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.

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 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 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 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 Nadia Baksh.

Amaya Inc. is a Canadian gambling website who has recently been sued by US investor, Harry Weisman. This company defrauded shareholders by hiding insider trading through their chief executive, David Baazov.

Harry Weisman, the plaintiff, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Manhattan stating that, “Amaya should have revealed trades made by chief executive, David Baazov, and failed to properly disclose deficiencies in its internal controls.” Daniel Sebag, Amaya’s financial chief officer was named a defendant aside from David Baazov. Amaya’s share price were increasing while Baazov’s trades were being kept hidden. The lawsuit is planning to recover the losses of investors who bought Amaya’s shares from the time period of June 8, 2015 through March 23, 2016.

Within the previous week, Amaya’s shares decreased rapidly due to Quebec’s securities regulator, l’Autorité des Marchés Financiers, brought up charges against their chief executive about insider trading. Data shows that the company’s U.S. listed shares that trade through NASDAQ fell approximately 22% whereas the Canadian shares fell about 21% on March 23. This can be a common occurrence where U.S. securities lawsuits are filed against businesses; the bad news can lead to their stocks to fall.

Amaya announced that Baazov was taking an immediate and indefinite leave of absence, however, it will be a paid leave of absence. I do not feel as if David Baazov’s absence should be paid, because he already caused trouble and brought upon negative attention towards the Amaya company; he should pay for what he did–not be paid for his wrongful actions.

Nadia is an accounting 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 Michael DeCandia.

The people support our government. The FBI is trying to keep our country safe from the terrorists that surround the world.  The FBI was trying to work with Apple to get the shooters phone so that the FBI would be able to access the password/information they needed to find where the shooter might be going next or where his next target might be. In the article, Why Apple vs. FBI Might be the Worst Cybersecurity Dilemma Ever states, “Apple argues that the FBI is imposing unfair burden on the company and is violating its right to freedom of speech.” In Apple’s eyes it may be an unfair burden, but the FBI is irritated that Apple will not work with them to stop an event from happening against the United States. Silicon Valley was scared that the FBI would over rule the tech industry and companies would not be able to protect their future products.

Individual devices and our national security are very important things when helping protect in the United States. The NSA and other organization like the CIA or the FBI are designed to keep the nation safe from any attacks. If this event were to happen in the future with a more serious group of dangerous people how would the people feel about their safety? In the article Why Apple vs. FBI Might be the Worst Cybersecurity Dilemma Ever states, “The US government has helped develop and spread user-friendly encryption technologies for precisely this reason.”

Criminals may feel safer that they will never get caught communicating, but for right now this is the best option for the people. By working together with technology companies the government can stop more criminals lurking on the Internet today. The more the people in our country work together, the more we can accomplish to make our country a safer place.

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