Posted by Leonardo Terzulli.

McDonald’s has recently been involved in a case of a customer, Lynn Gipson, having hot water spill on her at a McDonald’s drive-through. The incident happened in 2012 when a cup’s lid popped off, “spilling the scalding water and causing second-degree burns on Ms. Gipson’s thigh and stomach,” a quote from the court documents. This incident is similar to the 1994 incident when Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s in the case Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants in which a top to a coffee lid came off in between Liebeck’s legs causing severe burn injuries with resulted in skin grafting. The turnout for this case was Liebeck was awarded $2.86 million. Gipson is alleging that McDonald’s drive-through employees delivered tea and other hot liquid substances in a negligent matter.

Unlike the case the in 1994, McDonald’s is most likely opting to not take the case to court and settle. The turnout for the 1994 case ended in the jury calling for McDonald’s to pay punitive damages. Knowing that they have faced a few court cases already this year, and that they will probably lose this case again, they feel the best choice for them is to just settle with Gipson’s terms. Although the case is still not fully resolved, it is safe to say that McDonald’s is going to lose. Similar to the 1994 case, this is a case that might seem a little obscure but, Lynn Gipson exerted all of her options, taking into account all actions by both parties, and taking the educated step to ensure she was given justice.

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

Posted by Chris Widuta.

Did you ever stop to notice how busy life can be? Either you’re on your way to your parents, maybe going to class that meets twice a week during rush hour, or off to the gym to see your friends. Life got busy really quickly for me and I am still managing to handle the responsibilities that come with it, which includes bills, an apartment, a relationship, and most importantly my future.

On a Wednesday at nine o’clock in the morning, I was headed down the highway doing a steady 20-mile per hour in light traffic. I was headed to meet with my college professor to discuss statistics before the final examination. The entire drive was very smooth with no one cutting me off. At the same time, I thought the slow moving traffic would make for a great time to multitask. Isn’t it true that more and more people getting more done by doing two things at the same time? Walking and talking is more than simply talking, obviously. For me, that Wednesday morning I was working with my television provider to opt-out of the TV service I thought I didn’t need. Cable is expensive and those types of calls are stages of perpetual holds. I was multitasking.

I was just a few feet away from my exit, blinker on, driving with both hands on the wheel, using my cell phone by holding it with my shoulder. The state trooper was already conducting his business that morning in the emergency lane, when he turned and saw me, communicating. I thought nothing of it as I knew I was within the law. I continued to proceed off my exit, slowly accelerating since traffic was clearing up and all of a sudden, red and blue lights jumped right into my rear-view mirror. This trooper was able to do two things at once, too! The amount of time it took him to leave that scene and open another had to be less than 30 seconds, and quite frankly I was impressed.

He pulled me over and asked for all the necessary documents. I always ask why I was pulled over, because I know that by most tickets are written by the discretion of the officer. He stated that I was on my phone and quite frankly I agreed. I was on my phone, and I stated to him that I was not holding it in my hand. I stated that I had both hands on the wheel, and I asked the officer if he saw me holding the wheel with both hands, at the 10 and 2 position. I believed that if he was able to see my head and phone, he must have been able to see both hands, which would be unmistakable, being about chin level from his vantage point.

At this point, the officer started to look like a State Trooper. He had the hat and was very serious, more serious than a local police officer. I knew that he had to be in a bit of a hurry when he gave me my insurance and registration back immediately and held my license. The trooper then stated that it didn’t matter how I was holding the phone, but the fact that I was on my phone was worthy of a ticket and illegal. I didn’t make a fuss of it and proceeded to my stats lesson.

It took me only a few minutes to research the most recent statue description for 39:4-97.3, or “Operation of a motor vehicle while using cell phone.” The statue number was right on the ticket, and a quick Google search pulled up some results. I proceeded to the 215th Legislature because that lead to the most recent additions to the law. I know how important it is to know current law rather than outdated information from the Internet. After reading through the entire statute, I came up for air and formed a judgment. The statute clearly stated in Article 2 Section 1: “The use of wireless telephone . . . device by an operator of a moving vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful except when the telephone is hands-free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands-free.” That line right there gave me great hope that I was within the law, and hope that my day in court I could prove that. I was mentally preparing for a trial, pro se.

My first appearance in Municipal Court came 11 days later. Due to the fact that the situation was minor, and really only a monetary fine, I knew that the “ball was in my court.” You see, most municipal courts just love these kinds of evenings. People who are “money right and time poor” just plead guilty, pay the fine, and go on with life. The municipal court makes hundreds of thousands of dollars on these court nights, especially since the average fine that night was around $290 a person. These fines are like a tax on a poor decision.

This situation is the exact opposite. I am a student with a part time job, 15 credits, and financially responsible, who has some extra time to save some money. The fine was $200, a pretty large amount, and something I couldn’t lose. I was charged to go in with the prosecutor and plead my case. The first step I took was to sit down with the prosecutor and told him I plead, not guilty. He told me that by pleading not guilty I would request to have a trial, acting pro se. The prosecutor aggressively asked me if I was ready for “trial” as if it was a big and scary event. Of course, I knew this meant a trial so I was prepared. I also told him that I would be sending an “order” for discovery, which was my Constitutional right. He repeated what I said in a joking manner as if I was doing something wrong, but I confirmed that was what I wanted and thanked him for his time. I proceeded to sit down in the court room, second row from the font. I chose the second row because I wanted the judge to see my face and I wanted to be in the right position to hear the lawyers around me and the cases being presented that night. It was important to hear everything that was said because I was going to eventually head to the bench.

