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

President Trump blocked the impending merger between Singapore-based, Broadcom, and U.S.-based, Qualcomm, over concerns that it would affect national security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States investigated “the national security implications of the deal last week over concerns that it would hamper U.S. efforts to develop 5G wireless networks and other emerging technologies. CFIUS on Monday recommended that the president veto the deal.”

The President cited “‘credible’” evidence of risk to our national security. We would lose a company with the ingenuity and technology to build the next-generation of wireless networks.

Posted by Julian Toledo.

Known for its multiple smart phones and other electronic products, Apple has recently been accused around the globe of intentionally shortening the battery life of older iPhones to boost its profits. Consumer groups and government officials, primarily of the United States, South Korea, and France, have forced this technology company to undergo many lawsuits for unethical business behavior for almost two months. During late December of 2017, customers questioned whether Apple had adjusted the performance of its phones after a Reddit user shared online that his old iPhone had been functioning poorly until he replaced its battery with a new one. Consequently, other people with different iPhone versions began to post about their similar experiences. After quickly receiving huge backlash, Apple explained that it slowed down its phones with aging batteries, including the iPhone 6, iPhone 6S, and iPhone SE, after introducing an iOS update last year to prevent these products from unexpectedly shutting down. In addition, the company claimed that it has “never—and would never—do anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product.” Since the uproar, Apple has made battery replacement cheaper and said it will bring a new iOS update that will notify users about their phone’s battery health. Although some individuals believe that Apple acted responsibly for stopping phone shutdowns, others are still complaining that the company could have handled this issue better.

As of January 12, Apple is facing over thirty lawsuits around the United States, with the majority of them arguing about the company’s deliberate slowdown of older iPhones without advising users. Scott Grillo, a Californian citizen and the plaintiff of a recent lawsuit, criticized Apple for “unfair business practices” and “breach of implied contract.” He told the court that after updating his device from a software upgrade, his phone began to operate inefficiently. Furthermore, lawmakers have been accusing Apple for failing to properly communicate with customers and manage the widespread problem. One government official that has challenged the company in this way is Senator John Thune of South Dakota. Thune argued in his letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook that even if the company planned to slow down older models of the iPhone to ultimately prevent shutdowns, “there should have been better transparency with respect to these practices.”

Outside the United States, more than 120 members of the South Korean organization called Citizens United for Consumer Sovereignty filed a civil suit against Apple on January 11. Led by head plaintiff Go Gye-hyun, the group is currently suing for the alleged destruction of property. For the damages, this consumer organization strives for two million win, or about $2,050, for each plaintiff. In addition, Apple’s recent controversy spread to France, where it is illegal to intentionally reduce the lifespan of goods to force buyers to purchase new ones. In fact, according to French lawyers, if executives are found engaging in this type of unethical business activity, they can be sentenced up to two years in prison and have their companies fined five percent of their sales revenue. In Paris, the public prosecutor’s office received complaints from another consumer group known as Stop Planned Obsolescence. Laetitia Vasseur, the cofounder of this organization, seeks to protect all consumers, especially because of how much more expensive Apple products are in Europe than in the United States. She stated, “At more than €1,200 per phone, these practices are unacceptable and cannot go unpunished. It is our mission to defend consumers and the environment.” This amount in euros translates to about $1,400, which demonstrates how problematic it is for individuals to replace their older, malfunctioning iPhones.

Despite its financial success, technological influence, and popularity across the world, Apple holds a big responsibility in terms of legal issues. As a multinational company, Apple is seeking to regain its trust with consumer groups and government executives. However, with these many lawsuits filed against the company within a two-month period, it is uncertain how long it could take Apple to fix its reputation. Overall, this recent controversy accurately shows how such a small business action can significantly backfire. If a company’s conduct does not truly satisfy consumer demands, it can result in legal consequences that can ultimately impact its performance and status in the market.

Julian Toledo is a business management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/technology/apple-iphone-slow-battery-lawsuit/index.html

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/apple-slow-iphone-backlash-1202647220/

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.

In class, we discuss the American legal system’s doctrinal foundation of presumption of innocence, based on Blackstone’s formulation, and even deeper, its Biblical roots. A Kansas man was recently released from prison for a crime he did not commit. His brother confessed to killing his niece and then committed suicide.

Kansas has no law helping those who are released from prison.  Other states, such as Texas, would have given him $1.8 million, or $80,000 for every year lost, “not including a yearly compensation afterward.” Colorado would provide $70,000 for each year, and Alabama, $50,000 per year.

As a remedy, it is possible to sue state officials under federal law. Section 1983 of the code in part states, “Every person who … subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.”

These cases are difficult, but not impossible, to prove. Police have “conditional immunity” from prosecution, and prosecutors have absolute immunity, where a case can go forward if there is evidence of intentional misconduct.

Posted by Alexandra Prostamo.

On October 16, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Microsoft’s dispute over the government’s authority to be able to access emails and digital information sought in criminal investigations, but stored outside of the United States. According to the Trump administration and 33 states, the court’s decision is impeding investigations into terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud and child pornography just because the email information is stored in servers in Ireland. This is why they urged the court to take the case, U.S. v. Microsoft.

They believe the decision has implications not only for Microsoft, but also for other technology giants like Google and Yahoo, stating that “a private company has unfettered discretion to shield evidence of crime from law enforcement, simply by electronically sending that evidence out of jurisdiction.”  The issue rises from the fact that data companies have built servers around the world to keep up with customers’ demands for speed and access. This is why the court needs to confront whether the same rules can be applied to the emails of both an American citizen and a foreigner.

What Microsoft is trying to battle is the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allowed a U.S. law enforcement agency to obtain stored e-mails with a warrant from a U.S. provider if those e-mails are stored abroad. Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith stated that “the current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud”. Microsoft deeply advocates for the fact that Congress should pass a new legislation, however the result of the dispute could have significant global business and privacy implications.

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

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-consider-major-digital-privacy-case-on-microsoft-email-storage/2017/10/16/b1e74936-b278-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.4863bf16975d

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/fb9b07a2c14940b0977cb35ff01166ff

Posted by Gabrielle Vanadia.

Recently, there has been a lawsuit filed in federal court against three major American corporations for supposedly doing business with the Iraqi government during the Iraq War.  This lawsuit was filed by lawyers from a start-up firm led by Ryan Sparacino and the litigation firm of Kellogg Hansen, on behalf of members of the American military that were killed or injured in attacks during the Iraq War.  General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer are three of the major corporations being accused of providing free drugs and medical devices that funded the Shiite militia.  Other companies accused of contributing are the European drug makers AstraZeneca and Roche Holding A.G. The lawsuit filed provided contracts between these companies and Iraqi government, as well as “leaked diplomatic cables, press accounts, and the testimony of informants.”

The lawsuit claims that the companies knew that the Iraqi health ministry, who they were providing with drugs, had become a terrorist organization.  Upon knowledge of this information, the corporations should have terminated their contracts or changed them to prevent corruption, since it is illegal under United States law to knowingly fund terrorist groups.  However, a Pfizer spokeswoman said that the company “denies any wrongdoing” and that their mission was to “provide medicines to patients to help better their lives;” while Johnson & Johnson has completely declined to comment on this matter.

In my opinion, the actions of these companies are completely unacceptable.  They willingly and knowingly funded a terrorist group that was attacking United States soldiers.  American soldiers were in Iraq to help rebuild and regain the country for the Iraqis after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  However, instead of American companies backing and funding their own troops, they helped the enemy.  The militia group that U.S. soldiers were fighting were commonly referred to as the “Pill Army” because their “fighters were often paid with prescription medicines and used hospitals… as staging areas for death squads.”  Many of these death squads funded by drugs from American companies killed American soldiers.  If I was an employee of one of the accused American corporations I would be embarrassed and ashamed of my company’s actions.

