Posted by Keith DeYoung.

On Thursday, March 23^rd, The Justice Department ended its antitrust lawsuit against AT&T’s DIRECTV with a settlement. In early November 2016, The Justice Department filed the lawsuit, after they claimed DIRECTV was in talks with three of its rivals, then AT&T, Charter Communications, and Cox Communications. These communications allegedly contained confidential information about whether or not to carry Sports Net LA, the sole provider of Dodger games. Time Warner Cable in a deal believed to be worth 8.35 million dollars, acquired the rights to distribute the channel, and thus the other companies would have to pay Time Warner Cable in order to provide it to their viewers. However, the other cable providers believed that Time Warner Cable was charging too much for its product, and thus did not buy the rights.

In the Justice Department’s view, they broke the law when they allegedly discussed that none of them would buy the channel, in order to make sure that each company would not lose customers if one company bought the channel and the others did not. However, DIRECTV claims they did not communicate with any other company, and reason that no one accepted the channel was solely due to its price.

By allegedly agreeing not to buy the sports channel amongst themselves, and ensuring none of them would lose viewers, the Justice Department argues that the companies were in fact violating antitrust law because they were sharing confidential information amongst themselves in order to seek financial gain and stability. Antitrust laws seek to prevent vast amounts of a certain market from being held in the hands of a few, as well as promotes competition, and an overall free marketplace. This prevents monopolies and total control over a market, which often ends in unfair prices for consumers. Although DIRECTV, AT&T, Charter Communications, and Cox Communications were four different companies at the time, by collaborating and making the agreement not to carry the sports channel, it can be argued that they resembled a trust by acting as a group, and thus prompted the Justice Department to file this suit. However, by settling the case, the Justice Department instead of taking severe legal action, gave AT&T’s DIRECTV an agreement that they do not illegally communicate with other companies over confidential matters.

Now that the case is settled, AT&T who owns DIRECTV can now legally focus on their pending acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Many are critical of this deal and similarly to antitrust law, claim that it is concentrating the power of this particular market into the hands of too few, and thus creating a monopoly. Hopefully, learning legal lessons from their antitrust case, AT&T and DIRECTV can successfully tread the thin line between strategic move, and totally and unethically taking over of an entire market.

Keith is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-settles-antitrust-claim-against-directv-1490312878

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-sues-directv-for-collusion-during-dodgers-tv-talks-1478105262

The High Court rendered an opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The bottom line is unless the employer can show it is unduly burdensome to accommodate a religious practice, it must accommodate the person even if it has a mandatory dress code or other neutrally-applied policy. The employer is required to do so if the person asks for the accommodation or even if the employer suspects the person may need one.

Abercrombie did not hire a Muslim woman because her headscarf violated their “Look Policy.” The policy, which is described as “East Coast collegiate or preppy style,” prohibits the wearing of “caps” (an undefined term in the policy) as too informal for their image. The woman applied for a job at one of the stores. The assistant manager of the store interviewed and conditionally approved her for the job. Yet, the headscarf she wore to the interview indicated to the manager that hiring her would be a violation of their “Look Policy.” Although the woman never asked for a religious accommodation, the assistant manager assumed that she would need one if hired and deferred to the district manager. The district manager thought the scarf “would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise,” and directed the assistant manager not to hire the woman.

The EEOC sued on the woman’s behalf claiming Abercrombie’s action violated Title VII and won a $20,000 judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment, ruling an “employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant (or employee) provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.”

Title VII makes it illegal for an employer “‘to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion.’ §2000e–2(a)(1).” Religion “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate [] an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

There are two ways to bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: one is for a disparate- treatment (or intentional-discrimination), and the other, disparate-impact of otherwise facially neutral policies. The “intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge.” Disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is plain: “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

The Court ruled: “An employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no-headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an ‘aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,’ it is no response that the subsequent ‘fail[ure] . . . to hire’ was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”

Under the ruling, a prospective applicant is not always required, as the Tenth Circuit held, to request an accommodation from an employer. Employers that are aware or believe an accommodation is needed and are motivated to fire or not to hire someone based on that accommodation also violate the statute. As Justice Alito stated in his concurrence, however, if it is unduly burdensome to require the accommodation, then there is no violation.

But Justice Thomas in his dissent was concerned about a broad reading of the words “because of such religious practice” in that it could sweep up an employer’s policy that applies indiscriminately to everyone, yet happens to be at odds with an employee’s religious practice. He gives the following example:

Suppose an employer with a neutral grooming policy forbidding facial hair refuses to hire a Muslim who wears a beard for religious reasons. Assuming the employer applied the neutral grooming policy to all applicants, the motivation behind the refusal to hire the Muslim appli- cant would not be the religious nature of his beard, but its existence. Under the first reading, then, the Muslim applicant would lack an intentional-discrimination claim, as he was not refused employment ‘because of’ the religious nature of his practice. But under the second reading, he would have such a claim, as he was refused employment ‘because of’ a practice that happens to be religious in nature.