I took notes, studied, and remembered what the judge and prosecutor said for over 4 hours before I had the chance to speak. They called my case. The judge read the statute, told me the fine, and asked how I plead. After a moment or two of silence, I clearly stated “not guilty.” I may have been trembling a little on the inside, but it was important that he heard no wavering in my voice. The judge stated that I should prepare for a trial, but included a certain lead that gave me great hopes; the judge said, “If that phone was in your hand, you’re breaking the law.” I thanked him, and listened to him say that I would be getting a trial date. I walked out of the court room almost 5 hours later.

I quickly wrote up an request for the prosecutor. This official letter included my summons number, the date and who I was. In the order, I reminded him that it was my constitutional right for this discovery. I asked for all recordations of the interaction, including but not limited to, officers notes, audio, and dash cam video.

Preparing for the case was a matter of determining what facts were going to be most important to getting the charges dismissed. It was imperative that I used the officer’s comments against statute and the judge’s interpretation of the law. I truly believed that I was within the law, so it was relatively easy to find good reasons to throw this charge out. It was also clear to me that I would be making decisions based on political decisions; to be exact, I realized that the courthouse was making a bet that the State Trooper would be a witness and testify, but more on that later.

Weeks went by and a discovery packet was never sent. It was the day before the trial date and I called the courthouse to speak with the court clerk. I had told her I have not received discovery and asked for a new date. She said that she could not give one and trial will still go on tomorrow. This was actually good news. Because it is my Constitutional right to have discovery, I knew that the court would not judge against me, and at this point, the worst that could happen would be a new trial date. I could live with that.

I appeared to the court house dressed well. I went to the prosecutor’s office to speak with him, mainly on the fact that I have not received discovery. He was surprised to hear that I sent an request and he never received it. I reminded him of his words and what address to use. He also included a very important hint of what was to come. The prosecutor told me that the witness, the trooper, was not at the trial. This means that the only witness that the State has did not show up! I knew my rights under the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment that, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witness against him.” These new facts greatly swayed my emotions to believe that I had a chance to get this dismissed that night. I was excited to sit in the court room.

Surrounded by lawyers, I was attentive and engaged. Every poor soul that stood up there took the charge and paid the fine. I prepared and thought of a response for what I would say for every one of the questions that the judge asked. Many other people had trials that day, and most if not all led the accused to lose their case. I did not give up hope, as I knew I had a different tactic. Instead of arguing the law, I planned to argue why the rules of the court should sway the judge to dismiss this case. They called my name and I felt much more confident this time around. All the possible scenarios played through my head already and I was ready.

The judge read the charge as I laid my papers on the table. Before I looked up, the judge quickly and effortlessly offered to cut the fine in half. This was completely arguable, I thought to myself. I said was that I was not granted my Constitutional right because I did not receive discovery. Before he said anything, I handed the officer a copy of the letter I sent to the prosecutor. He read it and asked a few questions about what I was requesting. The judge specifically asked how I knew that the interaction with the officer was recorded. Quite frankly, I assumed that it was recorded, I didn’t know for a fact, but I didn’t let him know that. I answered his question by referring to the fact that this was a state trooper and I believed the State installed video long ago, and how important it is to have video for more important interactions. He proceeded to ask about recordations, which I also requested.

The prosecutor followed up with a statement that the officer, who was their sole witness, was not present. He asked if it would be okay to reschedule for another date. I quickly returned his comment by asking for a dismissal. The judge rebutted with some guilt tripping remarks, including that ever since 9/11, State Troopers are very busy, and that certain arrangements for special occasions are required. I wasn’t going to fall for this guilt trip. It is important for the witness to be present at any trial, especially this one. I responded with the fact that this was a trial and asked if a trial is important enough to request their witness to be present. I also stated that he should have been subpoenaed for the trial. The judge did not respond. I asked to kindly accept my motion for a dismissal.

After what seemed to be an eternity, the judge looked up and said, “Case dismissed.” His words were truly the most relieving and gratifying two words I could have possibly heard. All of the hard work and time I put in to this exercise, not only saved me the $200 fine, but I confirmed to myself that I could stand up to my opponents and be victorious. The best part of this was, I didn’t even have to argue the law, I used the law in my favor and the judge nor could the prosecutor do anything to stop me.

Chris is a business administration major with a concentration in management of information technology at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Anirudh Ramesh.

Companies need to provide high quality services. If companies provide defective or unsatisfactory services, they may be subject to legal action. Tesla is an automotive manufacturer. They specialize in building electrical cars and solar panels. Tesla had failed to provide reliable equipment to Walmart. Thus, the company opened itself to legal issues.