Gabrielle is a public relations major with a business administration minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source:

Due to today’s technology, we have advanced into an era where information, computing, and interaction can all be done with a click of a button. A plethora of tasks can now be completed within a matter of seconds. Though this thought may sound great at first, there can also be many negatives associated with it. Unfortunately, the world that we live in is far from a utopia. As a result, many individuals use their knowledge in efforts to create evil rather than for the good of others. In her article, Madison Marriage explains how Deloitte was recently hit with a cyber-attack, the hardships the Big-Four company encountered while attempting to resolve the issue, and the lessons learned from the situation in order to prevent catastrophes like this from happening in the future.

To begin, it is important to understand the background of the company that experienced this cyber-attack. Deloitte is an incorporated multinational professional services firm with operational headquarters located in New York City in the United States. Deloitte is one of the “Big Four” accounting firms and possesses the largest professional services network in the world by revenue and number of professionals. Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, enterprise risk and financial advisory services with more than 263,900 professionals globally. As of 2016, Deloitte is classified as the sixth largest privately-owned organization in the United States. Based on this information, it can be concluded that Deloitte is a great target for hackers due to the value of information that the company carries within the firm. Unfortunately, earlier this year, they were contacted by governmental authorities in regards to a breach of information that was leaked, tarnishing the reputation of what is supposed to be a provider of excellent cyber security advice. Despite the irony of this, the attack was described by Deloitte as a “cyber incident” and was first reported by the Guardian newspaper, as a low blow due to the fact that security advice to large companies is one of Deloitte’s fastest-growing revenue streams.

In fact, in the month this took place, the accounting firm posted record global revenue of thirty-nine billion dollars saying that the cyberattack only affected a few clients. They also stated that the attack had “no disruption had occurred to client businesses, to Deloitte’s ability to continue to service clients, or to consumers”. Despite this, Deloitte had to act quickly and adapt to the situation. As a result, once the news was present, they mobilized a team of security and confidentiality experts inside and outside of Deloitte, contacting governmental authorities and immediately contacting all clients that were affected.

Overall, it is evident that companies as well as individuals who perform these tasks day in and day out are not safe from attacks. Unfortunately, Deloitte was a firm that had to learn this the hard way. Fortunately though, Deloitte had the manpower, knowledge, and funds to protect itself and was able to mend this issue before it spiraled out of control. In the future, I believe that Deloitte should have constant routine updates and checks-ins in order to prevent this type of data breach from occurring again. They should also have password changes every month or so in order to make it harder for hackers to get a hold of their private information. All in all, the firm had a statement that was released at the end of this fiasco to sum up the cyber-attack, “Deloitte remains deeply committed to ensuring that its cyber-security defenses are best in class, to investing heavily in protecting confidential information and continually reviewing and enhancing cyber security.”

Michael is an MBA student with a concentration in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Work Cited:

https://www.ft.com/content/7c52fe88-7bf1-3798-9d55-2d5498b53c20

Marriage, Mary. “Subscribe to Read.” Financial Times, 25 Sept. 2017, www.ft.com/content/7c52fe88-

7bf1-3798-9d55-2d5498b53c20.

Posted by Isabelle Roddy.

Two brothers, Thomas and John Buckner, founded a defense contractor in Pittsburgh, PA, known as Ibis Tek LLC, specializing in the expansion and improvement of transparent armor and miscellaneous gadgets for warfare vehicles. Specifically, Ibis Tek supplies and provides the United States Department of Defense with transparent armor, advanced lighting, and tactical vehicles and accessories. The founding brothers sold the company to new investors in February 2017.

While operating the company, the brothers executed numerous illicit activities, particularly through the “Michigan-based U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command or TACOM” (Mandak). They swindled TACOM by employing a cheaper Chinese firm to construct emergency window kit frames for only $20 and then selling them to TACOM for $60, thereby making a $40 profit on each frame. Additionally, the brothers “sold scrap aluminum relating to the manufacture of the frames” but retained the earnings (Mandak). Consequently, the individuals executed a “$6 million scheme to overcharge the U.S. Defense Department” (Mandak).

As a result, in May 2017, the brothers plead guilty “to charges of major fraud against the government and income tax evasion for filing returns that did not include the illegal income” (Mandak). The individuals were incarcerated and received monetary fines. Precisely, Thomas Buckner received a two and a half year sentence and a fine of $500,000. On the other hand, John Buckner only incurred a two-year sentence and a fine of $300,000. Thomas received the more severe penalty due to his day-to-day involvement in the company, prominently after retiring from the company’s management in 2007 (Mandak). Nevertheless, the brothers “have already repaid $6 million to the government, plus another $6 million to settle a lawsuit the government filed against them for the scheme,” and nearly $2 million in income tax losses and interest (Mandak). However, legal officials do not believe money damages are a sufficient form of punishment for the two given their affluence. Instead, they must provide more than mere monetary compensations.

Finally, the previous chief financial officer of the company, Harry Kramer, was charged as well due to his assistance in “filing false tax returns that understated Ibis Tek’s income in 2009 and 2010” (Mandak). He will be sentenced on October 18.

Isabelle is a marketing and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/34ae2fdc684b45188d9bb4907ad66a8a

Posted by Bader Alotaibi.

Murray R. Spies was found guilty of attempting to dodge income tax. The case turned on the determination of the exact sum of tax and how to collect and manage accounts and revenues.

“Petitioner admitted at the opening of the trial that he had sufficient income during the year in question to place him under a statutory duty to file a return and to pay a tax, and that he failed to do either.” The government sought to show Spies committed tax evasion. Petitioner testified as to his good personality, his illness at the period he filed his return and the lack of will, mainly because of mental disturbance, which signified something more than anxiety, but less than madness. At his trial, Spies asked for this instruction: “You cannot conclude that the Defendant is shamefaced of a considered attempt to defeat and avoid income tax if you discover that Murray R. Spies has not intentionally rendered taxable returns and has willingly unsuccessful to pay income taxes on that earnings.”

The Court reversed holding, “[W]e think a defendant is entitled to a charge which will point out the necessity for such an inference of willful attempt to defeat or evade tax from some proof in the case other than that necessary to make out the misdemeanors, and if the evidence fails to afford such an inference, the defendant should be acquitted.”

Bader is an MBA student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Work cited

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/492/case.html

The rivalry between Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo and Uber has intensified as Google’s parent sued Uber on grounds of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation in February. Anthony Levandowski, a former employee of Google, has allegedly stolen 14,000 files worth of trade secrets to create his own self-driving truck company, Otto, acquired by Uber last year. Bloomberg Technology claims that the design and construction of the laser-scanning system to guide the autonomous cars took Waymo about seven years to build, while Uber supposedly accomplished the task in a mere nine months.

According to the suit, Mr. Levandowski allegedly registered the company Otto mid-January of last year and left Alphabet twelve days later, but not before downloading 9.7 gigabytes worth of classified information from Waymo’s design server. The suit further claims that he took the time to meticulously conceal his activities by attaching “an external hard drive to his laptop for eight hours, before erasing the history of his computer,” and never using it again. A few months after Mr. Levandowski left Alphabet and received his last compensation check, Otto was bought for $680 million in stock by Uber.

The article reveals that Anthony Levandowski is not the only former employee accused of stealing confidential data from Waymo’s self-driving car project, which has led to approximately $500 million for Otto employees. Waymo explains that Uber unfairly used this stolen information as a shortcut to create a strikingly similar laser sensor system to their own. When confronted with this complaint, Uber spokeswoman Chelsea Kohler claimed, “We take the allegations made against Otto and Uber employees seriously and we will review this matter carefully.” Despite this statement, Mr. Levandowski has been unavailable to comment.

