not guilty.

In East Orange, they have everyone that has tickets for parking sit in one room, which I found weird because everyone could hear you.  I can see why they do it; it is about having an open trial. The first thing that is done is the roll call. After a little while, the prosecutor comes into the court room and calls everyone up one-by-one by last name.

The first thing the prosecutor asked me was why I was there. After telling him what kind of ticket I got, he asked me why I committed the offense. This threw me off because we learned in business law class that you are innocent until proven guilty; yet, he was taking the stance as if I was already guilty of the crime.  So, I told him I wasn’t in the spot. This is where I showed him the pictures that I had taken.

The pictures indicated where the signs began as well as that there was no sign behind my car. I also showed him that there was a car in that handicap spot, which means I was not obstructing the spot. After they hear from you, they either tell you the best plan of action, or like in my case, just tell you to sit back down.

While in court they do ask you to turn off your devices, so my suggestion is to always have hard copies. The judge was the one to read everyone their rights and even talked about how they could appeal. He even mentioned the fact that the court can decide whether to go to trial depending on the severity of the case. When it was my turn, they asked me to state my name for the court records which I did. Then at that point the judge let me know because of the sufficient proof I provided his prosecutor, the ticket would be dismissed. It is almost like depending on what you show the prosecutor in the beginning affects the judge’s decision.

So, because I took the time to actually make sure I had images of that moment really helped me. It was better going in knowing as much as you can about the system, because you do not ever know what can really happen.

Azhanae is a business law student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

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.”

Posted by Deena Khalil.

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

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

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

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

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 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 Abier Mustafa.

Cell phone Company, AT&T, has agreed to pay back $105 million in what is being called ”the largest cramming settlement in history.” AT&T has been adding unauthorized charges to tens of thousands of customers’ monthly bills. The charges are usually for the amount of $9.99 per month, coming from third-party services, including trivia, horoscopes, and love tips.  ”AT&T is accused of keeping at least 35% of the fees, as well as obscuring the charges on bills and preventing customers from securing full refunds.”

There have been previous lawsuits against other cell phone providers besides AT&T.  For example, the Federal Trade Commission has filed a similar lawsuit against T-Mobile in the past also due to unethical charges to customers.  “For too long, consumers have been charged on their phone bills for things they did not buy,” Wheeler, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, said- “It’s estimated that 20 million consumers this year are caught in this kind of trap, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.”

AT&T has released a statement saying that they have provided customers with “Premium Short Messaging Services” in the past. However, they have discontinued third-party billing.  To resolve all claims, $80 million of the settlement has been set aside for customer refunds, along with $25 million in penalties due to regulators.

So if you’re an AT&T customer and have been wrongfully charged, you may be eligible for a refund!

Abier is a finance major at Montclair State 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 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.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  Abercrombie allegedly denied a muslim woman a job at a Tulsa, Oklahoma store during an interview.  She was wearing a headscarf, which Abercrombie determined violated its “look policy.”  The “look policy” at the time was classic East Coast collegiate style.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie ruling the muslim woman never indicated she needed a religious accommodation as required under federal law.  The EEOC argued Abercrombie was on notice that an accommodation was warranted because the woman was wearing the headscarf at the interview.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business operating with less than 15 employees (religious institutions exempted) must provide an accommodation for an employee’s religious observances, unless doing so is an undue burden for the company.  Examples of undue burdens could include, but are not limited to, costing the company more than ordinary administrative costs; workplace efficiency diminished in other areas of the business; infringing upon another employee’s job rights or benefits; impairing workplace safety; adding burdens on co-workers by forcing them to carry on the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work; or conflicts with another law or regulation.

The High Court will decide the case next year.

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 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 Shakil Rahman.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted 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 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 Justin Ihnken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**About Circled Square Alternative Investments

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

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

Sources:

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

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

Posted by Jessica Page.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a huge salmonella outbreak traced to peanut butter produced by the Peanut Corporation of America. Nine people died from this incident and 700 were reported ill. The $30 million company was shut down and liquidated after the incident and the CEO, Stewart Parnell, was indicted and prosecuted. In late September, he was sentenced 28 years in prison.

What’s intriguing about this article is the comparison to the GM faulty ignition case. In this particular incident, the defect caused 124 deaths and over 200 injuries. GM has recently settled for $900 million and a three year prosecution agreement. The major difference between the two cases though – indictment of employees. Preet Bharara, one of the best federal prosecutors in Manhattan, explained, “it is unusually difficult to prosecute auto industry executives” and because of the national auto safety laws, there is a call for punishing the corporation as a whole, rather than any one individual.

The main conviction in the salmonella case is the fact that Parnell committed fraud by “knowingly introducing tainted peanut butter paste into interstate commerce.” The fact of the matter is though, there were GM executives who knew about the faulty ignition but failed to report it within the five-day span. The company itself was fined as a corporation for this matter, but there was not specific indictment of GM executives. The real issue at hand is how much harder it is to prosecute auto executives when it comes to cases of product liability. There is currently a bill that many senators are working to pass that would make this process easier and hold executives accountable, if they were knowledgeable of the faulty auto product or provided false statements to consumers, as GM did. This could change future product liability cases within the auto industry and as Senator Blumenthal stated, “one sentence like Parnell’s [within the automotive industry] would change auto safety dramatically and enduringly.”

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jessica Page.

General Motors Co. has recently been in the news for its faulty ignition switches in over 2.6 million of the company’s Chevrolet Cobolts and other models that were recalled in 2014. The faulty ignition switches were found to “slip out of the run position and disable features including air bags.” This product defect has been connected to over 100 deaths and over 200 injuries. In September, the U.S. Justice Department brought a criminal case against GM. They agreed to pay $900 million to settle and a $35 million fine for not reporting the defect.

On Monday, Judge Robert Gerber stated that it is possible GM will also face punitive damages to compensate consumers who were harmed by the defect, even though the company sought to block plaintiffs making these claims. Judge Gerber has suggested the punitive damages could amount to billions of dollars if the legal claims are settled or successful. This is partially due to the fact that GM admitted in the original settlement that they “[mislead] regulators about the defective switch and [failed] to recall millions of vehicles.”

Another interesting factor for this case is the bankruptcy restructuring GM went through. In the restructure, they assumed responsibility for “future product-liability cases involving older vehicles.” Since this is so broad, it is likely that GM could be held responsible for claims on both compensatory and punitive damage because of its knowledge of the defect and conduct, but only to the extent that the “New GM” holds. GM has agreed to spend over $500 million to settle these cases and over the next few months, the company is expected to face even more death and injury cases that have yet to be settled.

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

A threat to European nations, Facebook is being seen as a social media giant who are stripping Europeans from their freedom. Facebook is being accused of “collecting digital information about people who are not its users,” by the Belgian Court’s. Many of the “Continent’s data watchdogs,” including the European Court of Justice, have been giving Facebook and other American technology companies a difficult time for the way they “gain access to, manage and use people’s digital information” because to these European “watchdogs,” Facebook is violating Europe’s strict data protection rules that preserves individual’s privacy to the same power as the “fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

The hearing was held in Brussels, Belgium on Monday, November 9th, where Facebook was denied the ability to “collect and store online information from people in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network” stating that Facebook did not have “individuals’ consent to gather the information.” With this decision, the Belgian Court took further action by stating that if Facebook fails to comply with the court’s decision, they’ll receive a “daily fine worth up to $270,000.” Facebook didn’t settle and in response they stated that they have used “cookies for more than five years without facing privacy complaints,” and that they are going to appeal the decision to the Belgian Court of Appeal. As the wait continues, Facebook is being further investigated by five European privacy regulators, which are from Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, to see whether or not the “company’s new privacy conditions run afoul of their countries’ domestic data protection rules.”

In the end, Facebook is trying to combat these accusations by stating that only the Irish data protection authority has jurisdiction over its new privacy conditions because Facebook’s international headquarters are in Dublin. The position grew vastly in the last month after the European Court of Justice “gave national authorities greater powers over how companies like Facebook and Google store online data.” Facebook will continue to fight for what they believe are their rights, despite the judges’ ruling that the United States do not offer sufficient protection for Europeans if their data was misused by companies or by government agencies. The issue is still recently new and there are many situations yet to be settled.

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

Blog Business Law is an educational resource for Business Law students on the university level. Its purpose is to present current issues in business law and provide commentary and opinion. Both graduate and undergraduate students of Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, and Montclair State University, Feliciano School of Business post on a wide variety of topics. Some of the areas covered are contracts, business torts, white collar crime, cybercrime, and First Amendment law.

Professor Victor N. Metallo, MAE, MBA, MLIS, JD, teaches at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Department of Economics and Legal Studies, and Montclair State University, School of Business, Department of Accounting, Law and Taxation. He developed “Blog Business Law” to inspire students to be aware of the legal environment in business through researching current events and practice writing in a concise manner.

This blog/website is for educational purposes only to give the reader general information and not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the blog/website publisher(s). The blog/website should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. This site is not affiliated with Seton Hall University or Montclair State University.