“The Walmart suit alleges breach of contract, gross negligence and failure to live up to industry standards. Walmart is asking Tesla to remove solar panels from more than 240 Walmart locations where they have been installed, and to pay damages related to all the fires Walmart says that Tesla caused.” (cnbc.com) According to the contract with Tesla, Tesla is supposed to provide reliable equipment. However, Tesla did not pay heed to the defectiveness of the solar panels that were installed. This resulted in property damage to Walmart. In addition, Tesla used amateurs to inspect the panels. Tesla should have used knowledgeable personnel to inspect the solar panels.

Since Tesla could not perform the contract that it had agreed to, it is subject to breach of contract. Tesla needed to be more careful and should have taken measures to prevent this loss from occurring. Since Tesla could do neither of the two things, it will be held accountable to pay Walmart for damages. Since Walmart has sued Tesla, an out of court settlement will be ideal.

Anirudh is an accounting and IT major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Posted by Frank Volturo.Over the past two decades, the New England Patriots have been a force to be reckoned with in the NFL. They have won 6 Super Bowls since 2001, all with the same head coach and quarterback. However, as successful as they have been, they have had their fair share of scandals. In 2007, there was a scandal called “spygate” where Patriots coach Bill Belichick was charged with filming the practice of other teams. In 2015, there was a scandal called “deflate-gate” where Patriots QB Tom Brady was suspended 4 games for tampering with the air pressure of footballs. Three weeks ago, the Patriots celebrated their sixth Super Bowl since the turn of the century. But, over the past week, another scandal has risen.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft has been accused of soliciting prostitution at a massage parlor in Florida. This comes less than three weeks since the Patriots won the big game. Now, Kraft faces a lawsuit. Kraft has already been charged since the evidence is there. He was caught on camera twice at a massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida. He was caught once the day of the AFC Championship game and once the day before. If Kraft does end up getting convicted, he could potentially face up to two years in prison (one per incident), but usually there is a settlement of a fine and community service.

Soliciting somebody to commit prostitution is a major crime and Kraft will definitely be held accountable one way or another. On top of a fine and community service, the NFL will likely suspend Kraft for at least a few games and fine him as well. They may even decide to take draft picks from the Patriots if the situation is bad enough. Kraft is one of 25 people caught soliciting prostitution at this spa since police installed cameras in January. While they will all face legal action, the spa is in much more trouble. They are being accused of sex trafficking. It has been said that they have been taking women from different countries and having them work at the spa and offer prostitution. This is a major felony if they get charged.

Overall, this situation is messy on all sides. As a businessman or businesswoman, one always needs to act as if somebody is watching them at all time. Being a billionaire like Kraft, you have to know that you are not the average person. In this case, even the average people involved all got caught as well. Even when you are in private, you must think like the whole world knows what you’re doing.

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

Posted by Ethan Atiles.This past week news had broken that Honda would be contacting 106,683 Ridgeline owners about an issue regarding their mid-size pickup truck’s fuel pump. It was made known that contact with various cleaning solutions or other acids could potentially cause a crack in the fuel pump feed port to crack, such crack could lead fuel leakage that lead to potential fire hazards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had reported saying that dealers will replace the fuel pump and install fuel pump covers free of charge if needed.

The actions taken by both Honda and their respected dealers are very efficient and safe. Once the issue was made known precautionary actions were taken to not only save lives, but from the company’s standpoint, helping maintain their image. Injuries and even deaths that could have arisen as a result of malfunctions within the fuel pump would have been detrimental to Honda as a company.

The amount of lawsuits Honda could have potentially faced would have left a big mark on the company. Not only would they have had to have dealt with the medical bills of everyone affected, there would have also had to have been sorts of compensations in an attempt lighten the moods of their customers. Then even on top of that, whatever else individuals felt they were entitled to Honda would have most likely had to have been dealt in court.

Damages that could have possibly affected areas around the incident also would have deserved some services from Honda as well. Finally, Honda would have had to deal with lawful actions presented by those dealerships who sold the cars in the first place as they would feel not responsible and feel Honda should cover their clients.

Honda’s quick reaction to vocalize the issue most definitely prevented maybe various lawsuits that could have risen, thus saving large amounts of money, and overall, the company’s reputation and legitimacy to the public.

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

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Honda-recalling-over-100K-pickups-that-could-13624989.php

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Honda-recalling-over-100K-pickups-that-could-13624989.php

Posted by William Steck.

Huawei, a multi-national, Chinese-based telecom company has again found itself in the headlines for the wrong reason. This time the corporation is facing several new lawsuits accusing it of corporate espionage.

For years, Huawei has been seen as an industry leader, recently producing some of the first 5G compatible phones, but despite its advanced engineering tactics, Huawei has been banned from entering the U.S. marketplace. The ban stems from fear of government espionage shared by both U.S. government officials and consumers. Officials and consumers believe that if the company were to enter the U.S. marketplace, it would be pressured by the Chinese Government to create back doors in its products, leading to massive breaches in U.S. national security and consumers privacy.

Although allegations of corporate espionage are not new to Huawei, few have been able to prove it, until now. In a new report, the U.S. Justice Department states that in 2013, a Huawei engineer stole a robotic arm from a T-Mobile factory. After stealing this piece of highly coveted intellectual property, the engineer proceeded to photograph it and then return it the next day, claiming he had taken it by “mistake.” The report goes on to detail a Huawei bonus program created to incentivize its workers to steal information from competing corporations. Similar suits against Huawei are also underway in Texas, Australia, Britain, German, and Poland.