Danielle is a finance and ITM major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alphabets-waymo-sues-uber-over-self-driving-car-secrets-1487894378

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-23/alphabet-s-waymo-sues-uber-for-stealing-self-driving-patents

Posted by Mihran Naltchayan.

On January 16, 2012 around 1:30am, there was a burglary at a jewelry store named “Taline’s Jewelry” in Edgewater, NJ. Burglary is the breaking and entering into a building with the intent to commit a felony therein.

The jewelry store was arranged with a front display space, and the store next door was empty. The empty store is a big building that wrapped around the backend of the jewelry store. The “Ninja Bandit Burglary Crew” cut into a common wall of the empty store and entered the jewelry store from the backend so nobody can see them from the front side. This crew had three people. They didn’t realize that the walls had a vibration sensor that sends a quiet message to the Edgewater police department. So when the police officers arrived, they tried to run away.

“An Edgewater cop fired at least one shot at a thief who used a police cruiser as a getaway car, after a group of officers interrupted an overnight jewelry store break-in involving an alleged member of the infamous ‘Ninja Bandit’ burglary crew.” (Cliffviewpilot.com). The officers arrested 2 of the 3 people. They found the cop car in Teaneck, New Jersey 9:30 am the same day. The third guy wasn’t found.

The two men were brought to a Municipal Court judge in Edgewater and the judge ordered the defendants to be held on $50,000 bail each; they were charged with burglary, resisting arrest, criminal arrest and possession of burglar tools. (Cliffviewpilot.com).

I wrote about this article because this jewelry store is my father’s, and I thought it would be a good article to use for business law, since we cover criminal law in class.

Mihran is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

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 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 Courtney McCardle.

Johnny Depp, a very famous and popular actor filed a lawsuit in the beginning of 2017, as he believed the issue is costing one of his homes. He filed a lawsuit against his own business managers for more than $25 million in a jury- seeking suit. Depp is alleging fraud in breach of contract and professional negligence. The complaint also alleged that the management firm was attempting to foreclose on Depp’s primary home through a loan that was claimed to be from the management company. “In essence, TMG treated Mr. Depp’s income as their own, available to either TMG or third parties to draw upon as desired.”

Depp’s first step was to ask for a restraining order to stop the process of foreclosing the home. When the attorney for TMG was notified of this issue, he sent out a statement saying “For 30 years, Joel and Rob Mandel, and their company The Management Group, have been trusted business managers to some of the most successful individuals and companies in the entertainment business. For 17 of those years, they did everything possible to protect Depp from his irresponsible and profligate spending.” He also said Depp faced financial ruin in December 2012 with a $5 million bank loan. The Mandels loaned him the $5 million and Depp promised to repay by January 2014. By October 2016, Depp allegedly owed $4.2 million and as a result, the Mandels non-judicial foreclosing on some of Depp’s properties.

This lawsuit is an attempt to ruin the foreclosure by changing the actions of his managers. He ended up keeping all of his real estate holdings and was forced to pay back the loan to the Mandels.

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

Source:

http://people.com/movies/johnny-depp-fraud-lawsuit/

Posted by Noah Stanton.

On the 16th of October, the Supreme Court has made the decision to proceed on the dispute between government authorities and technology companies like Microsoft, who are being forced to give emails and other digital information “sought in criminal probes but stored outside the U.S.” According to the article, justices intervened in a case of federal drug trafficking investigation where they needed emails that Microsoft had on its servers but were beyond the search warrant being that the servers are in Ireland. The Supreme Court decision is impeding investigations, according to the Trump Administration and 33 states. Cases regarding terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud and child pornography are all being delayed because courts are waiting on the ruling regarding obtaining information that is kept abroad.

This case is among many that tech companies like Microsoft about digital privacy that might relate to crime and extremism. This Supreme Court case is an example of finding the balance between older laws and recent technological developments. Microsoft is saying, “Congress needs to bring the law into the age of cloud computing” where most information is not held in the jurisdiction of current law. Back in 2013, a warrant issued to obtain emails pertaining information about illegal drug transactions. Microsoft cooperated but went to court at the time because the emails held at servers overseas were not handed over.

A Justice Department lawyer stated Microsoft can retrieve emails stored domestically or not with a single click of a button. The simplicity of the action does not change the boundaries the warrant has though. All of these troubles relate back to the 1986 Stored Communications Act, which has minimal use when information is held overseas. The article states, “The current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud.”

The president of Microsoft said Congress needs to act by passing new legislation. This would help put an end to the numerous legal actions that take place about officials trying to obtain private information from U.S. based tech companies because they keep servers around the world. The court is expected to confront the issue of emails from an American citizen or foreigner and where they reside. The Supreme Court Case will take place early next year.

Noah is a business administration major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Alexandra Prostamo.

On October 16, the Supreme Court agreed to consider Microsoft’s dispute over the government’s authority to be able to access emails and digital information sought in criminal investigations, but stored outside of the United States. According to the Trump administration and 33 states, the court’s decision is impeding investigations into terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud and child pornography just because the email information is stored in servers in Ireland. This is why they urged the court to take the case, U.S. v. Microsoft.

They believe the decision has implications not only for Microsoft, but also for other technology giants like Google and Yahoo, stating that “a private company has unfettered discretion to shield evidence of crime from law enforcement, simply by electronically sending that evidence out of jurisdiction.”  The issue rises from the fact that data companies have built servers around the world to keep up with customers’ demands for speed and access. This is why the court needs to confront whether the same rules can be applied to the emails of both an American citizen and a foreigner.

What Microsoft is trying to battle is the Stored Communications Act of 1986, which allowed a U.S. law enforcement agency to obtain stored e-mails with a warrant from a U.S. provider if those e-mails are stored abroad. Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith stated that “the current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud”. Microsoft deeply advocates for the fact that Congress should pass a new legislation, however the result of the dispute could have significant global business and privacy implications.

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

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-consider-major-digital-privacy-case-on-microsoft-email-storage/2017/10/16/b1e74936-b278-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.4863bf16975d

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/fb9b07a2c14940b0977cb35ff01166ff

Posted by Michelle Belvin.

Microsoft Corp. v. United States is a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that a warrant issued under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) cannot compel American companies to produce information stored in servers outside the United States.

The warrant issued directed Microsoft to seize and produce the contents of an e‐mail account, which was believed to be used in the development of narcotics trafficking. Microsoft did deliver the customer’s non‐content information to the government as was asked, and that data was stored in the United States. However, in order for Microsoft to fully comply with the warrant, it would have to obtain customer content that is located in Ireland and then transport it into the United States. “Believing the data in Ireland to be beyond the jurisdiction of the warrant, Microsoft moved to quash the warrant.” The court concluded that Congress did not intend the SCA’s warrant provisions to apply extraterritorially. The Second Circuit “held that the government cannot compel Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to turn over data stored overseas, even with a warrant.”

The SCA also does not authorize a U.S. court to issue and enforce a SCA warrant against a U.S. based service provider for the contents of a customer’s electronic communications stored on servers located outside the United States. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court lacked authority to enforce the warrant against Microsoft.

Michelle is a business management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

http://harvardlawreview.org/2016/12/microsoft-corp-v-united-states/

https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog-entry/file/937006/download

Posted by Ysabel Capitan.

The optimal way to study business law is to see how it is applied in the real world by seeing the myriad of legal battles under the field.  Of course, in a naturally competitive world of corporate entities, lawsuits are common defense mechanism and tactic for upholding the success and integrity of a business.  Perhaps the quintessential legal battle in business law in the technology industry can hail from the lawsuit that Apple had set out against Microsoft in 1988. Technology and business savants in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would see their lives changed forever with this lawsuit after the latter accused the former of stealing their intellectual property.