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 […]

0 comments

Posted by Ola Mohammed Alghasham. The world encounters cases where frauds are committed by white collar criminals. Executives whom fight against fraud are beneficial for the company. Although the board and management make strong efforts in composing fraud preventing policies, there are several behavioral, environmental, and fraud assessment elements which are ignored during the composition […]

0 comments

Posted by Dylan Beland. One of the most talked about issues in business law news is the Wells Fargo scandal. The story behind this scandal is that the Department of Justice and many attorneys are investigating the possibility that Wells Fargo has millions of fake accounts opened at their banks. The result of the investigation was Wells […]

0 comments

Posted by Steven Otto. The San Francisco rating company, Yelp, is not found liable for negative reviews posted on its site. This is because it relies on ratings posted by users, not the company itself. A federal appeals court on Monday, September 12, dismissed a libel lawsuit filed against Yelp by Douglas Kimzey, the owner […]

0 comments

Posted by Abigail Hofmann. Francisco Garcia of the Sacramento Kings was lifting weights on a Ledraplastic exercise ball on October 9th, 2009. The 195 pound player was lifting two 80 pound weights while on the ball when it suddenly burst beneath him. This supposed “burst resistant” ball advertised its ability to withstand weight up to […]

0 comments

Posted by Katie Kontos.

Years ago a YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dLU6fk9QY) entitled Look Up went viral that urged the public to put down their phones and other technology to pay attention to the world around them. The most moving line says, “So look up from your phone, shut down the display take in your surroundings make the most of today.”

Well DeToya Moody, a 30 year old woman from Georgia, has proved in her court case against Allison Escott that it is possible to benefit from keeping your phone in front of your face. Moody claims that she never saw the orange ladder of a bucket truck prior to smacking her head on it one sunny afternoon. The ladder had been raised across a public sidewalk and surrounded by orange cones the first three times Moody passed it. Seeming to be a completely safe path to walk, the woman made it from her car to the store, back to her car, and then to the ATM without a problem. However, upon walking back to her car from the ATM, Moody, staring intently at her cell phone, did not see that the worker operating the truck had lowered the ladder and proceeded to walk directly into it. The physician who examined her after the incident diagnosed her with a mild head concussion, post-traumatic headaches, and an indentation on her head from the contact.

Moody and her lawyer attempted to settle out of court with the company owner of the truck and the worker operating the truck during the accident, but with the company offering to settle for $5,000 after being asked $75,000, it went to trial. So, after going to court the DeKalb County jury determined that Moody would be awarded $161,000. This is a great example of why many cases are settled by mediation or arbitration, because there is no way of knowing what a jury will decide when a suit is brought to court. The award could have been $175,000 but the jury deemed that the accident was eight percent Moody’s fault so they gave her 92% of the award.

Again, this is a perfect example of why most cases never go to trial. In court, Moody’s lawyer only asked the jury for $155,000 but they decided that the compensatory damages should be more than that.

After the trial “Robert Finlayson II of Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins, who defended the company that was using the truck said via email that he would contest the verdict.‘We were disappointed with the verdict, and we do plan to challenge it at the trial level and on appeal,’ said Finlayson, who described the case as well tried on both sides.”

I think that the monetary value awarded to Moody should, as it did, cover any medical expenses, but the plaintiff was right when he noted that the defense against Moody, that she wasn’t paying attention, was “the common sense argument,” and therefore, awarding her $161,000 is outrageous. This woman was clearly not paying attention and there is video evidence “showing the woman engrossed in her cellphone as she struck the ladder and collapsed onto the concrete.”

All in all, this trial just goes to prove that you never know what will happen when you take a case to court, and while it probably rarely works out this way, sometimes having your eyes glued to your phone helps you win $161,000.

Katie is a social and behavioral science major, minor in business and psychology, at Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Luke Iorio.

It was deemed the trial of the century–a trial with so many twist and turns it has sparked books to be written about it as well as a TV mini series. It is the O.J. trial, and there was a recent discovery that could finally provide all the answers.

The one thing missing from the prosecutor’s case was the murder weapon. There is a chance that the weapon has been discovered 22 years after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. A retired policeman has handed in a knife that was found by a construction worker in 1998 on Simpson’s property.  The knife is currently being tested for DNA.

There is still skepticism, amongst many people, that this knife will end up having anything to do with the murders. It is a little suspicious that this knife suddenly appears in the middle of the airing of the mini series that is based on the murders and trial.

The main question to be asked is: what happens if the knife is connected to the murder and the DNA comes back connected to OJ? Because of double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment, OJ will be safe from being back on trial. Unless the trial goes to a federal court, the only problem is that there is a slim chance that a federal issue could possibly arise from a murder case.

The people that have a chance to face legal punishment if the knife is linked to OJ Simpson are the people that helped keep the knife hidden or, if his friends helped conceal any evidence. Those are the people that could end up going to jail not OJ.

It is important to conclude saying that it is very unlikely that the knife has any connection to the murders and it is just one of the hundred “murder weapons” that have been turned in over the years. But it is something to think about.

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

Posted by Tejas Oza.

Disney has made a change on how they accommodate children with disabilities. First, there was a Guest Assistance Card (GAC) which let the children with disabilities first in line. Now they changed the policy to that children have to wait to a specific time to go on each ride. “I have known many autistic children,” says Arias, “They tend to be excited very easily. When they go to Disney World, it is a major highlight in their lives. You can’t tell an autistic child to come back in an hour – because once they see the ride – they are ready to go. The way their minds are structured they just cannot handle being told to come back later.”(Craig https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com).

This causes stress for these children, which is very unjust, but stress is not the only outcome to this situation; other possibilities include, anxiety and meltdown behaviors. Disney disagrees with this and believes that the case has “no merit,” which means that Disney believes there is no proof.

This suit interested me because it included high damages, which we recently went over in class. This case is interesting because not only does it help Disney in financial situations but also in more of a family setting because the amount of kids that goes to the amusement park will rise very fast.

“According to a Centers for Disease Control press release on March 27, 2014, as of 2010, one out of every 68 American children is considered autistic.”( Craig https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com)  I learned a lot from researching this case.

Tejas is a marketing major at Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Alexander Sayour.

Retirement is a thought that many hardworking Americans seek towards saving up for during the latter years in life. Barring some rare instances, the path to retirement involves saving up enough money to live comfortably which has grown to be much harder in today’s times. A common way of doing so has been to invest for retirement with the help of financial professionals with either simply individual accounts or with 401k’s. There has always been much discussion over how these professionals invest retirees money and finally the Labor Department has stepped in to clear up any grey areas. This action by the government will shift the emphasis of retirement funds into lower-cost investments.

“The marketing material that I see from many firms is ‘We put our customers first’” Thomas E. Perez, the Security of Labor, said in an interview. “This is no longer a marketing slogan. It’s the law.”

These new effects won’t take effect until at least next spring and may be challenged in court, but it is definitely at least an attempt at tackling this ongoing debate of money management. This is not to say that financial professionals are doing anything wrong; it is just to prevent the chances of there being more self-driven choices in investing. For example, professionals are required to recommend only suitable investments but they may influence a more expensive mutual fund that would pay them much higher commission. The Obama Administration tackled this notion with extensive academic research estimating the conflict of interest cost Americans about $17 billion last year which led to annual returns that are 1% lower. An important part of going after the conflict of interest is that it could impact the financial industry as a whole and accentuate compliance to the rules put forth by the government.

The only problem with this new obligation is that it could impact investors greatly, especially considering commissions would be limited with a push to flat annual fees for managing accounts. Jules Gaudreau, the president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, was pleased with some of the changes but has some fears about them as well. She said “We remain concerned that the costs to implement such a rule will result in higher costs and reduced access to advice, service, and products for retirement savers.”

Investors will be protected when rolling over a 401k to an IRA because it is just considered one-time advice given, in addition to performance disclosures not being mandated because it is hard to justify projections being made. All in all, there was $7.3 trillion in individual retirement accounts and $6.7 trillion held in 401k plans at the end of 2015, according to the Investment Company Institute, so this is definitely a monumental issue that is going to take time to address and tweak over several years if not decades.

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

Posted by Alexander Sayour.

Mergers are very common for both small and large companies. New York based company Pfizer just attempted merging with Allergan because of the incentive of moving corporate headquarters to Ireland, which in return could reduce its tax bill. This would’ve been a $150 billion merger, the second largest in history, except Obama called it off due to a new crack down from the administration on corporate tax avoidance. The attempted takeover was an example of an inversion which is in simple terms a U.S. Multinational merging with a foreign company to change its legal tax residence for lower rates. Because of these new rules for cracking down on this. many expected the merger would not go through.

Pfizer has said since being denied from merging they would look at other methods to boost their share prices. An example listed being separating the company up which will be decided on by the end. Obama went on to discuss the problem with these loopholes claiming that the laws are poorly designed. Additionally he goes on to say that loopholes “Come at the expense of middle class families because that lost revenue has to be made up somewhere. It means that we’re not investing as much as we should in schools, in making college more affordable, in putting people back to work, in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure, creating more opportunities for our children.”