Unethical and illegal actions, like the ones taken by Huawei engineers, seriously damage companies that lose billions of dollars in trade secrets and intellectual property as well as society as a whole. This year at CES in Las Vegas, 5G was all the rage. New home Wi-Fi routers from D-Link and other manufactures will allow consumers to access the internet without the need for a cable modem. This could benefit those who work from home, as well as those who live in remote areas who could finally gain access the internet.

But allegations against Huawei continue to keep the technology out of reach for millions of people by reducing competition in the market and by inflating costs. Despite their current situation, former employees claim the company’s goal is to surpass the United States as the dominant technological superpower by 2025. In order for the U.S to remain as the dominant technological superpower, courts in the U.S and around the world will need to take a hard stance on corporate espionage and hold Huawei accountable for their actions. If not, corporations, governments, and consumers could be at risk to lose even more intellectual property and personal data.

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

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2018/10/18/texas-courtroom-tech-firm-huawei-stands-accused-corporate-espionage-aid-china

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-huawei-indictment-tells-a-story-of-deceit-and-corporate-espionage/2019/01/29/c2035abe-23f4-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b418cbdcd1a1

Posted by Wenzhuo Li.

Recently, a proposal to tax wealth finds support across party lines, along with the premise that the government should combat inequality. As leading Democrats roll out proposals to increase taxes on the rich, the American people are largely behind them.

In my opinion, there are several advantages about this proposal:

1. It can reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and improve the fairness of the society.
2. It can increase the contribution of the rich to society and make them more socially responsible.
3. It can make poor citizens have better social security like health insurance.

In this Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley’s article it said, “She says she wants to tax wealthy Americans to pay for programs for veterans, children and the homeless”. We can know that tax wealthy policy has its social responsibility and role in public welfare.

In the article, Ms. Warren said “Across party lines, Americans want the very wealthiest families to pay their fair share so we can have an economy that works for everyone.” Taxing the wealthy can pay for the economy gap.

Even there are lots of advantages of this proposal, it still has shortcomings:

1. People might lose job opportunities. Taxing wealthy will reduce the investment, so some middle-class workers like investment advisers or some companies.
2. The government may lose the support of the rich.

Anyway, it’s a good proposal but it still faces challenges; it is a socially responsible policy, but it still needs to pass the test of time and society.

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

Source:

Posted by Pennie Papamichael.

They are claiming that they were groped at fraternity parties and are arguing the idea that “the school has fostered an environment where alcohol-fueled gatherings at off-campus fraternity houses dictate the undergraduate social scene” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). The lawsuit claims that Yale does not sponsor many social events or gatherings, so people continue to go to these fraternity parties to socialize and meet other students. The lawsuit specifically states, “Male students routinely controlled the admission, alcohol, lighting, and music for many Yale social gatherings. This dynamic created dangerous environments in which sexual misconduct thrived” (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT). Most colleges and universities have ignored the many cases that have come up in order to protect their reputation, however, it seems as time has passed people are still continuously being sexually harassed and abused. The dean of the university responded by saying, “that Yale ‘plays no formal role in the organizations not affiliated with the university, including Greek organizations,’ the university was working on providing alternative social spaces and events on campus” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). In the lawsuit these three women are fighting to have Yale and their fraternities tame their parties as well as forcing fraternities to allow women in and share all the benefits in the membership such as networks that can lead to jobs and internships.

The problem with this lawsuit is that “‘Yale often claims that the university cannot punish the fraternities because they are unregistered, off-campus organizations,’” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). The women are fighting this by addressing the fact that the fraternities are “acting as extensions of Yale” because “Yale allows them to use the University’s name, email address, bulletin boards and campus facilities for recruitment” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). The three women are Anna McNeil a junior, Eliana singer a sophomore, and Ry Walker 20. They all claim that they have been groped at fraternity parties in their first semesters. Furthermore, Ry Walker even explains that when she was about to go into the party, one of the fraternity members controlling who could go in, passed her over while white women could enter. Ry Walker stated, “We eat together, take classes together, exist in this coeducational place. But somehow because of the way Greek life operates on campus and the control they have over social spaces here, that means that on weekend nights, men are the only ones who have power” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment). Furthermore, the lawsuit also accuses the University of “violating Title IX of federal education law, which prohibits sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funding, and breach of contract for not providing the educational environment it promised. It accuses the fraternities of violating the Fair Housing Act for offering housing only to men, and Yale and the fraternities of violating Connecticut’s law against discrimination in places of public accommodation” (Women Sue Yale Over a Fraternity Culture They Say Enables Harassment).

In my opinion, I believe that these three women have a lot of courage and resilience. They are trying to fight in order to make women feel safer on college campuses, which I believe is a great thing. However, I also believe that if these women feel unsafe during these fraternity parties their simple answer is to not attend. There are other ways to be included in social events which do not involve putting yourself in a dangerous situation. In my opinion, putting yourself at risk of danger is not worth a couple hours of “fun”. I agree that this is a serious situation that needs to be addressed, however I think that no matter how many lawsuits are filed for sexual harassment, it will never fully stop it, which is a terrible thing. People need to be able to make smart choices for themselves and understand the risks that they are putting themselves through at these fraternity parties.