Apple sued Microsoft in a copyright dispute for stealing their graphic user interface in their computing devices. The way a user runs a computer today is because of Steve Jobs’ and Apple’s foray into operating systems.  The symbols on the monitor, the mouse icon, the application list, it is because of Apple’s popularization of their operating system.  Bill Gates then made a similar system that we all know as Windows for Microsoft computers by using his own set of icons.  For example, instead of calling them “applications” on a Macintosh computer, Bill Gates called it a “program” to differentiate it just enough on Windows.  Apple, who was infuriated over their work being plagiarized, decided to take matters into court with a lawsuit. According to the New York Times in 1988, “Hoping to protect a key selling point of its Macintosh, Apple Computer Inc. filed a copyright-infringement suit against the Microsoft Corporation and the Hewlett-Packard Company.  Apple said software programs sold by the two companies infringed on copyrights Apple held for the way information is presented and controlled on Macintosh screens.“

Apple argued that while Microsoft did change things slightly, the overall premise was the same thing as copying. Microsoft cleverly argued that they would have to copy them entirely in order for this to be a copyright dispute. According to the Seattle Times, “Apple felt the question was too narrow. Attorney Edward Stead argued that a ‘substantial similarity’ standard taking into account small differences but considering overall resemblance – ‘look and feel’- should be applied. “We think it is important that innovative graphical computer works receive the protection to which they are entitled under the copyright law,” Stead said. But Microsoft attorney Bill Neukom countered, “In order to have a copyright infringement, you have to copy. And we didn’t copy.”

Microsoft did just enough to win the lawsuit and shows how tricky copyright law and the entire field of intellectual property is.  Because this was done in a time where computing was a brand new aspect, the courts believed that Microsoft changed enough in order for them to win the lawsuit. It would be interesting to see how a court ruling would have been done today in a time where technology has so clearly advanced to the public. Regardless, this court cases shows the inherent subjectivity of copyright law and how the entire field is truly in a gray area — and not in black or white.

Ysabel is a marketing and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019. 

Posted by Christopher Saker.

NASI raised more than $120 million from roughly 2,000 investors with the promise of guaranteed returns of 20% for each automated teller machine (ATM) an investor purportedly purchased and leased back to the company. 

Each investor signed a contract memorializing their investment which included the serial number and location of each ATM but also prohibited the investor from “interfering” with the ATM’s operation by contacting any location where the ATM was installed or any ATM service provider.  A bank account analysis showed that NASI raised more than $120 million from January 2013 to August 2014 alone.  After NASI began bouncing checks to investors in August 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought an emergency enforcement action and obtained the appointment of William Hoffman as Receiver.  Gillis and Wishner were later arrested and sent  to prison terms of ten and nine years.

In addition to the promised returns, NASI also paid a referral fee of $500 to $1,000 to each investor or non-investor who referred investors to the scheme.  The district court granted the receiver’s request to pursue claims against various third parties including those who received referral fees.  The receiver filed suit against Howard Markowitz and alleged that Markowitz received nearly $750,000 in referral fees from NASI.  The district court  gave a  partial summary judgment in the receiver’s favor in August 2017 and allowed the recovery of all referral fees paid to Markowitz, and that decision was later appealed.  

When the appeal happened, the Ninth Circuit noted that the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (CUVTA) made payments from a Ponzi scheme to a third party voidable when made with either actual or constructive intent unless the transferee could show that they received the transfer in good faith and that they provided reasonably equivalent value for the transfer.  Here, the receiver alleged that the referral fees were voidable under CUVTA because Moskowitz’s referral services provided no value to NASI investors and instead only served to further deepen the scheme’s insolvency through the increase in underlying liabilities. Other courts around the country have split on this issue, but the receiver urged the Ninth Circuit to follow the decision reached by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which held that referral services for a Ponzi scheme did not provide any value to the scheme.  

The Ninth Circuit declined to adopt a brightline rule holding that referrals to a Ponzi scheme are “per se voidable because they never provide value,” but did observe that Markowitz conceded that the only service he provided in return for the referral fees was the referral of new investors to the scheme. Based on these facts and the reasoning in Warfield, the Court sided with the receiver and affirmed the district court’s finding that Markowitz was required to disgorge nearly $750,000 in referral fees to the receiver.  While the decision was not published and cannot serve as binding precedent, it is yet another tool available to receivers seeking to maximize recovery for defrauded victims.

Christopher is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2022.

Posted by Aiai Shen.With the development of globalization, people’s income level is increasing day-by-day. Travel has become one of the main forms of entertainment for people. At the same time, tourism has brought about significant revenue growth for most countries. With the continuous expansion of tourism, the relevant laws and policies are also constantly revised and improved.

According to KYODO’s article “Japan begins collecting $1,000 departure tax fund to inbound tourism promotion plan”, Japan started collecting a departure tax of 1, 000 yen from each traveler leaving the country (regardless of nationality) on 7th January. “The new tax applies to both air and sea travel and will be tacked onto transportation fares of passengers.” The policy also states that children under the age of two, transit passengers leaving Japan within 24 hours of arrival and those who leave the country because of bad weather or other unavoidable reasons will be exempted.

“Japan has enjoyed a surge in the annual number of inbound tourists in recent years,” and the departure tax is expected to generate 50 billion yen in revenue in 2019 according to the Japan Tourism Agency. The Japanese government said the tax revenue will be mainly used for providing “smoother travel services, facilitating access to information about the country ‘s tourist attractions and improving visitor satisfaction levels by promoting tourism resources in regional.” It is also aimed at attracting more foreign visitors in the run-up to and beyond the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics.

However, there are still some people who question the policy and think that the rising price of tourism is a burden to tourists. Hideaki Tanaka, a finance professor at Meiji University’s Graduate School of Governance Studies, said, “It will be necessary to check that the funds are not being used on less productive measures, but in ways that taxpayers find convincing”.

In my opinion, the departure tax is not the most critical issue. Whether the 1,000-yen tax becomes a burden for tourists depends entirely on themselves. But I don’t think it will. Because 1,000 yen is not a lot for those who can afford to travel internationally. The public (taxpayers) should pay more attention to whether the tax is used to benefit Japanese citizens and foreign tourists. In other words, its effects need to be presented in a more obvious way to truly convince taxpayers.

Aiai is an accounting student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/01/07/national/japan-begins-collecting-%C2%A51000-departure-tax-fund-inbound-tourism-promotion-plan/#.XETm1VxKg2w

Posted by Brianna McCoy. 

In the very end of August of this year, 2018, a court ruling involving the FCPA could potentially limit the government’s power to go after foreign companies and individuals in bribery cases. This type of court situation is dealt within the U.S. appeals court. The appeals court supported a ruling that tightens and limits the jurisdiction under which prosecutors can bring foreign bribery charges. Attorneys involved in this ruling recognize that “affirming a lower-court ruling that dismissed conspiracy charges against a foreign national accused of facilitating a bribery scheme could have a significant effect on future enforcement,” (WSJ Samuel Rubenfeld). This statement demonstrates the limits of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The FCPA was passed in 1977, with the primary purpose to prohibit the payment of bribes, in any form, to foreign officials in order to secure or retain business. It is interesting how this act is for business purposes by American individuals, companies, and issuers of American stock, yet if a foreigner is involved in a corruption scheme while in the U.S. they are also subject to the law.

However, now that there is a narrower view of this statute, the Justice Department is going to see a drawback on their ability to go after foreign companies and foreign individuals. You may wonder where this idea is coming from… This appellate decision is focused “on an individual’s challenge in the foreign-bribery case involving Alstom SA. The French transportation manufacturer agreed in December 2014 to pay $772 million to settle the case, which involved allegations in several countries,” (WSJ Samuel Rubenfeld). Several other people have been charged, one being Lawrence Hoskins, a U.K. national. Hoskins was probed because while he was working for a French unit of Alston, it was alleged that he approved payments to third-party consultants related to a bribery scheme in Indonesia. Luckily for Hoskins, he wasn’t subject to the FCPA because he “didn’t work directly for the U.S.-based unit of Alstom and didn’t participate in the bribery conspiracy while physically in the U.S.” However, the appellate court revised this lower court ruling because prosecutors can argue that Hoskins colluded with the Alstom’s employees while they conducted bribery acts in the U.S., even though Hoskins wasn’t physically in the U.S.