Loopholes are definitely a pivotal issue at hand for our country and during our presidential debates–something that we are finally addressing now.

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

Posted by Andrew Nguyen.

Uber is one of the most popular apps that are around today. This application allows users to call upon a driver to take them to a destination of their choice. Uber has become a widely-used application that proves to be beneficial. However, the company is facing a lawsuit regarding their price surges. It was said that CEO Travis Kalanick faces the lawsuit that alleges that he conspired with Uber drivers to increase prices for more profit. The case is Meyer vs Kalanick. Due to the quick growing popularity of the app, the price surged. The suit alleged that the Uber drivers conspired with CEO Travis Kalanick to rig the prices for the rides.

When a user is in a popular area, the price increases due to the amount of users that are around who also want to use the app. This conspiracy was looked on to after New Year’s Eve when the prices went up to $200. The high-price surge had customers outraged by the unrealistic cost for a ride. The company appears to take advantage of how desperate users need to get a driver. By increasing their prices, users have no choice but to either accept it or find an alternative.

In the scheme of things, Uber has done nothing wrong. Sure the prices may be outrageous at times, but that’s how a business is, supply and demand. Uber drivers are independent contractors who make money off of how much they make from driving. Although the prices may be higher than expected sometimes, users are not forced to use the app. The app is available for the convenience of users. No wrong has been done regarding this company. It is tough making a living and Uber is trying to make a statement that their company is an asset to the users.

There are many alternative ways of getting to a destination. However, Uber is probably one of the most convenient ways. What people pay for their Uber ride is not by force. It is a decision that they have to make whether they want to or not. Uber gives an estimated fare price before calling for one, so users typically have an idea on how much they are paying.

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

Posted by Andrew Nguyen.

One of the latest lawsuits involve Hulk Hogan and a media organization named Gawker. Hulk Hogan is one of the most iconic faces in wrestling entertainment. The lawsuit is about how Gawker released a sex tape of Hulk Hogan and a woman without his knowledge of the tape. Hulk Hogan claimed that he had no knowledge that he was being recorded and what happened was an invasion of his privacy.

Gawker claimed that Hulk Hogan is emotionally and mentally unstable due to his career and marriage falling apart. Also, the recent incident of the case of Hulk Hogan’s alleged racist act during his career in the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) did not work in his favor either. Gawker is claiming that the lawsuit was not about the sex tape at all, but the downfall of Hulk Hogan’s career.

No matter what the reason is, the tape was recorded without the consent of either party. The privacy of Hulk Hogan was violated and he should be compensated for that. Although his reputation is not the best, the release of the sex tape did not make things better. We all have our good days and our bad. Hulk Hogan is human like the rest of us. We all make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes can’t be fixed. However, one’s privacy should not be able to get released to the world.

Hulk Hogan does have the right to sue in my opinion. The recording occurred without his knowledge and that is a big invasion of privacy. Looking at it if the roles were to be reversed, no one would want that to happen to them. Something like that should not be released to the public where people and potentially friends and family can see it.

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

Posted by Pooja Patel.

The Federal Trade Commission charged a technology company, Vulcun, for installation issues with the game,“Running Fred,” and for unfairly taking-over consumers phones and installing apps on their phones without their permission.  “Running Fred” is a Google Chrome application that runs on Android phones. This game has become quite popular, and  is used by more than 200,000 consumers.

The two founders of Vulcun, Ali Moiz and Murtaza Hussein, purchased the game. They replaced the name of that app to “Weekly Android Apps” and made several changes. Through the changes, the two founders were able to attack consumers with ads. The FTC states that ““Because the Weekly Android Apps hid and accepted the default Android permissions request, these mobile apps could have gained immediate access to the user’s address book, photos, location, and persistent device identifiers. In addition, once installed, the apps could have gained access to other information, including financial and health information, by executing additional malicious code on the consumer’s mobile device.” Because of this, many people complained about not having privacy on their phone, and also “that the browser extension was opening multiple tabs and windows on their browser advertising various apps.”  The company’s actions seems to be an invasion of privacy.

Vulcun finally agreed to stop these unfair acts.  Now, the company is required to tell consumers about the types of information their products will accessed, how it will be used, and display any built-in permission notices associated with the installation of the app advertisement service. Vulcun also has no rights to hide from consumers whether their product have been endorsed by third parties.

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

Posted by Pooja Patel.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Volkswagen for advertising a false claim that their vehicles are environmental friendly and “clean diesel.” Volkswagen is a German manufactured car company. The vehicles that are being affected with this law suit are 2009 through 2015 Volkswagen TDI diesel models of Jetta’s, Passat’s, and Touareg SUVs, also the TDI Audi models. The sale price for these affected vehicles ranges from the least expensive $22,000 Volkswagen to the most expensive $125,000 Audi model. Volkswagen advertised its “clean diesel” vehicles through major advertisement such as Super Bowl Ads, print ads, and of course social media advertisement.

Volkswagen claims their cars are “low-emission, environmentally friendly” and  “met emissions standards and would maintain a high resale value.” These claims are alleged to be false. Volkswagen claimed that their cars had low emission and it is “clean diesel.” This means the vehicle would produce low Nitrogen Oxide by 90 percent or less. Instead, the FTC complaint states that the vehicle produces up to 4,000 percent more that the legal limit. This is harmful and dangerous to the customers, since it can cause health problems as well as environmental problems. Also, Volkswagen claimed that they met the emission standards and also would maintain a high resale value, but these claims were also false. According to the FTC, Volkswagen has installed illegal software that helped it pass emission standards.

The chairwoman of FTC, Edith Ramirez, stated that “Our lawsuit seeks compensation for the consumers who bought affected cars based on Volkswagen’s deceptive and unfair practices.” Volkswagen is also looking at a potential of $20 billion-dollar fine for violating the clean air regulations. The lawsuit is still yet to be settled therefore; exact fines are not yet confirmed. But Volkswagen’s spokeswoman, Jeannine Ginivan, responded to this issue and said, “Our most important priority is to find a solution to the diesel emissions matter and earn back the trust of our customers and dealers as we build a better company.”

In my opinion, the actions Volkswagen took were definitely unethical; they were more concerned about gaining profits. They also put consumers’ lives at risk. I think the Federal Trade Commission did the right thing by suing the Volkswagen company.

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

Posted by Michael DeCandia.

Chipotle is a fast food industry that has been a growing corporation, which serves high quality food for a cheap price. Almost everyone knew about the “Crisis of Chipotle.”

The E. Coli incident was first noticed in Washington and Oregon. The E. Coli started to spread to other Chipotle’s across the nation. It only took a couple of week for the bacteria to find its way to the east coast. In the article, There’s a Crisis at Chipotle states “Boston health officials said the cause was norovirus, a common virus, while citing the restaurant for two health violations: improper handling of poultry and the presence of a sick employee (Ferdmand, Bhattarai).”  This is a serious issue for many companies and is a challenge that Chipotle has to and will overcome.

Chipotle will rise up again. A Chipotle store closing is a sad thing to watch when you know that almost every person you know loves the food. I do not think Chipotle should be scared about losing their customers even though this outbreak happened. Mistakes are always made, which is what make us human. Even though Chipotle’s stock went down thirty percent they will overcome this issue.  Learning from our mistakes and having it never happen again is failing forward and not backward.

In the article, There’s a Crisis at Chipotle, Chad Molly states, “There is no way we’re even considering going in there today. It’s company wide, all over the country, which means it’s a problem (Ferdmand, Bhattarai).” I believe a company should deserve a second chance in most circumstances. Many people still go to Chipotle because they have never had a bad experience, so they continue to go to a place that is relativity cheap for good food that people enjoy, like myself.

Chipotle is going beyond the requirements, so that this incident will never happen again.

Michael is a marketing major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Rizzlyn Melo.

The car-manufacturing company, Tesla, has been battling with New Jersey government officials for the right to sell their premium electric cars in the state. Tesla differs from other car-manufacturers because they sell their vehicles directly from small, independently-owned sites instead of large dealerships. Many of Tesla’s facilities are actually located in various malls in New Jersey. The issue with this practice is that under New Jersey law, cars can only be sold through registered dealerships. In the article, this legislation “was put into place at a time when small local dealers were perceived as vulnerable to the moves of major national manufacturers.” Because of Tesla, this law has been targeted and challenged by various carmakers and consumer-rights groups. Fortunately, it can be said that their efforts have not gone in vain. In March, Governor Chris Christie signed new legislation that allows Tesla to operate at four sites in New Jersey. Shortly after this was signed, New Jersey lawmakers approved an amendment granting zero emission car manufacturers the right to operate dealerships in the state.