Justice Thomas reasoned that under a broad reading employers with no discriminatory motive would be punished because they had no knowledge of every aspect of an employee’s religious practice. It would undermine the intent element of disparate treatment and make the employer strictly liable for its conduct. Citing precedent, Justice Thomas explained “discriminatory purpose” as “‘the purpose necessary for a claim of intentional discrimination” that “demands ‘more than . . . awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’”

He recognized refusal to accommodate can be discriminatory where an employer does not make a policy exception for someone for religious purposes involving a store policy that is applied to everyone, when at the same time makes the same allowance for someone of another religion or some secular practice. Yet, he explained,”merely refusing to create an exception to a neutral policy for a religious practice cannot be described as treating a particular applicant ‘less favorably than others.’” Under the majority’s view “mere refusal to accommodate a religious practice under a neutral policy could constitute intentional discrimination,” unless the employer produces evidence that the accommodation is unduly burdensome and persuades the court that it is so.

Posted by Nicole M. Encalada.

After Volkswagen faced its emissions scandal in back in 2015, German police have decided to further the criminal investigation by searching Audi’s German headquarters and offices in Ingolstadt. Back in March, Audi had been placed under a fraud investigation in regards to its parent company, Volkswagen. The main goal in this investigation was to determine who was responsible for the corrupt actions, which released an illegal amount of emissions. Moritz Dreschel, Audi spokesperson stated, “Audi is fully cooperating with authorities as we have the highest interest in clarifying matters.” He also went on to say that the raids were not only held in Igoldstadt, but in their plant in Neckarsulm.

Last year, Volkswagen admitted to having equipped its engines with a software that was able to detect when the vehicle itself is being tested. Once detected, emissions controls would shut off. The software would release the solution that would neutralize the emissions, making the high levels undetectable. The result; Volkswagen’s cars would emit 40 times more emission than the EPA allows of nitrogen oxide. It is not only a danger to the environment, but it garners concerns for the public’s health. Unfortunately, over 2 million of the company’s vehicles used this software.

The parent company has since pleaded guilty to all fraud charges in the United States. Volkswagen has now agreed to pay $22 billion in penalties and settlement charges in the U.S. Now, there are six executives facing criminal charges, although prosecutors have not yet released any names of those executives. While top managers have assured the public that they are not responsible for the company’s wrongdoings, investigators are looking for any evidence of criminal behavior or any violations by Audi or its parent company. Both companies are now subject to different penalties as both companies are based in different German jurisdictions.

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

Sources:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/03/15/audi-german-headquarters-searched-emissions-probe/99199964/

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 Krista Cerpina.

Last week the Department of Homeland Security placed a ban on large electronics during non-stop flights to the US from airports in North Africa and Middle East. The ban forbids passengers to carry on board any electronic devices larger than a cell phone. Many passengers traveling for business are almost “inseparable” from their laptops because many prefer to use travel time for work, so the new ban has been a headache not only for the airlines but also for their customers. Corporate business travelers are the most important block of costumers to the affected airlines, therefore airlines are cleverly defying the ban to keep their customers satisfied.

The travel industries well known airlines such as Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, and Turkish Airlines have all been coming up with creative ways to counter the ban. To minimize the time passengers have to spend apart from their electronic devices, Emirates announces a service on March 23, that will allow the passengers to not check their devices in their luggage, rather the staff members will collect them at the gate. The laptops and other electronic devices will then be packed in secure boxes before storing them in cargo hold. Emirates Airline President Sir Tim Clark spoke to Business Insider and addressed the new operations regarding the ban. “Our aim is to ensure compliance with the new rules, while minimizing disruption to passenger flow and impact on customer experience,” Clark said in a statement. “Our new complimentary service enables passengers, particularly those flying for business, to have the flexibility to use their devices until the last possible moment.”

Other airlines such as Etihad Airways have also been trying to find ways to compromise with their costumers while not disobeying the new ban. “To help guests keep in touch with work, friends and family, we are offering First & Business Class guests free WiFi and iPads on all our US-bound flights, beginning Sunday, April 2,” Etihad said. The airlines and their passengers are still adjusting to the new ban, but according to Tim Clark, the airlines do not have any conclusive data on the long-term effect the laptop ban will have on their business and they do not expect to see any changes until May.

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

Posted by Arleen Frias-Arias.

According to NPR News.com, Ocwen Mortgage, who has been tasked by FDIC (Federal Depose Insurance Corporation) and US Department of Treasury to assist consumers that are delinquent in their mortgages, is being sued. New York State’s top financial regulator has launched an investigation into Ocwen’s practices as it turns out they are finically hurting home-owners, not helping them get out of foreclosure.

The gist of the article is that Ocwen committed fraud by preparing mortgage documents particularly on what is called a loan modification, which is a legal contract prepared to adjust the payments of loan borrowers who could not make their payments due to hardship. They are also accused of not posting payments already in their possession from borrowers until past the payment due date, deliberately causing homeowners to become late and incur fees.

In my opinion, more needs to be substantiated by regulators to determine if this was widespread, because Ocwen seems to have a reputation of consistently not adhering to the law.

Arleen is a marketing and communication/TV production major at Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Orintia Daniels.