Pennie is business undecided at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2022.

http:// https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/us/yale-fraternities.html

Posted by Anna Plank.On February 7th, Capitol Forum (whose headquarters is in Washington DC) sued Blomberg (whose headquarters is in New York). In the physical lawsuit, Capitol Forum enhances on its business model by saying, “[our] reports are extensively researched and carefully written, often the product of months of work, and [our] subscribers rely on these reports to make investment and business decisions.” Bloomberg’s net worth is 57 billion dollars, and (as found on their website) they “deliver business and markets news, data, analysis, and video to the world, featuring stories from Businessweek and Bloomberg News.” While Bloomberg has a larger global presence, both companies are business news outlets that specialize in reporting accurate, detailed information about the business world.

However, Capitol Forum claimed (within their lawsuit): “(1) copyright infringement; (2) contributory copyright infringement; (3) misappropriation of proprietary information under the ‘hot news’ doctrine; and (4) tortious interference with contractual relationships, arising from Bloomberg’s illegal solicitation, receipt, and use of Capitol Forum’s copyrighted and proprietary reports.” The company claimed copyright infringement since all the articles and research that is carried out by Capitol Forum are their own materials. As such, they are the copyrighted products of Capitol Forum. Additionally, the “hot news’ doctrine” states that there is legal protection for works that have been published and have clear authorship as well as economic value that doesn’t diminish in a small period. This precedent was established in 1918 through International News Service v. Associated Press. Their fourth claim focuses on the relationship the company has with their paying customers. If their customers see that the articles are being outsourced to other, FREE distributors than they are less likely to continue their membership with Capitol Forum.

While it seems Capitol Forum has sufficient grounds for their lawsuit, the Columbia Journal Review claims, “the Second Circuit rejected a misappropriation claim filed by Barclays, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley against a financial news site called Theflyonthewall.com.” Although Fly was taking these companies financial reports and republishing them, they did so completely under jurisdiction since they were giving all credit to each respective company. This lawsuit between Capitol Forum and Bloomberg seems to have a similar set up; however, since the hot news doctrine was put into place in 1918, before the dot com bubble exploded on the internet, it makes sense to begin to look at this law in a new light.
In conclusion to the lawsuit, Capitol forum demands for the court to declare that Bloomberg has indeed engaged in all activities listed and ask for compensatory damages in the amount of 150,000 dollars for each act of infringement. Additionally, Capitol Forum requested for a trial by jury and not by arbitration. As of now, there has been no update or response to this lawsuit, but it certainly has the potential to swing either way.

Anna is an accounting and IT major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2022.

Article Links:
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/hot-news-lawsuit-bloomberg.php

Capitol Forum sues Bloomberg, alleging improper use of its content

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5731054/Bloomberg.pdf

Posted by Jiaqi Duan.

The “Ponzi scheme” originated from a man named Charles Ponzi (1882-1949). The investment plan is simple to say, investing in something and then getting a high return. However, Ponzi deliberately made this plan very complicated, so that ordinary people could not figure out.

In 1919, when the First World War was just over and the world economic system was in chaos, Ponzi used this confusion. He claimed that by purchasing some sort of postal bill in Europe and selling it to the United States, he could make money.

Since Ponzi, in less than 100 years, various “Ponzi schemes” have emerged around the world. With the process of China’s reform and opening up, the “Ponzi scheme” has also entered China in large numbers. In the 1980s, there was a “rat meeting” in the southern part of China, which was a replica of the “Ponzi scheme”. The more well-known “Ponzi scheme” improved version is a variety of pyramid schemes.

All scams have a common character. As we all know, the risk is proportional to the return is the investment of iron law, “Ponzi scheme” often does the opposite. Liars often attract investors, who do not know the truth of a high rate of return, and never emphasize the risk factors of investment. The return rates of various cases may vary, some are too high, such as Ponzi’s promised investment can get 50% return within 45 days, and some are stable and extraordinary returns, such as Madoff’s annual guaranteed return to customers. His was only about 10%, but he strongly stressed that “investment must be earned, there is no loss.” But in any case, scammers always try to design an investment path that is much higher than the average return of the market, and never reveal or emphasize the risk factors of investment.

There is also the use of funds to make up the replenishment characteristics. Since the promised return on investment cannot be achieved at all, the return on investment for the old customers can only be achieved by the participation of new customers or other financing arrangements. This puts a very high demand on the flow of funds for the Ponzi scheme. Therefore, the scammers always try to expand the scope of the client, broaden the scale of the funds absorbed, and get enough space for the funds to replenish. Most scammers never refuse to add new funds, because the scope is bigger, not only the benefits are more substantial, but the risk of capital chain breaks is greatly reduced, and the duration of scams can be greatly extended.