Tesla’s success story in New Jersey shows that the market is modernizing. Legislation that was once effective in the past can actually be disadvantageous in the present day. While the law requiring sales through registered dealerships was once helpful to small businesses, it prevented a company from potentially helping the environment. Tesla only produces zero-emission, luxury cars. They are a company seeking to reduce society’s carbon footprint by introducing a sleek, fashionable car to the market that does not require gas. The government’s initial refusal to allow this company to conduct its business in New Jersey made legislators look like they would sacrifice an environmental advancement for the sake of large dealerships. Tesla’s win in New Jersey represents more than the right to sell cars; it is a win for the evolving market that is in need of environmentally friendly products.

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

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by MaryAnn Spoto, brings to question whether or not Rutgers University violated the New Jersey open public meetings law, during one of their meetings held back in September of 2008. Francis McGovern Jr, a lawyer as well as audience member of this meeting, objected to the way these meetings were promoted and handled. McGovern noted that audience members waited over four hours while board members discussed issues behind closed doors. Once the board of governors finally reassembled, many audience members had grown tired of waiting and already left.

McGovern also noted that the Rutgers board of governors failed to mention topics discussed behind closed doors such as talk of Rutgers new football stadium. She stated, “This case is about governmental transparency,” and believes these long and tedious closed sessions dissuade public attendance. During her case, she asked that the court make it mandatory for Rutgers to hold public meetings first. She believed that by not bringing to light all issues discussed among Board of Governors, that Rutgers violated the law.

Although many may argue that McGovern had reason behind her case, the Supreme Court still ruled that Rutgers University was in compliance with the law. The court did not believe that Rutgers conducted their meetings in a way that discouraged public attendance. The court also stated that Rutgers Board of Governors did not violate the open public meetings law.

However, the court did agree that lawmakers should in fact look into tightening the law. Discussion of tightening this law would allow citizens the opportunity to challenge public organizations trying to get around the law. All in all, Rutgers University was pleased with the court’s decision.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Cell phone video capability is commonplace now, and police in New Jersey are getting used to it. Experts claim that under the First Amendment recording police in plain view is protected. A police officer may not seize a cell phone, delete anything on it, or even demand that the person turn it over to him without a warrant. As long as the person is not truly interfering with a police investigation, they can record as much as they want.

Robert W. Fox, president of the New Jersey State Fraternal Order of Police, stated police should face the fact that cell phone cameras are a reality.  “‘We tell our officers out there . . . that, anything they do, consider themselves being filmed,’” Fox said. “‘No matter where you are anymore, there is some sort of video on the incident – whether it comes from a building camera or an individual cellphone or things like that.’” Arguably, the videos not only protect citizens but also the police from being falsely accused. For most police, video recording should not matter, because they are doing things by the book anyway.

It should be noted that cell phone videos may not capture everything that is taking place during a police encounter. Therefore, rushing to judgment against police would be unfair.

It is now legal for Tesla and other manufacturers of zero-emission cars to sell directly to customers in New Jersey. Tesla’s business model includes selling its battery-driven cars from its boutique stores. One of them is located in Short Hills Mall, Short Hills, NJ.

Customers are free to learn about the vehicles through interactive displays and test drives. Tesla does not want to sell its cars through franchises because they sell mostly gas-powered vehicles. Since most of their revenue comes from gas-powered sales, franchises would not be encouraged to sell zero-emission cars.

Posted by Sam Battista.

I came across this article recently about these topics that were brought up in class, and I thought it was appropriate to write a blog pertaining to this article. Seven reputable members of the Geneovese crime family were recently arrested on accounts of money laundering and racketeering. The group allegedly raked in millions of dollars through the Garden State by gambling, loansharking, and unlicensed check cashing. Most of these charges fall under the RICO laws because this is organized crime.

The group ran a massive loansharking operation, which generated about 1.3 million dollars in interest a year. It operated an offshore Costa Rica Gambling website and an unlicensed check cashing business, making over nine million in fees over a four year run. The group also laundered $660,000 dollars in drug money out of a Florida based check cashing entity. The group also gave out multimillion dollar loans with interest rates upwards of 156 percent. In addition, the group ran a illegal check cashing business out of a restaurant in Newark that cashed-in over 400 million dollars.

All of these violations are prohibited in the RICO laws and are considered organized crime. Most of the acts committed were covered or ran out of legitimate businesses. These individuals were all from New Jersey and are currently being prosecuted for their federal violations. People often think these type of crimes only happen in movies, but the truth is it’s a multimillion dollar business with violations happening everyday.

Sam is a business administration major with a concentration in real estate at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Catherine Caldwell.

The trendy new and convenient company, Uber Technologies Inc., is currently enduring a legal battle for its illegal classification of freelancers. Uber was founded in 2009, as an application that acts as an electronic link from individuals who have cars to individuals who needs rides. The company has received a reputation of convenience to its customers and an easy way to make profit for its drivers. However, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, a powerful attorney in the state of California, disagrees with the classification of Uber drivers.

Shannon Liss-Riordan is no stranger in her attack on large billion dollar industries such as Uber. She has made cases against Starbucks, Harvard University and FedEx, to name a few. Ms. Liss-Riordan thinks that Uber drivers are unlawfully “on-demand workers” with no benefits. Instead of freelancers, Uber drivers should receive employee status, which would include drivers receiving reimbursement of their transportation expenses among other employment protective benefits.

As a software intermediary in the transportation business, Uber Technologies Inc. claims that they do not need grounds for titling their drivers as employees. Uber does not have a “fleet of drivers” waiting to pick up the next customer, but is based on convenience for both the drivers and employees. Uber does not plan on settling the case and has begun their approach by assembling 400 statements from drivers saying they were content with the flexible labor opportunities. However, in retaliation, Liss-Riordan took 50 of those statements and found that those drivers stated they would like to have official employment status.

In September, the case won class action status in San Francisco and will continue in federal court. Valued at $51 billion and is willing to fight for their case all the way to the Supreme Court and are unwilling to settle.

This case will create a precedent in the industry of software application employment services, and therefore needs to be handled very tactically. The basic labor protection laws should not be ignored due to new forms of introducing a business such as Uber. However, each Uber driver participates to make profits on their own agenda. Some use the service for extra cash, where others, in the grueling unemployment climate, use Uber as full time opportunities. In my opinion, the court should require Uber to create employment contracts with Uber drivers who can prove that it is a major source of income.

Catherine is a finance and information technology major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Carter McIntosh.

On November 5th, 2015, the Department of Justice announced that Wells Fargo failed to notify bankrupt homeowners of mortgage payment increases. Wells Fargo was required to pay out $81.6 million to “homeowners after reaching a settlement with the Department of Justice’s U.S. Trustee Program over the banks ‘repeated failures’ to provide Bankrupt homeowners with legally required notices of mortgage payment increases.” The Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 requires mortgage creditors (Wells Fargo) to file and serve a notice 21 days before adjusting a Chapter 13 debtor’s monthly mortgage payment.

The failure that sparked Wells Fargo’s fine was the fact that in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases they did not file and serve the mortgage lenders with a notice 21 days before Wells Fargo adjusted the monthly mortgage payment. In fact, when the DOJ pursued this case, “Wells Fargo acknowledged that it failed to timely file more than 100,000 payment change notices and failed to timely perform more than 18,000 escrow analyses in cases involving nearly 68,000 accounts of homeowners in bankruptcy between Dec. 1, 2011 and March 31, 2015.”

The $81.6 million settlement that Wells Fargo agreed to pay to the homeowners within the time period listed above is made to several different groups of borrowers. The first group, which consists of $53.6 million of the $81.6 million, will go to “more than 42,000 homeowners whose payments increased as to which Wells Fargo failed to timely file a PNC with the court, each homeowner will receive on average $1,254.”

The next group, which consists of $10 million, will go to “crediting homeowners’ accounts at the end of their Bankruptcy cases.” The third group, which consist of $1.5 million, will go to “refunding in cash about 3,000 homeowners where notices of decreases in monthly payments were not timely provided and the homeowners paid more than the actual amount.” The fourth group consists of $1 million and will go to “refunding in cash to about 2,400 homeowners who satisfied escrow shortages by making a lump sum payment.” The fifth group consists of $4.5 million and will go to “crediting mortgage escrow accounts of about 6,000 homeowners who did not receive timely escrow statements.”

The sixth group, which consists of $4 million, will go to “paying about 12,000 homeowners by crediting mortgage accounts where Wells Fargo failed to timely perform an escrow analysis.” The seventh group, which consists of $4 million, will go to “refunding in cash about 6,000 homeowners who did not receive timely escrow statements.” The eighth and final group, which consists of $3 million, will go to “remediation to about 8,000 homeowners which has already been completed.”

According to Director Cliff White of the U.S. Trustee Program, he is “pleased that Wells Fargo has acted responsibly by accepting accountability for its deficient bankruptcy practices, agreed to compensate affected homeowners for those deficiencies and committed to making necessary improvements in its Bankruptcy operations.”

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

Posted by Carter McIntosh.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Charles Batikha.