Now, the Justice Department is “reviewing the ruling and considering next steps.” By doing this, questions may come up about whether the U.S. has jurisdiction in an FCPA case earlier in an investigation. In the past, it has been uncommon for an individual to challenge the U.S. government’s affirmation in jurisdiction in an FCPA case, but the appellate decision could provoke more attempts to do so. Because in the past these FCPA settlements have relied on conspiracy theories, now prosecutors will turn toward developing evidence regarding conduct in the U.S. by foreign nationals to bring its FCPA cases. In addition to this, the government may continue its tendency of using money-laundering statue where necessary.

Brianna is a management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Posted by Dan Mikrut.

Who knew that typing 280 characters could turn into a $40 Million dollar law suit. This is the cold reality in the case of the SEC vs. Elon Musk. On September 27, 2018 the SEC filed securities fraud charges against Elon Musk, the chairman and CEO of Tesla Motors. On August 7, 2018 Mr. Musk stated in a Twitter post “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” According to the SEC, his statement mislead the investing public that he could take the company back at a substantial premium during the current price of the company stock. The information was noted as misleading and false because they lacked any basis in fact. During the time of the tweet Musk had not received or secured funding for the proposed transaction. The stock price of Tesla ended up sky rocketing to $379.57 an increase in $37.58 a share within 24 hours of the tweet going public to Musk’s 22 million twitter followers.

Musk’s questionable actions lead to some serious consequences. The SEC and Musk had settled the case on September 29, 2018. Musk had to abide by 4 main points.

1. Musk must give up being Chairman for 3 years, but will retain a seat on Tesla’s board 2. Two new independent directors must be put on the Tesla Board 3. Musk & Tesla must pay $20 million each in fines

4. Musk must have a an oversight personnel on all his communications and social media accounts

On the personal note, I believe that the SEC went harsh on Musk and the whole ordeal is little obscured. While yes, I do believe Musk made a mistake and posted false information; he was quick to make sure it was known that his tweet was a joke for his wife referencing a 420 joke. This case is another perfect example of the American legal system taking advantage of American businesses and their profits over small legal incidents. I believe that the overpriced fine should’ve only been given to Musk and not the company, because Musk was the only person responsible for the tweet and not the company. As if the fine wasn’t bad enough, the SEC striped Musk of his position and responsibility in his own company that he helped cofound. While the oversight personnel on Musk’s accounts sounds like a good idea, it does also sound a little invasive and going against Musk’s freedom of speech. All in all, I don’t agree with the final verdict in this case because it was too aggressive over a small mistake that Elon Musk made, and shows how the justice system is a costly system that is failing America.

Dan is an IT management major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Works Cited:

CBS/AP. “5 Things to Know about the SEC’s Complaint against Elon Musk.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 28 Sept. 2018, www.cbsnews.com/news/5-things-to-know-about-the-secs-complaint-against-elon-musk/.

Henning, Peter J. “What Are the Consequences of Elon Musk’s S.E.C. Criticism?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/dealbook/musk-tesla-twitter.html

Posted by Frank J. Frasco.

For decades upon decades, the debate of women in the workforce had been a strong debate, a once disregarded topic that was controlled and ignored by the patriarchal society that was once America before the 19th amendment. However, with more and more women having full-time, career jobs, there has been a continued struggle for women to be allowed in higher, more official standings within a company no matter the qualifications, which may be equal to or even higher than that of their male competitor.

Well, the state of California has seen enough. Recently, on September 30th, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law that puts the Golden State as the first state to require publicly traded companies to have at least one woman on their board of directors, states NPR reporter Laurel Wamsley. The companies whose official executive headquarters are located in California will need to conform to this demand by the end of next year or face fines of $100,000. Which companies will these effect? The question really should be, which companies won’t these effect? According to last year’s Fortune 500 list, 53 out of the 500 very successful corporations are within the west coast state, which includes powerhouses such as Apple, Alphabet (Google), Disney, HP, Gap, Visa, EBay, just to name a few. According to Wamsley, within the law companies will have a minimum of two female directors if it has five directors on its board, or three women if it has seven directors by the close of 2021. Will these numbers increase if a company has more than seven on an executive profile? Take technology juggernaut Apple for example. Their leadership of eleven members only has two women on the board. So, should Apple be forced to add at least two additional female members to create more equality within an industry that typically comes across as masculine? It will be interesting to see.

State senators Hannah Beth-Jackson and Toni Atkins had enough with unfair, unethical business treatment and were the key sponsors of the bill. And they have facts to justify their frustrations, as television station KQED reports that a quarter of the 445 publicly traded companies in the politically progressive state don’t have a single woman on their boards. The dichotomy is near shocking. Of course, there was backlash, as California’s Chamber of Commerce as well as over twenty-five business groups opposed the bill in their letter to the senate pleading it was “unconstitutional”. However, it was the frightening, plain, old facts again that helped Senators Beth-Jackson and Atkins win their argument. One of them, the fact that only five percent of the companies that are traded on the Standard & Poor’s 500 have female CEOs, brought hesitation to the adversaries.

It is safe to say that this has been a hot topic in recent news outlets, ranging from political shows to obvious business channels such as CNBC. However, what this law, signed by Governor Brown less than a month ago, provides is hope. Hope for women in conservative states such as Mississippi and North Dakota to understand that progress in the workforce is truly happening, and that the 19th amendment will not be the last major amendment to benefit women’s lives.

Frank is a visual and sound media major with a minor in film, business administration minor, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Article:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/01/653318005/california-becomes-1st-state-to-require-women-on-corporate-boards

Posted by Jasmine Lightburn.

In this law suit, a content moderator is suing Facebook for causing her post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Content moderators are responsible for sifting through often criminal and disturbing posts that users all over the world upload and removing them from the web before the general public sees. She claims that the violent images and other brutal content she viewed caused immense trauma and led to this disorder. The former moderator, Selena Scola, viewed the harshest material ok the web. This included rape, suicides, and other killings every day and claims that she was not protected fairly. According to Scola, the correct psychological services were not in place.

In order to protect other content moderators, Scola urges Facebook to implement effective psychological support services to ensure that employees are receiving the necessary help. She also wants to incorporate mandatory medical testing on a regular basis to further guarantee on site medical attention. She believes that this will reduce the amount of workers who suffer from extreme disorders like herself and other issues that do not get reported or addressed.

In my opinion, Facebook should offer Scola a package deal to cover any medical costs associated with her diagnosis of PTSD. I do not think the company should have to pay any other money other than those costs related to her individual psychological appointments. Moving forward, I agree that Facebook should take deeper measures to monitor the content moderators. In the job description, the company should also include possible health effects that may result from the work that needs to be done. I don’t believe all of the blame can solely be put on Facebook, but they should be responsible for some of what happened.

Jasmine is a business management major with a non-profit minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Article:

Posted by Surya Makkar.

Over the past few years, Tesla has emerged as a frontrunner when it comes to electric vehicle technology. Their technology packed, self-driving, vehicles have come with their fair share of problems however. Not only has Tesla faced legal obstacles when it comes to their various technologies they use in their products, but more recently, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Elon Musk was accused of committing fraud by publically making false statements, which could have impacted investors. To give some background, around a month ago, Elon Musk tweeted saying that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420. Something interesting to note is that the SEC did not sue Tesla as a whole, but rather only filed a suit against Elon Musk.