And there is also the pyramidal features of the investor structure. In order to pay the high return of investors first, the “Ponzi scheme” must continue to develop offline, attracting more and more investors through seduction, persuasion, affection, and connections, thus forming a “pyramid” style. Investor structure. A small number of insiders at the apex benefit from extracting a large number of participants from the bottom of the tower and the tower. Even the inscrutable Nasdaq’s former chairman of the board, Madoff, is inevitably entangled in the layman’s clichés, making extensive use of friends, family and business partners to develop “downline”, and some people get commissions for successful “investment”. The downline has developed a new “downline”, and the snowball type has grown into a “pyramid” structure.

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

Work cited:
Dunn, Donald. The Incredible True Story of the King of Financial Cons, Ponzi, 2004.

Posted by Amy Chin.

Coming off the horizon of a myriad of data privacy scandals, legislators have called attention to the lack of federal regulation in the sector of consumer privacy. While some states, such as California, have taken charge and created statutes and regulations of their own, there exists no overarching federal statute. Many cases have fallen to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) but even this federal agency lacks the substantial power needed to establish and enforce ethical data practices.

One of the most widely discussed scandals is Facebook’s sharing of personal user data first discovered in the case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which questioned whether Facebook broke a consent decree to improve its privacy practices. The case made another public appearance recently in discussions with the FTC of a multi-billion dollar fine in response to this abuse of data. This would be the first significant fine issued joining the other approximately one hundred enforcement actions issued by the FTC in the past decade.

A common theme of this topic is the glacial pace of regulation and federal action in comparison to the everchanging speed of the technology it aims to regulate. With proponents pushing for legislation in Congress it still took two years for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to author and publish the report on February 13th asking for the establishment of a “comprehensive federal privacy statute with specific standards.” The mixed bag of state statues, a limited FTC, and the judicially unexplored field of technology, the need for a universal policy is apparent.

Concerns over the misuse of data first arose from questions on the basis of ethics. Without official regulation the norms of business procedures are usually the only guiding factor in determining moral practices. Accordingly, since technology has advanced so quickly the industry has yet to pause long enough to set such universal standards. As a result, Zuckerberg and other companies avoided scrutiny for some time and have yet to be held accountable legally. These actions earned Zuckerberg the title of “digital gangster” from British lawmakers with the accusations that Facebook and similar tech giants were walking over the few rules and standards that had been set.

The nuance of data privacy in conjunction with consumer unawareness of where all their freely given data is being used leaves the field of data privacy exposed and with no direction. In the words of Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ.), who requested the GAO report, “consumers’ privacy is being violated online and offline in alarming and dangerous ways.” Lacking any concrete federal legislation or laws, the enforcement of data privacy standards has been anything but effective. While the GAO report is a step in the right direction, the fast pace of technology has lapped the subdued reaction of the government in creating effective laws to protect the information and data of its constituents.

Amy is a marketing and information technology management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2022.

https://www.cnet.com/news/us-needs-an-internet-data-privacy-law-gao-tells-congress/

https://apnews.com/ea753cc557664ba9922666b220d4d9b4

Posted by Chengjie Chu. 

The business dispute between Qualcomm and Apple has a long history, focusing on patents. In fact, Apple and Qualcomm were once close business partners. However, the quarrel between Apple and Qualcomm stems from the fact that Apple provided relevant correct information to the South Korean government when it was investigating Qualcomm, which made the situation of Qualcomm become very awkward at that time. Because of this, Qualcomm withheld $1 billion in royalties it had promised to pay Apple. The matter was also investigated by the federal trade commission of the United States. After verification, Qualcomm has paid billions of dollars of kickbacks to Apple in exchange for the exclusive chip purchase agreement signed by Apple in 2011 and 2013 to exclude competitors. In fact, this kind of transaction is a kind of a monopoly, which is very unfair to other downstream enterprises. Moreover, this kind of transaction is illegal in Europe, America, Japan, China or Taiwan.

On December 10, 2018, China’s Fuzhou intermediate people’s court granted Qualcomm to Apple’s four subsidiaries in China in the two preliminary injunctions to limit Apple to a total of seven related products in China and to stop selling immediately, because Apple’s seven products infringe the patents of Qualcomm, as well as in China imports and sales. And the commercial war continues. We don’t know what result will be.

Both for enterprises and individuals, the protection of patents is very important, and the legal punishment for patent infringement is also very serious. The reason for the long and wide commercial war between the two transnational corporations on the patent issue may lie in the combination of the two corporations in the field of modern communication, which makes it difficult to solve some problems with a fixed legal formula, and the patent dispute will become very difficult. And other legal issues arising from patents, such as monopoly and corruption, will become a major uncertainty in the debate.

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

Resource:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/business/apple-vs-qualcomm-news/

Posted by Brittany Howanice.

In the latest case with President Trump’s immigration policies the judges have used Trump’s comments to go against him. With the new immigration policy, Trump wants to end protections that allowed immigrants from countries to live and work legally in the United States. He also wants to separate families, and even children who were born in the U.S. may be faced with being separated from their family or having to move to a different country when all they know is here. Trump wants to end protections from the Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador. He also wants to ban people from some Muslim-majority countries. However, temporary protected status has been granted to about 300,000 people whose countries have been destroyed by natural disasters or war.