Ransomware is similar to a Trojan horse. Imagine receiving an email from a non-familiar email address. The email claims to be the IRS claiming you are being sued for tax evasion and instructed to click on a link to a website. You are skeptical, but what is the worst thing that could happen if you click on the link. Malware was the virus used when ransomware was first introduced, but more recently website URL and deceptive pop-ups are being utilized. Home computers are not the only victims, business and even government systems have been breached as well.

Upon clicking on the link your browser becomes frozen, unable to use your computer a message pops onto the screen informing you of the encryption of your computer. This renders it useless and a fee is charged for the encryption key, which will cost anywhere from $200 to $5000. This is the newest “variant” called Crypto-Wall or Crypto-Wall 2.0. Interestingly enough, the scammers instruct victims to purchase bitcoins to be used for payment. Bitcoins have become much more popular among criminals because of the concealment of their identity.

Ransomware has also begun to hit smartphones, locking them as well. I personally have fallen victim to this type of ransomware. A message popped up stating that I must contact Apple to unfreeze my phone, but every time I closed the pop-up the notification would come up again not allowing me to use my internet. I called the phone number on the message, and I noticed that the phone line was a Google number, which made me a little suspicious. Immediately after someone answered the phone, they gave me a scripted explanation of how my system was locked and I need to give them my credit card number for a fee for them to unlock my phone. Fortunately enough, I did not pay the fee and hung up on the pleading receptionist.

A way I have found to refresh your phone from ransomware is to clear your website data in the setting of your phone. This has given me the use of my internet after being hit with ransomware. Updated anti-virus software on your computer is another preventative tactic. Using a pop-up blocker and not fumbling with unsolicited emails are other great tips as well.

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

Posted by Charles Batikha.

Tamira Fonville was a Mesa Airlines employee and part time recruiter for a hair show, but these were both false lives that Fonville was leading. Fonville spent her time along the east coast from New York to Washington D.C. trying to lure women to expose their financial information by fraudulently posing as a hair show recruiter wanting to hire young women. Unfortunately, there was no show and Fonville was not a recruiter, nor an airline employee. By the end, she caught herself in an addiction she could not stop, between signing off bouncing checks and scamming women; she was bound to get caught.

Ricardo Falana was Fonville’s assistant.  Before the banks would know what was happening, they both would wipe accounts clean. Foneville would ask the girls for their bank account information, lying, saying she wanted to deposit checks into their account. Once the checks were deposited, the account would be emptied before the banks could be any wiser. For individuals that were too smart to be scammed, Tamira would offer them a piece of the pie. These individuals were even “coached” to lie to bank employees, telling them their credit cards had been stolen. The problem was the piece of the pie that they were waiting for never came. After some time, these women came forward as victims.

Young women were not the only ones that Fonville scammed. She applied for a car loan under the impression of being an employee of Mesa Airlines with a $65,000 salary. Tamira used $30,000 to pay for her Chevy Camero, plastic surgery and her New York apartment. While she was living this lavish life, Fonville also was living off food stamps, while having her student loans, totaling up to $100,000, deferred.

Tamira was arrested in August 2014, said to have profited over $200,000 from the scams. She was sentenced 15 months for conspiracy to commit bank fraud as well as 3 cases of bank fraud. Falana, Tamira’s assistant, was sentenced to 80 months after pleading guilty to similar bank fraud charges.

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

Posted by Daniel Perez.

In “Accountants Increasingly Use Data Analysis to Catch Fraud,” Jo Craven McGinty highlights the rise in the use of mathematical and forensic procedures in the today’s audit industry. Americans are burdened with an estimated $300 billion a year due to employee fraud in the workplace. In the aftermath of large-scale fraud cases, such as Enron and WorldCom, audit firms are increasingly using more reliable audit procedures in their engagements to prevent such fraud cases from occurring again. Benford’s Law is the center focus of this article as it supports how similar procedures drives audit quality in the right direction.

In investigating refunds issued by a call center, a group of forensic accountants used Benford’s Law to detect employee fraud. Instead of traditional sampling used by auditors, the group of forensic accountants used Benford’s Law because it offers mathematical evidence that fraud may or may not be occurring: “According to Benford’s Law—named for a Depression-era physicist who calculated the expected frequency of digits in lists of numbers—more numbers start with one than any other digit, followed by those that begin with two, then three and so on.” In their testing of the refund amounts, the accountants expected to see a significant amount of refunds starting with “1,” followed by “2” and so on. The occurrence of refunds beginning with “4” were much more prevalent than it should have been according to Benford’s Law, raising the flag that fraud may be occurring. Applying similar procedures to Benford’s Law in the foundation of audits may grow to be a normal practice at some point in the future.

An application of the procedure to Enron’s financial statements portrays a clear variation from the normal results from Benford’s Law. McGinty’s article states that as computer programs, such as ACL, featuring forensic accounting procedures grow rampant in the marketplace, the use of these procedures does have a positive impact on future.

Article:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/accountants-increasingly-use-data-analysis-to-catch-fraud-1417804886

Daniel is a graduate accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Daphine Llosa.

The current legal issue relates to conspiracy and breach. A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more parties to commit a crime to do something unlawful or harmful. A breach is an act of breaking or failing to observe a law or agreement. On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Crystal Banuelos pleaded guilty of a conspiracy to attain personal information and commit cards theft from Michaels Companies Incorporated’s customers. Michaels is an arts and crafts, custom framing, home décor and seasonal products store. Prior to this case, there was another prosecution where Eduard Arakelyan (age of 24) and Arman Vardanyan (age of 26) were charged for being involved in a breach. This breach was discovered in 2011 where devices were installed on point-of-sale terminals so they may obtain Michaels’ customers’ personal information as well as bank account numbers. Both individuals pleaded guilty three years ago for stealing from 952 debit cards; they were sentenced for five years of prison.

Crystal Banuelos, the 28 year old California woman, had participated in a conspiracy to acquire 94,000 credit and debit card numbers. It took Banuelos around four months to admit to her charges and plead guilty in the federal court in Camden, New Jersey. CNBC mentioned that the prosecutors found that the individuals involved in the conspiracy had replaced close to 90 of the point-of-sale terminals in 80 different Michaels stores in “19 states with counterfeit devices that were equipped with wireless technology.” They used these counterfeit devices to acquire customers’ personal identification number information as well as any additional information that they may have found useful for their theft. Crystal Banuelos, along with others, had managed to create an exact imitation of these debit cards using the stolen information they gathered when they applied the counterfeit devices. They were able to obtain and collect more than $420,000 by withdrawing from automated teller machines. Two of the defendants, Angel Angulo and Crystal Banuelos, had 179 of these imitated cards in New Jersey. Some of the banks that were affected include: Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo & Co, etc. It has been announced that Crystal Banuelo’s sentence is scheduled to be on February 23, 2016.

Daphne is a graduate accounting with a certification in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Daphine Llosa.

A recent legal issue involves money laundering, embezzlement and fraud. Money laundering is a form of obtaining money illegally, usually by using transfers between banks and businesses. Embezzlement is theft or misappropriation of funds. Fraud is a wrongful deception for the purpose of attaining financial or personal gain.  On Friday, October 23, 2015 the New Mexico Republican Secretary of State, Dianna Duran, plead guilty of fraud. The state attorney general, Democrat Hector Balderas, filed 65 charges against Ms. Duran in August 2015 which included; fraud, embezzlement, money laundering and campaign finance violations. Investigations revealed that she used about $13,000 of the donations from her campaign to clear gambling debt around the state and to cover other personal matters. In order to hide the transfers to personal accounts, Ms. Duran altered the campaign finance reports. Ms. Duran had a hearing with her defense lawyer, Erlinda Johnson, and after refusing multiple times from leaving office she resigned. According to the New York Times, in hopes that she can receive five years of probation and get spared prison time, Ms. Duran pled guilty to six out of the sixty-five charges; four misdemeanors and two felonies. She stated that for her best interests, her loved ones and for all of New Mexico’s residents; she will be seeking for professional help due to her non-ethical and corrupt actions.

It had been a little over 80 years since New Mexico had a Republican serve as secretary of state. She ranked as the second highest elected official in New Mexico, where she served as state senator prior to becoming the 24^th Secretary of State. Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, received the resignation letter provided by Ms. Duran, which stated; ‘Although I may be leaving office, I shall always reflect upon the last 36 years of service, honored to work with you and other, serving the citizen of New Mexico.’ As of today, deputy secretary of state, Mary Quintana is fulfilling Ms. Duran’s place until the governor chooses who will be replacing her until the upcoming election in 2016. Any further and additional details or information regarding Ms. Duran’s replacement or charges will be released in the coming weeks. The degree of punishment and the formal legal consequences applied to Ms. Duran is scheduled to be on December 14, 2015.

Daphne is a graduate student in accounting with a Certification in Forensic Accounting, at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Luca Aufiero.