Elon Musk had never said anything before this to investors or shareholders about taking the company private, which is why everyone was caught off guard and was extremely shocked. After the suit was filed, Tesla shares fell more than 12 percent in after-hours trading. The SEC subpoenaed Tesla, financial institutions, and Tesla board members, to interview them and gather more information. The SEC found that Musk had been in a feud with investors who continued to say Tesla shares would fall.
A few days later, Musk and the SEC reached an agreement that required Elon to step down as Chairman of the board of Tesla and required him to pay a $20 million fine. According to the agreement, Musk does not have to admit any guilt and has 45 days to step down from the role of chairman. He will continue to serve as the CEO of Tesla however. This case goes to show how business professionals are being watched at every moment. One wrong move in the business world can lead to millions of dollars of legal action being taken against you, which is why it is imperative that people in the business world act as if they are being watched at all times.

Surya is a business law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/business/elon-musk-sec-lawsuit-tesla.html

Elon Musk settles SEC lawsuit, forced out as Tesla’s chairman but stays as CEO, $20 million fine and more

Posted by Marisol Ramirez Ugarte.

In the recent years there has been an upheaval in the legal profession. Legal services, more than ever, are being required by the population. In the rise of employment for attorneys comes the need to manage legal firms in a manner which exploits the large increase in demand.

In fact, speculation on whether legal firms should adopt the structure of corporations has become prominent. According to Frank Carone, executive partner at Abrams Fensterman, “Law firms that are able to consistently bring in high-quality business and ensure that a sizable portion of the revenues go to the bottom line are the ones that will seriously excel” (Prince). He concedes that while the best interests should remain on the clients, the firm should pay attention to growth through the introduction of new legal matters, as well as a focus on profitability. A firm would do well to systematically reach out to potential clients, and referral sources through business development activities. Firms would be able to benefit their client as much as possible, which would in turn provide the greatest profitability for the firm.

Provided that a firm’s management decides to manage the firm like a business, they must consider a key element. The ability to develop and use metrics. The firm’s management would need to clearly identify which areas of law were most profitable, as well as which lawyers participated in the largest monetary gains. Inversely, those areas and attorneys seen as underperforming would need to be identified. In concert with the law firm’s strategic vision, metrics could aid the firm to reach the highest profits through the pursuit of a business model.

Given the success of those firms who have already chosen this path, many others should soon follow suit. I suspect that upon realizing they can continue to serve their clientele to their greatest potential leaders in management will rise to the task with vigor. I find most curious that most firms do not view themselves are businesses; in providing services, albeit legal ones, they are participating in a commercial transaction. Thus, I believe it only natural for the firms to manage as businesses for the benefit of its customers, and the sake of the legal firm.

Marisol majors in finance and philosophy at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/russalanprince/2018/01/29/how-to-dramatically-increase-law-firm-profitability-by-running-the-firm-as-a-business/#5fc6a2d2bd61

Posted by Aishwarya Rai.

Tesla, the Palo Alto-based automative and energy company, has been subject to much staggering lately, due to the conduct of its ex-Chairman and CEO, Elon Musk. Musk and Tesla have been subject to inquiries by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC), as a result of Musk’s conduct; Musk tweeted about taking the company private, stating that funding had already been secured and shares would be priced at $420. Additionally, Musk made reference to those betting on shorting Tesla stocks by mentioning them and the “burn of the century.” Further details showed that Musk had no such funding secured, all whilst Tesla stocks zoomed upwards and short-sellers did in fact face losses.

This led to the DOJ and SEC to inquire into Tesla’s conduct as the tweets seemed to show that Musk misled the market to believe that Tesla would undergo privatization and thus gain some greater market value. When it was revealed that Tesla did not have the required amount of capital to go private, the SEC deemed that Musk’s actions were done to increase stock value and to financially harm short-sellers, making it an act of bad faith.

Furthermore, Musk’s actions showed a lack of ethical consideration as he seemed hostile towards short-sellers. Musk has a responsibility to shareholders as a CEO and the accuracy and truthfulness in the information he disseminates falls under this stipulation. Other acts that put his ethics in question were smoking on a podcast with Joe Rogan, which may go against Tesla’s codes of conduct as it can be said that he was acting as the CEO of the company while on camera.

These incidents put into perspective the need for important business officials to be mindful of the ripple effects of their actions on their fellow employees, clients, and shareholders. The effects of bad conduct, whether intentional or not, can be harmful and put companies at risk of failure. Accurate information is what creates a safe market, legally and financially.

Aishwarya is an economics and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University,
Class of 2020.

Article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/tesla-falls-4percent-on-report-elon-musk-sued-by-sec.html

Posted by Surya Makkar.

Over the past few years, Tesla has emerged as a frontrunner when it comes to electric vehicle technology. Their technology packed, self-driving, vehicles have come with their fair share of problems however. Not only has Tesla faced legal obstacles when it comes to their various technologies they use in their products, but more recently, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Elon Musk was accused of committing fraud by publically making false statements, which could have impacted investors. To give some background, around a month ago, Elon Musk tweeted saying that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420. Something interesting to note is that the SEC did not sue Tesla as a whole, but rather only filed a suit against Elon Musk.

Elon Musk had never said anything before this to investors or shareholders about taking the company private, which is why everyone was caught off guard and was extremely shocked. After the suit was filed, Tesla shares fell more than 12 percent in after-hours trading. The SEC subpoenaed Tesla, financial institutions, and Tesla board members, to interview them and gather more information. The SEC found that Musk had been in a feud with investors who continued to say Tesla shares would fall.
A few days later, Musk and the SEC reached an agreement that required Elon to step down as Chairman of the board of Tesla and required him to pay a $20 million fine. According to the agreement, Musk does not have to admit any guilt and has 45 days to step down from the role of chairman. He will continue to serve as the CEO of Tesla however. This case goes to show how business professionals are being watched at every moment. One wrong move in the business world can lead to millions of dollars of legal action being taken against you, which is why it is imperative that people in the business world act as if they are being watched at all times.

Surya is a business law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/business/elon-musk-sec-lawsuit-tesla.html

Elon Musk settles SEC lawsuit, forced out as Tesla’s chairman but stays as CEO, $20 million fine and more

Posted by Marisol Ramirez Ugarte.

In the recent years there has been an upheaval in the legal profession. Legal services, more than ever, are being required by the population. In the rise of employment for attorneys comes the need to manage legal firms in a manner which exploits the large increase in demand.

In fact, speculation on whether legal firms should adopt the structure of corporations has become prominent. According to Frank Carone, executive partner at Abrams Fensterman, “Law firms that are able to consistently bring in high-quality business and ensure that a sizable portion of the revenues go to the bottom line are the ones that will seriously excel” (Prince). He concedes that while the best interests should remain on the clients, the firm should pay attention to growth through the introduction of new legal matters, as well as a focus on profitability. A firm would do well to systematically reach out to potential clients, and referral sources through business development activities. Firms would be able to benefit their client as much as possible, which would in turn provide the greatest profitability for the firm.

Provided that a firm’s management decides to manage the firm like a business, they must consider a key element. The ability to develop and use metrics. The firm’s management would need to clearly identify which areas of law were most profitable, as well as which lawyers participated in the largest monetary gains. Inversely, those areas and attorneys seen as underperforming would need to be identified. In concert with the law firm’s strategic vision, metrics could aid the firm to reach the highest profits through the pursuit of a business model.

Given the success of those firms who have already chosen this path, many others should soon follow suit. I suspect that upon realizing they can continue to serve their clientele to their greatest potential leaders in management will rise to the task with vigor. I find most curious that most firms do not view themselves are businesses; in providing services, albeit legal ones, they are participating in a commercial transaction. Thus, I believe it only natural for the firms to manage as businesses for the benefit of its customers, and the sake of the legal firm.