Bankrupt: “(of a person or organization) declared in law unable to pay outstanding debts.” According to dictionary.com, this adjective simply means that a particular person or organization is in debt and owes money to another organization or person. I have came across an article called “How do I declare Bankruptcy?” which explains the various forms of bankrutpcy as well as how someone can actually declare bankruptcy.

Let’s talk chapters! No, not just any chapters; specifically, let’s review Chapters 7, 11, and 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Let’s explain, starting with Chapter 7.

Have you ever heard the term “Everything must go?” Well, Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, states that whoever files under that chapter might lose everything. For example, a person may lose his or her home, due to not being able to pay the bank their debts. Chapter 7 “liquidates your assets to pay off as much of your debt as possible. When it is all done, you are left with the least debt possible, but you usually have to sacrifice a number of possessions along the way to make that happen.” (HG.org).

On the other hand Chapter 11 is mainly for businesses, such as corporations and partnerships, but can be available to individuals. It has no limits on the amount of debt, as Chapter 13 does. It is the usual choice for large businesses seeking to restructure their debt. Under Chapter 13, the Code:

allows the filer to reorganize their debt, making it more manageable. Under a Chapter13 bankruptcy, the debtor is able pay off their debts over a period of three to five years. For filers with consistent, predictable incomes, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy may be a great way out of debt by creating a sort of legal grace period. If the debtor makes all payments required under the bankruptcy order, and there are still debts remaining at the end of the grace period, those debts are discharged” (HG.org).

Overall, Chapter 13, is primarily for personal struggles, by anyone who may not be able to pay off their debts.

For one to declare bankruptcy, there are two main methods: as an individual, which is to voluntarily file for bankruptcy, or wait for creditors to ask the court to declare you bankrupt. To further understand the different ways to file for bankruptcy and the different forms of bankruptcy, I personally suggest that you continue your interest on the following website.

Orintia is a marketing major with a minor in economics at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Yuanda Xu.

In 2003, Lucent Technologies decided to fire the CEO, COO, Financial Executive and marketing manager in China. Lucent did this because company in China bribed the Chinese officials to get more benefits. As expected, Lucent fired these four people, and paid $2.5 million to settle charges. The company paid a $1 million fine to the Justice Department and $1.5 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 1977, America enacted the “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” to prohibit companies from bribing officials in other countries to get more benefits. What Lucent Technologies did violate the Act, because Lucent Technologies bribed the Chinese officials to get more benefits and reduced business opportunities for other companies. That violates the FCPA.

Yuanda is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Yuanda Xu.

On Oct. 30, 2014, Sembcorp Marine’s finance director Wee Sing Guan was sentenced to 39 months in prison for falsifying the accounts of the group’s Jurong Shipyard, Sembcorp’s wholly owned unit. The company lost “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of marked-to-market losses that Wee had incurred on foreign exchange and options trades positions he held with a host of banks, including OCBC Bank, DBS Bank, BNP Paribas (BNP), Societe Generale (SocGen) and Standard Chartered Bank.”

According to criminal law, falsifying account records is an unlawful action. Falsifying records can influence the stock market by making investors believe the company’s stock is worth it to buy. But after a company goes bankrupt, people who hold the stock will lose all their money. The offenses “carry a maximum penalty of an unspecified fine and a seven-year jail term, for each charge.”

Yuanda is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Arleen Frias-Arias.

After reviewing an article posted December 16, 2014 by Madeline Boardman for Us Magazine, I found interesting the development of this case. A singer named Mitsou is suing singers and celebrities Beyoncé and Jay Z, for mismanagement and stealing. The Hungarian singer has a song called “Bajba, Bajba Pelem,” which allegedly Beyoncé and her team took from her song and sampled Mitsou’s vocals for the single “Drunken in Love.”

The interesting part is that Mitsou has never exactly signed papers that would permit anyone to use her voice for any type of use, including trade purposes. According to New York Post’s Page Six, the voice of Mitsou was manipulated for sexual erotica purposes without her permission. According to Mitsou her voice is featured in the overall song for about 1.5 minutes. This could be a huge problem for Jay-Z’s company and Beyoncé as an artist, because after hearing both sides and songs, there is a huge similarity between songs.

In my opinion, this case will require plenty of experts to prove the guilty actions of singer Beyoncé and Jay-Z. Even though the song only has a couple seconds of the actual voice of Mitsou, there are heavy accusations being made. Beyoncé has not yet commented on the situation but I think in this situation is where we bring in copyrights and hard evidence to prove statements.

In enforcing copyrights against the defendant there needs to be a letter of warning, enlisting the acts of infringements. Now since there were not any responses by the infringing party, legal actions are acceptable at this point. According to John Hornick of Finnegan.com, the business law rules most copyrights depend on is whether or not the copyright was even registered with the United States at the time of the defendants acts.

I believe Mitsou will have to file a copyright infringement lawsuit seeking compensatory harms. This situation is a very sensitive especially if Beyoncé is found liable; there could be over thousands of dollars probably billions returned to Mitsou for her work being unfairly taken without permission.

Arleen is a marketing and communication/TV production major at Montclair State University, Class of 2018.