In the article, “BizEquity Launches Online Valuation Tool for Accountants,” Daniel Hood discusses how BizEquity, an online business valuation system for businesses to be able to estimate the value of their businesses, launched a new product called Accountant Office. For accountants and advisors, this new business solution of BizEquity successfully improves the valuation process. Using a keen platform for its refined algorithms and big data knowledge, accountants and advisors will be able to provide clients with real-time awareness of what their business is really worth, more efficiently and cheaply. Accountant Office costs less than one-tenth of the average business valuation fee of $8,000. It can also deliver a valuation report in minutes compared to the average time of 3-6 weeks it takes for traditional business valuation firms to deliver a valuation. BizEquity’s business solutions help companies create, manage, and optimize its business valuations. This may revolutionize the business valuation landscape pertaining to forensic accounting as technology and data cloud services are evolving among the profession.

Currently, BizEquity is one of the world’s largest providers of business valuations, valuing more than 29.4 million companies around the globe. PrimePay, one of the nation’s biggest private payroll companies and a network of more than 10,000 accountants, will be exclusively distributing Accountant Office in the U.S. The founder and CEO of BizEquity, Michael Carter, wanted to expand the views of the capabilities that accountants are perceived at by demonstrating their value in business advisory and not just tax planning. Somewhat as their motto and the first thing that stands out on their website, reads “What’s Your Business Worth?” BizEquity conveys the importance of business valuation to owners and to those accountants and advisors who will benefit from these tools in order to better inform them. With proper valuation knowledge, companies are in a more desirable position in determining the fair value of selling a business, ability to secure financing, and striving for growth.

Luca is a BS and MS in Accounting, Forensic Certificate Program, at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University. 

Reference:

Hood, Daniel. “BizEquity Launches Online Valuation Tool for Accountants.” Accounting Today. 20 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. http://www.accountingtoday.com/accounting-technology/news/bizequity-launches-online-valuation-tool-for-accountants-76144-1.html

Posted by Samar Baeshen.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Michael Villafana.

Ten years ago from this June, the life of Koua Fong Lee changed forever, as well as those who were in the car who Lee crashed into. Koua Fong Lee was entering onto an entrance ramp in his home state of Minnesota, when all of a sudden his Toyota Camry sped up, instead of slowing down at the upcoming stoplight. His Camry crashed into the back of another car, killing two instantly including a 9-year-old child, and a 7-year-child later in the hospital. Lee was charged with criminal vehicular homicide in a Minnesota court where he testified that he attempted to break but his car would not slow down. Toyota, on the other hand, testified that Lee indeed tried to break, but he was actually stepping on the gas pedal instead of the break. Lee was found guilty and sentenced to eight years in prison.

In 2009, Toyota issued a recall on some of its models over acceleration issues. This prompted Lee’s legal team to revisit the case. However, it was not Lee’s team that filed a lawsuit against Toyota. It was the passengers in the car that was hit from behind by Lee. Lee joined the lawsuit claiming that his 1996 Camry inexplicably accelerated. Toyota had already settled several lawsuits over this issue, but the Lee case was one of their biggest to date.

The lawsuit went to court, where jurors heard expert testimony from both sides. Lee’s attorney used the help of an automobile expert John Stilson to help prove that every time Lee stepped on the gas, the speed would increase and would stick at that speed. Ultimately, the expert testimony given by Stilson and others led Lee’s team to a court victory. The jury ruled in favor of Lee’s team resulting in a huge compensatory pay for the victims. Toyota was ordered to pay $10.9 million in damages, being split between the victims of the crash and the Lee family. Koua Fong Lee was released from prison in 2010, after wrongly being placed there. After being released from prison, Lee stated “My life and my family is not the same anymore. So they [Toyota] are responsible for that.”

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

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 Brooke Sabol.

Gucci America, Inc. sought default judgement, an award of statutory damages, costs of the suit and a permanent injunction against defendant Wang Huoqing. The hearing on the motion was on October 8, 2010. Gucci became aware that Wang was selling fake products bearing the Gucci name and trademark on the internet to U.S residents. Gucci ended up suing Wang. The court needed to decide if Gucci had jurisdiction over Wang before it could enter default judgement.

The court granted default judgement against defendant Wang on false designation. The court awarded statutory damages to Gucci America, Bottega Veneta International S.A.R.L, Balenciaga S.A. Gucci America was awarded $440,000, Bottega Veneta International S.A.R.L was awarded $4,000, and lastly Balenciaga S.A. was awarded $8,000. For prejudgment interest Gucci was awarded $12,768.92, Bottega Venteta was awarded $116.08, and Balenciaga S.A $232.16. Lastly they were each awarded $233.33 on the basis of defendant’s trademark infringement.

In my opinion, I believe the default judgment order was fair. Wang was at fault by illegally copyrighting Gucci’s trademark.

Brooke Sabol is a marketing major at Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Ismail Surakat.

This is a case between Southern District of Georgia and Vania Lee Allen, a native of Jamaica, who committed a fraud and falsely impersonating a United Sates FBI special agent in connection with an international lottery fraud arrangement based in Jamaica. According to the indictment, 30-year-old Vania Lee Allen was charged for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and also, impersonating United States employee. Allen and her co-conspirator from Jamaica illegitimately enriched themselves through fraudulent lottery plan, targeting elderly residents of Evans, Georgia.

According to this case, Allen traveled from Jamaica to United States in May 2015 and presented herself as an FBI special agent in order to convince her victim. Though, before getting to this stage, Allen had made some movement such as informing the victim by phone that they had won money in a lottery game and instructed them to make some certain payments to her co-conspirator in Jamaica for them to collect their lump sum winnings. She also discussed with a co-conspirator in Jamaica on how to impersonate an FBI using a fake law enforcement badge with the “FBI” logo and the words, “Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Upon arrival at the victim’s place, Allen presented as an FBI special agent and asked the victim to speak on-line with her co-conspirator in Jamaica. All of this was made to look real; no doubt elderly citizens can fall victim to this type of  fraudulent act.

The case was investigated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Columbia County Georgia Sherriff’s Office, and is being prosecuted as well by Trial Attorney Clint Narver of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S.  Attorney Troy Clark of the Southern District of Georgia.

If Allen is eventually convicted, she faces up to 20 years in prison for the wire fraud, five years for the conspiracy count, as well as, up to three years for the false impersonation count.

Ismail Surakat is a pre business major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Kyle Chapman.

On January 18, 2015, the New England Patriots played the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship. The Patriots would go on to win the game, but a massive legal controversy would follow in the aftermath of the game. Reports arose after the game that the Patriots had used footballs inflated below regulation towards their advantage during the game. Using footballs against regulation is a very consequential action and the National Football League was not happy with the reports one bit. A massive investigation and legal battle between the Patriots and the NFL would ensue.

A few days later, the NFL assigned Manhattan attorney, Ted Wells, to get to the bottom of the situation. The case was receiving heavy media coverage and had the Patriots’ public image in hot water. Nobody from the organization admitted to being aware of the apparent cheating and denied any involvement. The investigation was completed on May 6, 2015 with a 243 page investigative report known as “The Wells Report.”

The Wells Report appeared to have the Patriots caught red-handed. A very important aspect of the report came from scientific analysis provided by Exponent, which claimed that no set of environmental or physical factors could’ve accounted for the air loss shown in the balls. This meant that the air loss were the actions of people, and accused locker-room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski as the culprits. There were several text messages between that reference inflation, deflation, and needles. The texts suggest that Patriots quarterback, Tom Brady, was aware of their actions, but the coaching staff was unaware. The investigation concluded that it was “more probable than not,” that the Patriots equipment personnel had broken the rules.

The NFL decided to suspend Tom Brady for four games and give the Patriots a $1 million fine while stripping them of draft picks. Brady pursued an appeal on his suspension and began a long legal battle with the NFL. He felt falsely accused and very harshly punished. After a long battle, on September 3, 2015, a settlement was reached and the suspension was taken away, with a claim that Brady had a lack of fair due process.

I think the situation could’ve been handled much better than it was. For starters, the media had completely scrutinized the scandal and blew it out of proportion. I think it pinned Brady and the Patriots in guilty before proven innocent image, even though there wasn’t much evidence at all that showed their involvement in the scandal. There were also leaks of false evidence early on that made the Patriots appear guilty.

The NFL has been in hot water lately with legal situations and I think this whole case hurt their image.

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

Posted by Kyle Chapman.

Hillary Clinton was accused of using a personal email account out of her home for her official email communication while she was Secretary of State. She used her family’s private email server, instead of using the official State Department email account maintained on federal government servers. Government officials argue that the use of a private server, private messaging system software, and deleting almost 32,000 emails has violated State Department procedures and federal laws of recordkeeping requirements. Some of these emails are deemed to be “Top Secret” and confidential information. In my opinion, this is a violation of federal law.

After a CNN interview, a new opportunity has shown some light for Hillary. Hillary stated, “Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation.” To clarify, the legal requirement to immediately preserve emails from a nongovernment email account was not put into law until two years after she stepped down as Secretary of State. She claims that she has done nothing wrong because there was no law enforced when she committed the act. Hillary stated that other Secretaries of State did the same thing, but there are no records of other secretaries setting up a private email server for all of their government communications. In addition, while Hillary was Secretary of State, she sent a cable containing her signature warning employees to avoid handling official business from a personal email account.