Marisol majors in finance and philosophy at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/russalanprince/2018/01/29/how-to-dramatically-increase-law-firm-profitability-by-running-the-firm-as-a-business/#5fc6a2d2bd61

Posted by Leigh Ann Rofrano.

In 2003, a class action lawsuit was filed against Ticketmaster, entitled Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster. The lawsuit claimed that Ticketmaster “failed to fully disclose to consumers all aspects of its UPS and order processing fees” (Ticketmaster). Ticketmaster settled the case in 2013, but the courts did not grant the final approval of the settlement until early 2015. The settlement includes all customers who purchased tickets on Ticketmaster’s website between October 21st, 1999 and February 27th, 2013.

As a part of the settlement, all class members were eligible to receive discount codes or ticket vouchers. Each class member was given a discount code worth $2.25 for every purchase they made during the class period. Class members who used UPS delivery during the class period were provided with a $5 UPS discount code for each purchase that included UPS delivery. Additionally, each class member was given one ticket voucher (which was redeemable for two tickets for an event at a Live Nation venue) for every purchase made during the class period on Ticketmaster’s website.

I choose to research and discuss this case because it is extremely relevant in my life. I am a frequent Ticketmaster and Live Nation customer, as I attend many events every year. The lawsuit was filed against Ticketmaster due to its ridiculously high order processing fees that are tacked onto every ticket. As a Ticketmaster customer, I agree and can attest to the fact that when browsing tickets for events, the magnitude of the order processing fees in not clearly outlined; it is not until you are in the checkout process that you are fully aware of the fees. I was notified through email this past summer about this lawsuit and the discount codes and vouchers in which I was entitled. Many customers were quick to complain that Ticketmaster acted unjustly in notifying customers about the settlement and the class members’ potential benefits. I agree with this argument on the basis that I too was notified of my voucher and discount codes after all of the eligible tickets had been already claimed. I feel Ticketmaster should have notified customers of their vouchers and discount codes sooner, in an attempt to give all class members a fair chance at receiving free event tickets from their vouchers. Overall, I do appreciate the small compensation that was provided to me from the lawsuit, since it is extremely rare to receive discounts on Ticketmaster.com, but would have liked to have been notified earlier and provided with more details about the settlement sooner.

Leigh Ann is a marketing and management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Article Links:

https://insider.ticketmaster.com/frequently-asked-questions-schlesinger-v-ticketmaster/?_ga=2.76895829.1994249424.1539478038-1512211698.1510348971

http://www.ticketfeelitigation.com/

Posted by Thomas DeFrancesco.

South Dakota has a state tax for sales of goods and services that are made by retailers of the state. Out-of-state retailers were making sales to customers in the state of South Dakota and not collecting and remitting sales tax in South Dakota. However, these retailers are allowed to do that based on the ruling made in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753. The state was worried they were losing funding due to out-of-state retailers not collecting and remitting the South Dakota’s sales tax. To solve this concern, South Dakota created a law that commanded out-of-state retailers who make more than 200 sales transactions and at least $100,000 in revenue from those sales to collect and remit sales tax as if they were located in South Dakota. Companies who met those requirements failed to follow the newly made law so the South Dakota legislature brought the issue to court.

Should the respondents have to register for licenses to collect and remit the sales tax regardless if they are physically present in the state or not?

South Dakota law is permitted to tax sales from sellers who are outside of that particular state as long as the seller collects at least $100,000 in sales revenue or more than 200 sales transactions.

The court derived its reasoning from other cases including Quill v. North Dakota and National Bella Hess v. Department of Revenue of Ill. The court explained how the physical presence rule in Quill v. North Dakota is “unsound and incorrect.” Since the internet has such a great impact on business, retailers who do business through the internet must pay taxes in that particular state of the sale. Therefore, the Quill v. North Dakota reasoning is no longer relevant.

Thomas is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2021.

Source:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

Posted by Samantha Staudt.

One in five Americans have reported that they have skipped medicine doses or failed to fill a prescription each year because of the cost of the medicine.  This statistic is outrageous and states have to start doing something about it because the federal government will not.  Certain states, like Nevada, have passed a new law that manufactures must disclose more information about why drug prices are rapidly increasing.  In the past few year, prices in Nevada have increased as much as 325 percent, so this law will help regulate the prices of prescription drugs.  Maryland provides another example of steps that must be taken in an order to regulate drug companies.  The attorney general sued generic drug manufacturers whose prices rose more than fifty percent in a year.  States are partly responsible for the funding of the Medicaid program, spending more than 20 million dollars a year on prescription drugs for public employees and prisoners.

Drug manufacturers have recently pushed opioids while denying and misunderstanding their addictiveness.  This may be enough to cut the political power of the pharmaceutical industry.  This statistic is not settling well with anyone and more than 100 states have filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies related to tobacco.  This is in an effort to recover the costs of dealing with the epidemic of addiction and overdoses.  Oklahoma’s attorney general, Nolan Clay, is making strides to fixing this rising issue by refusing to accept donations from drug companies.

Of course, pharmaceutical companies fight the big changes that would affect the company.  The industry has been at the top of the lists for lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions at the same time managing to block reform proposals.  During Nevada’s fight to lower drug prices, drug companies hired more than seventy lobbyist to descend on the bill.  When state drug pricing bills pass, the drug industry challenges them in court.  There have been several lawsuits filed, but none have succeeded yet.  In order to prevent drug companies from overpricing prescription drugs, states must enforce regulation laws immediately.

Samantha is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Elizabeth Win.

Dollar bills might as well be worth as much as computer paper now. Cryptocurrency has been on the hot seat for the past few months because of its financially growing nature and easy accessibility. Now, as we are starting to see a slow downfall of people investing in Bitcoin; the I.R.S. is starting to detect serious problems with the millennial choice of currency. One of their main concerns is that this cryptocurrency fad has created another giant, financial bubble. If this bubble were to burst, this Bitcoin “bust” could wipe out millions of spectators leading to a huge loss in tax revenue.

A main contender to this potentially huge loss is Bitcoin’s anonymity. For those unaware, Bitcoin’s underlying technology, blockchain, thrives on anonymity. When a person makes a transaction, the transaction only links through an electronic address, making blockchain more attractive to buyers. Now, the I.R.S. has many problems with this missing identification of creative transactions. The anonymity fuels the underground economy, a significant factor in the source of lost tax revenue. Most of the underground economy is conducted through cash transitions; however, what the I.R.S. fears is that cash will slowly transition to cryptocurrencies because of its convenience. An anonymous buyer of bitcoin can easily pay fewer taxes by cheating the cryptocurrency system – also known as major tax evasion. The solution? The government might have to accept the hardships of directly taxing cryptocurrencies and raise tax rates in order to offset the loss of revenue. Understand that the public would highly disagree with this solution, they generated a smarter response: a switch from taxing income when it is received to taxing income when it is spent. Although this switch would require a “major overhaul of the tax code,” many economists support this decision and believe it is future of the economy.

On the contrary, the I.R.S. understands cryptocurrencies offer major reductions in the cost of financial transactions, making it very appealing to the lower classes. There would also be less reliance on banks, which would increase the power of the Federal Reserve to control money. However, the opportunities are too great for tax evasion and illegal operations that the I.R.S. cannot continue to allow it. Although the cryptocurrency economy is growing steadily, it will need to find a way to prevent tax evasion while preserving anonymity in order for it to survive and stay attractive to buyers. For cryptocurrencies to be successful, societies will have to learn to trust the government, a very difficult task for many to grasp. With the rise of extremely advanced technology, it is inevitable that the economy will eventually transition to the cryptocurrency movement. Figuring out how to smoothly transition from worthless green pieces of paper to slick, glassy pieces of technology worth thousands of dollars each, the challenge to adjust will be difficult by eventually necessary.