Jablon reported that “the ruling said the government failed to show the harm of continuing the 20 year old program and that the plaintiffs established how uprooting those immigrants could hurt the local and national economy.” Changing something that doesn’t need changing isn’t always a good thing and might end up causing more harm than good. The immigration policy is an example of this because most of the jobs that immigrants do are not taking away from the ones that we are trying to get. They usually have the construction or agriculture jobs, or work in a private household as a maid, gardener or nanny. Also, immigrants make up about 17% of the work force; and, if we change the immigration policy and ban those from working, it will definitely affect our economy. Also, most Americans will not want to work for the pay that immigrants get so that will also affect the economy.

Overall, ending protections that allow immigrants to live and work legally in the United States will have a negative effect on our economy. Also, by banning those from living here and separating them from their families may not be ethical. It is said that “more than 200,000 immigrants could face deportation because of the change, and they have more than 200,000 American children who risk being uprooted from their communities and schools, according to plaintiffs in the lawsuit.” The Trump administration has also ended the immigrant program for the four countries mentioned earlier. In conclusion, ending protections for immigrants will not only greatly affect them, but it will also affect the United States and the economy.

Brittany is pre-business at Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/10/03/us/ap-us-immigration-temporary-status.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FSuits%20and%20Litigation&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=collection

The United States Supreme Court dismissed cases involving President Trump’s executive order blocking people traveling to the United States from certain countries. A September order replaced the March order expanding the restrictions. Since the March order expired, the cases pending before the High Court were moot.

The Supreme Court also vacated the underlying Ninth Circuit opinion blocking the order.  The effect is now there is no precedent, which the district court in Hawaii relied upon to block the September order. The Justice Department will be asking the district court to revisit his ruling now that the Supreme Court has acted.

Posted by Mike Elwell.

A recent article written by David Pitt discusses a law regarding the protection of animal farmers, was recently withdrawn by the US agency after being delayed six months by President Trump. The reason for this rule being instated was so that farmers would have an easier time suing companies that were unfair, this was called “The Farmer Fair Practice Rule”.  Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa farmer, claimed that the reason for the cancellation of the law was that “They’re just pandering to big corporations. They aren’t interested in the family farmer.” This was one of the many criticisms regarding the Trump administration.

Many other farmers or those in power in such agricultural based department’s claim that Trump administration is “opening the floodgates to frivolous and costly litigation”. While some other claim that the Obama administration ignored this up until the very end and the rule possibly couldn’t help farmers to the degree initially thought. However many farmers still believe that this rule could help and that Trump is allowing foreign interest to control the growth of American farmers. Many farmers are having troubles with Trump’s administration because they believed he more focused on the wealthy of America and not the farmers who provide produce domestically.

It seems that Trump is turning his attention away from domestic farms and allowing companies to take advantage of otherwise struggling farmers. Part of my family owns a cow farm in upstate New York and they often struggle with big companies because they either expect more out of the farm than is physically possible or they try to often make things cheaper since they are buying in large amounts. Big companies often try to take advantage of the little guy and without proper regulation can lead to the downfall of one of the backbones of America.

Michael is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

The district court judge dismissed the guilty verdict against Sheriff Joe Arpaio citing President Trump’s plenary power to pardon under Article II of the United States Constitution.

“Prosecutor John Keller said it was appropriate to dismiss the case against Arpaio.”

A case involving a fan who claims he was overcharged for tickets to the Seahawks-Broncos game is headed to the NJ Supreme Court. He paid $2000 each for two tickets worth no more than $800.

NJ law protects plaintiff and consumers like him against inflated prices by requiring at least 95% of the tickets to be sold to the general public. According to plaintiff, the NFL only sold 1% in a nationwide lottery.

Plaintiff expects the class action will result in the NFL paying millions to those fans who paid more than the face value of their tickets.

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

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

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

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

Posted by Daniella Bucci.

The Real Housewives of NJ stars and Montville residents Joe and Teresa Giudice were each sentenced in Newark federal court to 41 months and 15 months in prison, respectively. The couple pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and three types of bankruptcy fraud. The conspiracy consisted of both Joe and Teresa agreeing to commit the fraud. This white collar offense is inchoate, that is, was complete when the agreement was made. The bankruptcy fraud consisted of the couple failing to disclose assets and used bankruptcy as a screen to get out of the debt they were buried in. It is not surprising that the couple, who each grew up in modest homes,  landed in debt, as we were all exposed to their lavish lifestyle on Bravo TV where they tried to keep up with the Joneses.

The Giudice’s also admitted that they hid assets from bankruptcy creditors and submitted phony loan applications to get some $5 million in mortgages and construction loans. The couple had applied for these loans for over 7 or 8 years, resulting in the banks suffering major losses, one of which faced a $414,000 loss. On top of that, Joe Guidice also pleaded guilty to failing to file a tax return for 2004, and admitted that he didn’t file taxes on income of approximately $1 million between 2004 and 2008. Last but not least, the couple that once believed they were invincible failed to reveal $75,000 worth of assets on a probation form. Teresa, currently serving her time in Danbury Federal Prison in Connecticut, is set to be released on December 23rd of this year. Joe will be sentenced to his 41-month sentence in March.

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

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.

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.

The United States Supreme Court dismissed cases involving President Trump’s executive order blocking people traveling to the United States from certain countries. A September order replaced the March order expanding the restrictions. Since the March order expired, the cases pending before the High Court were moot.