Therefore, Hillary was well informed of her actions. Even though there was not a specific law enforcing to preserve emails from nongovernment accounts, Clinton knew what she was doing. In that case, I find Hillary guilty for her actions.

This whole controversy started when officials were unable to locate emails in the investigation of the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. It looks like as if she was covering her tracks by deleting those emails on her private server. Not only did this interfere with the investigation, but a hacker attempted to hack into her email server.

Mishandling top secret government information is a federal crime. In conclusion, I find Hillary guilty for the use of mishandling government information by using her own private email server.

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

Posted by Emily Nichols.

On November 5, 2015, six men were convicted on felony charges of fraud and conspiracy in the sale of vending machine business opportunities. All six of these men were from New York, and they were just six of the 22 individuals convicted with this vending machine scheme. Two of the men were convicted with conspiracy and six counts of fraud and one count of false statement to federal agents. The third man was convicted on conspiracy and mail fraud. Two of the men were convicted of conspiracy and wire fraud and the final man was convicted of conspiracy and two counts of wire fraud.

They were convicted following the six week trial where some of the men will be in jail for 40 years according to their maximum sentence for conspiracy, fraud counts and false statements. These six men, were the last of the 22 convicted for the entire Vendstar scheme.

The company not only advertised nationwide on the internet and in newspapers, but they also promised to have the full package for the customer, saying that they would provide everything to operate the vending machine including the initial supply of candy for the machine. Once the machines were ordered, they dropped the machine off to the businesses wherever and however they could, not placing the machine in any certain place, and many businesses requested immediate removal of the machine. The men attempted to sell vending machines to businesses and promised them that they would make loads of money off of the machines and the customers would pay tens of thousands of dollars to invest in the machines. Between the five years of the operation of the scheme, it cost consumers a total of around $60 Million. If the customer paid an average of $10,000, then there were about 6,000 victims of this scheme once it was all said and done.

These men, I feel, were convicted correctly of their crimes and deserve to be in jail for what will most likely be the rest of their lives as the men were all above the age of 40, three of them being over the ae of 55. In the entirety, just 22 people cause a loss of $60 Million to consumers and businesses.

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

Posted by Emily Nichols.

In late 2013, the Texas State Conference of NAACP filed suit challenging Texas’s photo voter ID law. The specific law that was being challenged was S.B. 14, which was enacted in 2011 and requires voters to present photo ID from a limited list of approved identification in order to vote. This law disproportionately prevents groups of voters which include African American citizens from voting in person due to the law’s strictness.

I found it interesting that this law was even able to be passed but reading further into the case I found that the law was not passed until there was a case in 2013 in the Supreme Court that rendered Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act inoperable, which opened the gates for Texas to implement the SB 14 law.

After the 8 day trial, a 3 judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals universally decided that the SB 14 law violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The appellate court agreed with plaintiffs that SB 14 has a racially discriminatory influence that violates the Voting Rights Act. The panel similarly ruled that the district court should hear more evidence on the intentional discrimination claim. It annulled the district court’s verdict that the ID law violated the Constitution.

The law was applied during the November 2014 election and cut many voters out of the political process of the presidential elections.

I think that this was an important case because the entire point of having a democracy is having the people be the say if what goes on with the government. With not being able to vote, and cutting out many of the voters in a very large portion of the population of Texas, it was cutting off people’s right to vote and thus really hurting the idea of democracy.

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

Posted by Jose L. Diaz.

Imagine having a potential life-ending disease or illness that you depend on medication for to survive. Money is tight, and most of your savings goes towards purchasing the medication in order to survive. Suddenly, just overnight, the price of this drug not only increases, but it increases by 5000%. While it sounds absolutely absurd, this actually happened when Turing Pharmaceuticals, a startup company being run by a former hedge fund manager, increased the price of their drug called Daraprim, from $13.50 a tablet to $750 a tablet overnight. That is not $750 a prescription–it is $750 per tablet. This brought the annual cost of treatment for some patients to over a hundred thousand dollars.

Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, claims that the drug is so rarely used that the price increase would not have a significant effect on the health system. He claims that the money earned from the price increase would go towards developing better treatments for toxoplasmosis, the disease that is treated by Daraprim. However, the price increase will make it almost impossible for private insurers like Medicare and patients in hospitals to attain. The fact that the drug is so expensive and hard to attain now, it makes it harder for other companies to make samples of the drug and replicate it. Overall, the drug is the leading treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The increase in price seems to be an only profit-driven choice.

Jose is finance and accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Renaldo Nel.

Judge, Sheri Pym, of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, recently ordered Apple to assist the FBI in an investigation involving the San Bernardino terror attacks. The Apple iPhone belonging to one of the shooters, Syed Farook, was recovered by the FBI. The FBI wants to gain access to the iPhone, but faces security software that will wipe the iPhone’s memory after 10 incorrect password attempts. As a result, the FBI wants Apple to provide them with software that will enable them to unlock Farook’s iPhone, as they believe there is possible evidence on the phone.

Apple has appealed the decision made by Judge Pym stating “writing code is like speech, and so the request is a violation of Apple’s First Amendment rights.” Apple also argues that the government should not have the power to order a private company to alter its product. Apple wants to protect their consumers as they believe that creating a backdoor in the software compromises the security of all iPhone’s, including, iPhone users’ personal information, such as bank accounts and medical records.

The Department of Justice’s argument is that “it a single request for a single phone, and doesn’t not create a back door for bad actors, but rather a front door for law enforcement only when it has a warrant.” The Department of Justice is basing its argument on the All Writs Act of 1789. Apple believes that this law can simply not be applied in modern times and is long overdue for amendment.

Many tech companies such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google have stated that they support Apple. I am also in support of Apple. Firstly, it is known fact that the FBI has been hacked in the past and the probability that the software that the FBI is asking for will be leaked is huge. It would be catastrophic if hackers could get their hands on personal information such as credit cards in the Apple Pay function. Secondly, one should also take into account that people place faith in Apple to protect their personal data and if Apple is forced to provide this “unlocking software” they could suffer huge financial losses. Furthermore, if Appel loses this case it sets precedent in the tech industry and companies would in future be forced “to modify their products, on spec, for the FBI in ways that are contrary to their core values.”

I understand that the FBI wants to solve the case and protect the country, however their proposal opens the door for many other evils.

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

Sources:

Apple V. FBI Encryption Case Shows That Lawsuits Are Inherently Polarizing

http://www.abc-7.com/story/31521736/apple-vs-the-fbi-in-2-minutes

Posted by Kyle Gatyas.

On April 16, 2015, Counsel to the City of Trenton announced that “the Trenton Paid Sick Leave ordinance would only apply to businesses located in the city itself.” (Bond). They stated that they will not apply to businesses outside the borders of Trenton. This new paid leave ordinance came in effect on March 4, 2015. One thing this law does is it excludes construction unions and other employees and covers them by collective bargaining agreements from the paid sick leave requirements (Bond). Both part-time and full-time workers have the ability to be paid on their time off by the rate of 1 hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked. “Employers with 10 or more employees have to provide up to five paid days each year, whereas businesses with less employees have to provide up to three paid days each year.” (Bond). There is an exception, only for workers in childcare, food service, and home healthcare who are automatically entitled to five days.

For employees, there is a certain requirement in order to be eligible to qualify for paid sick days. You must have a maximum of 40 hours per year regardless of the size of your employer. “However, they are not able to use more than 40 hours in one year. Usually, they are not entitled to carry over anytime if they were paid for the hours they did not use.” (Bond). Also, you are not eligible to qualify for this requirement until you have been working for at least 90 days. As the employees begin their employment, or as soon as they are practicable, the employers provide them with a written notice explaining their rights. “This ordinance also provides language to prohibit retaliation against employees exercising their rights” (Bond). Failing to do so creates an additional liability to the employees since the ordinance creates an explicit right to sue if an employee believes their right have been violated. “They could also face monetary fines and other penalties.” (Bond).

Kyle is currently undeclared at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Jellyn Anne Echon.

In a business, it’s important to be ethical and that includes treating your co-workers/employees with respect. Unfortunately, McDonalds failed to see that. The Virginia-based franchise of McDonalds was sued by 10 former employees for allegedly violating their civil rights. The article states that, “In a lawsuit filed in federal court, the plaintiffs allege that both McDonalds and one of its franchisees violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by subjecting employees to rampant racial and sexual harassment.” Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects people against employment discrimination on the bases of race and color, along with national origin, sex, and religion.

According to the lawsuit, employees were called inappropriate names by managers as well as being sexually harassed. As far as race discrimination is concerned, according to the lawsuit, African American employees were disciplined for petty things before being fired shortly after, while the caucasian employees nearly got away with anything and were hired more. One of the plaintiffs, Katrina Stanfield, spoke about her experience and stated that, “Being a good worker didn’t matter. . . . I was fired for being black.”