Elizabeth is a marketing and information technology major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Ryan Simoneau.

The National Law Review recently posted an article on February 20, 2018 discussing the impact of the N.Y. Court of Appeals decision in Forman v. Henkin, a personal injury case. Forman, the Plaintiff, claimed she suffered spinal and brain injuries when she fell off the Defendants horse. Before the accident, the Plaintiff admitted to having an active Facebook account on which she posted pictures of her active lifestyle. After the accident, she claimed her life changed and she could no longer continue her active lifestyle and could barely type coherent messages. During discovery, the Defendant asked the court to compel the Plaintiff to provide full access to her Facebook account, regardless of whether it was public or private. At trial court level, the discovery (or electronic discovery) request was limited to photos before and after the accident and those relevant to her difficulty to type. When appealed, the appellate court limited the photographs provided in court. The court based its decision on another case, Tapp v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, in which it decided, “[t]o warrant  discovery, defendants must establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff’s Facebook account- that is, information that contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses and other claims.” The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. They determined that public versus private did not matter in regards to social media and reinstated the trial court’s ruling.

The Court of Appeals did not grant full access to the Plaintiff’s social media to protect her privacy, yet does not see a difference between public and private Facebook posts. Typically in personal injury cases, the Defendants will ask the court for full, unrestricted access to social media which is oftentimes unwarranted and called a metaphorical fishing expedition. The Court of Appeals held that the information compelled has to be “appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information.” What this means is that the request cannot be overly broad and burdensome, but relevant. This ruling mimics Federal procedure, specifically Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

I am torn on the fairness of treating all Facebook posts the same regardless of whether it is private or public. In the 21^st century, social media is becoming more and more popular. People utilize Facebook and Twitter as if they are personal diaries. Sometimes a physical diary could be relevant to a case, I’m sure, but it seems like an invasion of personal privacy. On the other end, social media utilizes the internet and the internet is not private so it should all be treated the same. I believe that in social media discovery (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), the court should use this appeal as a precedent and continue to limit requests to what is relevant but privacy settings should not matter.

Ryan is an undecided business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Link: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ny-court-appeals-no-difference-between-private-and-public-posts-discovery

Posted by Wasif Rahman.

Voters in Washington, who have taken on a role to guarantee paid sick leave to those working in the state recently, brought the Paid Sick Leave Act into play. The new law calls for employers to give workers an hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours that they have worked. It also restricts when employers would be able to demand medical documentation from employees. While the new law may seem ideal for those working in the State of Washington, it poses a major problem specifically for airlines and its passengers. The problem was first pointed out by Airlines for America earlier this month.

Requiring airlines to conform to the Paid Sick Leave Act for their flight crewmembers is problematic since they are already subject to employment laws of their home state. This new law would enable those same crewmembers to also take advantage of Washington’s employment laws, including the Paid Sick Leave Act, if they are to pass through the state during their shift. Airlines for America filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington in the U.S. district court and subsequently released a statement noting, “airlines cannot operate their nationwide systems properly if flight crews are subject to the employment laws of every state in which they are based, live, or pass through”[1]. The defendant, the Department of Labor and Industries for the state of Washington, made no remarks on Airlines of America’s statement. Airlines for America suggests that Washington’s law promotes, to some degree, more crewmembers calling in sick as the airlines would have certain limitations to when they would be able to demand medical documentation to verify whether a crewmember is actually sick or not. They claim that if it gets to a point where enough crewmembers are calling in sick, it would lead to flights either being cancelled or delayed since there wouldn’t be enough flight crewmembers to serve the passengers. This would lead to severe disruptions not only at Sea-Tac International Airport in Washington but across all airports through out the country. From the airlines standpoint, it would be detrimental to their business having to tell their customers & passengers that they cannot serve their needs. Airlines also claim this new law violates the constitution.

Ultimately, this law is unfavorable to airlines as their passengers would have to face an increase in cost & time for their travels. On top of that, passengers are not purchasing these tickets for the flights to be cancelled or delayed. This isn’t only a major inconvenience for airliners but also for passengers. As of now, a few of the other airlines that have sued Washington State include JetBlue, United and Southwest.

Source:

[1] http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/airlines-sue-over-new-washington-state-sick-leave-law

Wasif is a mathematical finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Brandon Bartkiewicz.

It has been almost two years since the Wells Fargo scandal broke into the headlines. It is not out of the ordinary to see a bank involved in shady activities; just look at the recession. However, in 2016, Wells Fargo committed a truly unforgivable crime, identity theft and fraud on a massive scale. To refresh, Wells Fargo had “… secretly opened millions of deposit and credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by customers, and that ultimately harmed those who had entrusted their financial affairs with the bank”. The goal of this was to create an illusion of more “sales” (accounts being opened). They did this by transferring money between accounts without permission of the accountholder. These activities were highly encouraged by an incentive system in place that would reward employees for opening accounts. Everyone was in on this; bank managers pressured their employees, and the executive board of Wells Fargo knew this was going on and did not stop it. By August 2017, the investigation found that as many as 3.5 million unauthorized accounts existed in Wells Fargo’s records.

The news of this wide scale fraud fueled a settlement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Los Angeles legal officials, totaling $185 million in penalties. Along with this, Wells Fargo would give “… $80 million in refunds — $64 million in cash and $16 million in account adjustments — to more than 570,000 auto loan customers who were charged for auto insurance without their knowledge.” As it should be, the bank is now in financial trouble as it tries to cover all of the direct and indirect costs relating to the scandal. However, the Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve is not done disciplining the bank. Due to their “widespread customer abuses and compliance breakdowns,” the bank is now restricted from growing any more than its total asset size in 2017.  Along with this, the bank will remove some of the senior ranking executives in the company.  This is done to ensure that Wells Fargo will have sound business practices before it can grow again.

Personally, I believe that punishments handed down by the Federal Reserve were suitable for Wells Fargo. It provides a clear message to all banks that business malpractice is unacceptable and will be punished by harsh penalties. No bank should be able to get away with using client money and creating unauthorized accounts for personal gain. I wish the American legal system were stricter with companies so it would deviate them from doing illegal acts like this in the first place. What I did not like about this case was the fact that there are still plenty of people who have been long time officials of the company and are still employed by Wells Fargo. If you keep many of the same old pieces in place at a company, something like this is bound to happen again.

Brandon is a finance major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/02/fed-limits-wells-fargos-growth-citing-consumer-abuses/302973002/

Posted by Nicholas Rizzi.

Product liability cases are far from straight forward; recently the Sinclair v. Merck & Co., Inc., 195 N.J. 51 (2008) celebrated its ten year anniversary.  Within this complex case, the court misinterpreted the product liability statute, in which it “decided that economic losses were barred by the act and, furthermore, ipse dixit that Consumer Fraud Act claims were likewise barred (Law Journal Editorial Board).

The court decided that the definition of “harm” was to be interpreted as physical injury or damaged property as opposed to being harmed economically.  The main reason this is brought up again, is because the case was being celebrated, when in fact it should be considered for reevaluation.

“The UCC’s warranty claims in non-“harm” cases still stand . . . numerous courts still apply the CFA, notwithstanding Sinclair” (Law Journal Editorial Board).  The courts left no explanation for their decision to define harm as they did, and for this reason, it should be reconsidered.

Overall, I believe that just like in this situation, product liability cases are not clear cut, but especially in this situation, courts should reevaluate cases as times change.  It’s unfortunate for those who may have been excluded from a fair ruling in the past, but it is better to reevaluate and get it correct, than to continue issuing unfair rulings.  People have the right to be protected from product liability, and in order for that to occur, the court should have to elaborate on what caused them to interpret the word “harm” in the way they chose to do.

Nicholas is an undecided major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.    

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 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.