The Supreme Court also vacated the underlying Ninth Circuit opinion blocking the order.  The effect is now there is no precedent, which the district court in Hawaii relied upon to block the September order. The Justice Department will be asking the district court to revisit his ruling now that the Supreme Court has acted.

A case involving a fan who claims he was overcharged for tickets to the Seahawks-Broncos game is headed to the NJ Supreme Court. He paid $2000 each for two tickets worth no more than $800.

NJ law protects plaintiff and consumers like him against inflated prices by requiring at least 95% of the tickets to be sold to the general public. According to plaintiff, the NFL only sold 1% in a nationwide lottery.

Plaintiff expects the class action will result in the NFL paying millions to those fans who paid more than the face value of their tickets.

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 Adam Kutarnia.

People have been betting on sports for centuries, however, the multi-billion dollar industry is illegal in almost all parts of the United States except for four states – Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana. Last summer, 29 men were arrested in New Jersey for running a sports betting ring that grossed approximately to $3 million during a 12-month period. New Jersey is one of the many states where sports gambling is illegal, but many are fighting to change the law.

While most of the world allows sports gambling, the United States has been strict about it since passing the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which prohibits sports gambling nationwide, excluding a few states. New Jersey has been pushing hard to legalize sports gambling in the last couple years, but has been unsuccessful due to four major professional sports leagues – NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL and NCAA blocking it.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christe has been a strong supporter of legalizing sports gambling in New Jersey, and even signed a law passed by the state legislatures to allow sports gambling in New Jersey’s casinos and racetracks, before the major professional leagues and NCAA blocked it. The plaintiffs argue that sports betting would harm the integrity of sports and violate federal law. As of right now, New Jersey is losing millions of dollars in potential revenue to offshore and organized crime.

New Jersey will get another shot at their case after a federal court hearing before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals took place last month; a ruling in the case will be made on June 26.

Like the case above with the 29 men being arrested for running a sports betting ring, people want to bet on games and will do so whether it’s legal or not.

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

In class, we discuss trademark and trade dress.  Ever open a can of Play-Doh and smell that distinct scent?  Well, now Hasbro has trademarked that scent.

“‘The scent of Play-Doh compound has always been synonymous with childhood and fun,’” said Jonathan Berkowitz, a senior vice president of global marketing for the Play-Doh brand. “‘By officially trademarking the iconic scent, we are able to protect an invaluable point of connection between the brand and fans for years to come.’”

The United States Supreme Court dismissed cases involving President Trump’s executive order blocking people traveling to the United States from certain countries. A September order replaced the March order expanding the restrictions. Since the March order expired, the cases pending before the High Court were moot.

The Supreme Court also vacated the underlying Ninth Circuit opinion blocking the order.  The effect is now there is no precedent, which the district court in Hawaii relied upon to block the September order. The Justice Department will be asking the district court to revisit his ruling now that the Supreme Court has acted.

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.

In Torts, we discuss defamation and the strict limitations surrounding public figures when pursuing claims against people who say things that hurt their good reputation. Bill O’Reilly, a former prominent news commentator, filed a $5 million-dollar lawsuit against a former politician who posted statements on Facebook regarding his former girlfriend’s treatment by Fox News after she made harassment accusations.

The complaint states: “‘Plaintiff [O’Reilly] seeks damages for the public hatred, ridicule, disgrace, and permanent harm to his professional and personal reputations as a result of Defendant Panter’s publication of knowingly defamatory statements about Plaintiff, which were made with actual malice, as well as Defendant Panter’s intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Plaintiff.’”

Claims made by public figures are difficult, but not impossible, to prove because they require a showing of malice.  Here, the complaint alleges defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Posted by Faris Alzahrani.

On June 20th Christiano Ronaldo was accused by the government prosecutor for evading tax four times amounting to $16.5 million. Ronaldo was investigated and was expected to appear before Pozuelo de Alarcon court No. 1 on July 31. His summoning accorded with the same prosecutor who indicted Mourinho for evading tax two times. The prosecutor reported that there was enough evidence that Christiano Ronald used a shell firm to hide the cash she had acquired from the team image rights. However, Ronaldo pleaded not guilty.

It believed that Ronald had to move out of the country and join another football club because of the accusations against him. It was alleged that Mourinho committed tax deception in a period between 2011 and 2012; this is according to Madrid’s prosecutor. All of the evidence was based on the facts delivered by Spain Tax Office that indicated that Mourinho also hides money from profit rights and avoided to pay tax (Fox, 2017).

Everything was left in judges hands. It is crucial to note that these individuals are not the first to be accused of tax fraud. Last year a Barcelona striker, Lionel Messi was indicted for tax fraud on three counts that amounted to $4.6 million, this mainly from the income made from image rights. He was given a 21-month jail sentence, but he was not expected to serve in prison, since it was his first offense and his sentence was below two years.

Faris is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

News, F. (2017, June 20). Cristiano Ronaldo, Jose Mourinho caught up in Spain tax scandal. Retrieved from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/06/20/cristiano-ronaldo-jose- mourinho-caught-up-in-spain-tax-scandal