In response, McDonald’s media hotline just states that,

We have not seen the lawsuit, and cannot comment on its allegations, but will review the matter carefully. . . . McDonald’s has a long-standing history of embracing the diversity of employees, independent franchisees, customers and suppliers, and discrimination is completely inconsistent with our values. McDonald’s and our independent owner-operators share a commitment to the well-being and fair treatment of all people who work in McDonald’s restaurants.

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

Posted by Gabrielle Francois.

I chose a business law article from the Wall Street Journal to review. The title of the article is Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death. The article explains the following; a brief explanation of the young man named Freddie Gray’s death, charges toward the police officers behind the death and the attorney’s defense against the charges.

Freddie Gray was a young twenty-five year old African-American male who was killed by six police officers in Baltimore, Maryland. Freddie experienced fatal spinal cord injuries while under custody. The six officers responsible are: Officers William Porter (25 years old), Lt. Brian Rice (41 years old), and Sgt. Alicia White (30 years old), Edward Nero (29 years old), Garrett Miller (26 years old), and Mr. Goodson (45 years old).

Officers William Porter, Lt. Brian Rice and Sgt. Alicia White were charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office. Edward Nero and Garrett Miller were charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office. Then lastly Mr. Goodson was charged with second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and other charges.

After the charges were set into place Mike Davey, who is Lt. Rice’s attorney, spoke for all six officers. Mike Davey stated, “I have never seen such a hurried rush to deliver criminal charges,” said Mr. Davey, who appeared with Gene Ryan, president of the Baltimore police union. “We believe these officers will be vindicated as they have done nothing wrong.” (wallstreetjournal.com).

After resolving this situation so quickly, a few people have some concerns about this decision, while others (mainly African-American communities) praise this decision. Now, it is shocking for many to believe that the police are actually being punished for a crime unlike (what many believe) the rest in other states relating to African-American murders.

Gabrielle is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Kate Robinson.

Jordan Belfort, an infamous stockbroker, known for making millions in the 1990s, plead guilty to securities fraud and money laundering in 1999. In 2003, he was sentenced to four years in prison, but only served 22 months and owed a personal fine of $110 million. Today, Mr. Belfort’s story is known as being the basis for the 2013 film, “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

In 1989, Jordan Belfort was illegally running his own investment company, Stratton Oakmont. Mr. Belfort and his partner, Danny Porush, were able to make millions by defrauding their company’s investors by using a “pump and dump” scheme. Brokers would push stocks onto their innocent clients, which would help to inflate the stocks’ prices. The company would then sell off its own holdings in these stocks at an extreme profit.

During the time when Mr. Belfort was at an all-time high in his so-called career, he spent lavishly. His business was able to give him the funds to purchase a mansion, sports cars, and several other expensive toys. But with the help of his abundance of cash, Mr. Belfort developed a serious drug addiction, which often lead him to trouble. However, to this day he has developed an interest in writing and has released two memoirs. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California and operates his own company, which provides sales training and markets “Straight Line” training programs aimed at building wealth. Mr. Belfort claims to have straightened out his life since serving his time in prison, and has reportedly paid $14 million of the $110 million fine levied against him.

Kate is a sports, events and tourism marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Kate Robinson.

Tyco International, Limited, is a corporation that provides over three million customers globally with fire protection and security products and services. It is currently the world’s largest pure-play fire and security company. Tyco is incorporated in Switzerland and its operational headquarters are located in Princeton, New Jersey.

In 2002, Tyco’s former CEO, Dennis Kozlowski and CFO, Mark Swartz, were charged for stealing $150 million and inflating the company income by $500 million. The two of them were siphoning money through unapproved loans and fraudulent stock sales. They would then smuggle the money out of the company disguised as executive bonuses and benefits.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Manhattan District Attorney investigated the scheme and uncovered questionable accounting practices, such as large loans made out to Mr. Kozlowski, which were later forgiven. After discovering these violations, Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz were sentenced to 8 to 25 years in prison and a lawsuit was filed forcing Tyco to pay back $2.92 billion to their investors.

Kate is a sports, events and tourism marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

A Raleigh police officer sued Starbucks in 2012 for burns he sustained when the lid of his coffee cup popped off. According to the officer, when the lid came off, the cup collapsed and burned him. The stress activated his Crohn’s disease, and as a result, he lost part of his intestine. He claims damages of $50,000. His wife also sued for loss of companionship.

This is a classic case of the Eggshell Skull Rule: “take the plaintiff as they are.” Here, the officer’s Crohn’s disease is an unforeseeable circumstance of the burns, yet Starbucks may still be liable, according to the rule. The case is an analog to the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants case discussed in class.

Posted by Nadia Haddad.

Throughout the article, “Intellectual Property,” the author Darren Dahl talks about four different common fallacies that small business is unaware. The two most precious resources for any small business owner are time and money. Small business owners believe that it is not worth the time or effort to secure intellectual property rights. A patent can cost up to $25,000 to secure, in comparison to trademarks and Web addresses, which are cheap and can be obtained with the help of a lawyer.

In one case, Daniel Lubetzky, chief executive of New York City, Kind Snacks, heard that one of his competitors had copied the packaging, look, and feel of his bars. Lubetzky had secured components for his property like trademarks, trade dress, and Web addresses after founding his company. Mr. Lubetzky sent a competitor that was stealing his IP a cease-and-desist letter in order to stop the offender.

The above example stresses the erroneous belief that “once I get a trademark, my brand is safe.” In another case, Tracey Deschaine, who runs a restaurant called Dixie Picnic in Ocean City, N.J., secured trademarks, logo and name of her signature item, cupcakes. Even though she had trademarks for her business, someone else was monitoring the activity on the United States Patents and Trademark Office’s website and her spotted her application. They secured the Web address, or URL, before she could. This shows that, just because you have a trademark, it does not mean you are completely protected.

The third topic mentioned was about how “having a patent gives me the right to produce something.” What a patent does is gives you the right to prevent someone else from producing what your patent covers. Mr. Kocher of Cryptography Research says, “having a strong IP position helps ensure that other pay you for your innovation like they would on a toll on a road.” (Dahl).

Another fallacy mentioned is “If I have a patent or trademark in the United States, I don’t need to worry about the rest of the world.” In some countries, like Japan, it is expensive to acquire patents. The author suggested when deciding what your international IP strategy should be, consult a lawyer, and conduct some cost-benefit analysis to see if expanding your IP rights makes proper sense.

The last fallacy the article states “people who collect patents but don’t actually make anything are ‘patent trolls.’” In many cases, companies invent something, obtain a patent, and license it out for manufacturing by another. An example described was how a patent for wireless e-mail delivery held by NTP, a small holding company, something that R.I.M eventually would pay millions of dollars to license from them. The problem with this was NTP was trying to enforce its patent when it did notmake any products itself from the beginning.

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

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.

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

After the release of Chris Kyle’s 2013 memoir, Jesse Ventura was very displeased to find out that Kyle was making claims about punching him in the face in 2006. Kyle did not use Ventura’s name in the book, but only referred to the incident by saying he “knocked out a celebrity.” Only in later interviews did Kyle publicly acknowledge the mystery celebrity as Ventura.

This angered Ventura especially due to the fact that he claimed that Kyle was making the story up. Ventura who was also a Navy veteran was even more displeased to find out that Kyle’s reason for hitting him, as depicted in the book, was due to Ventura making disrespectful remarks about the military. Ventura immediately took the matter to the courts. Not too long after, Kyle was killed at a shooting range and left behind a loving family and many adoring admirers.

Ventura still went ahead with the lawsuit and ended up suing New York publishing company HarperCollins over the book, claiming defamation. He was then awarded 1.8 million dollars from Chris Kyle’s estate. The aftermath of the lawsuit angered many people and soiled Ventura’s name even more. Ventura has said many times that he has no regrets over what he did and meant no harm or disrespect towards Kyle’s family and widow. Although many people across the country are now holding a grudge against the former Minnesota governor, he still won the battle of legal games.

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

Posted by Marlon Javier Tatis.

As roughly a million Apple customers impatiently wait for their watches to arrive, they now have an answer as to what’s the holdup. Apple claims to have found a defect in the “taptic engine of the watch, which mimics the sensation of being tapped on the wrist, the newspaper said Wednesday.” With record orders already in the smart watch category, Apple has a lot of work to do to keep up supply. They are jumping into a different market aside from cellphones, which they try to dominate.

Ever since the watch was announced last year, millions of customers have been anxiously waiting for the release date to order the device. Hundreds of thousands of people lined up outside Apple stores across the nation waiting to order their watch and be amongst the first to own the next piece of technological innovation.

With Samsung, LG, Motorola and plenty of other top companies already in the smart watch business, Apple has a lot of catching up. They are entering the market a little late, and having delivery of so many watches delayed isn’t the best way to enter a new market.

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