Posted by Danielle Lindsay Feoranzo.

In the United States, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. It is a prized right and the courts have protected this right to the fullest extent. As Americans in a democratic country, we have the power to speak our minds to ensure we can voice our political opinions and criticize government actions or policies. Thus, as citizens we hold great authority for which could either positively and or negatively influence our country’s future.

In today’s world, social media has made a strong precedence in our community and the functionality of our world. This includes Twitter, Instagram, Tumbler, and the heavy-weight, Facebook. These outlets of social media can be used by famous celebrities to endorse a product, or politicians to promote themselves and their campaigns. Social media is an outlet that can connect one with the world, therefore in essence is a huge stage to express oneself and one’s opinions.

It was on June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania man who posted many violent messages on Facebook (the Court raising implications of freedom of speech). However, prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case, the man was convicted under a federal threat statue and sentenced to jail time of forty-four months. The man appealed this judgment, stating the government should have been required to prove he actually intended to make a threat. The Pennsylvania man argued he was exercising his freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. He also mentioned he was inspired by the artist Eminem and his lyrics for which is recited and had no intention to threaten anyone.

The Supreme Court ruled in his favor and stated, “It was not enough to convict the man based solely on the idea that a reasonable person would regard the communications as a threat” (Ariane de Vogue, CNN). What is important to take notice is the “reasonable person” standard was rejected by the Court. This is because the government needed to prove the defendant’s intent.

To conclude, the Pennsylvania man expressed himself on Facebook, whether it was crude to some or not, it did not uphold in court as a threat. This case is another example of how the Court will go out of its way to protect speech under the First Amendment.

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

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 Marina Tesoriero.

On March 14, federal courts unsealed documents that question the safety of Monsanto’s lead product, Roundup weed killer. Monsanto’s products, including Roundup, are used everywhere, from commercial farms, to the seeds in your backyard. Previous research has found this product and other similar products to be reasonably safe to use. That was until recently, a federal court case in San Francisco disputed that “Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.”

Judge Vince Chhabria is ruling over litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate, the main ingredient found in Roundup (Hakim, Monsanto Weed Killer). Chhabria is also accountable for unsealing documents. In one unsealed email, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive allowed other company executives to hire academics to write their name on the research ghostwritten by Monsanto. Monsanto denied having scientists ghostwrite papers and insists glyphosate is not a carcinogen.

Documents attained by federal courts show emails show between Monsanto and federal officials that suggest, “Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributes to academics” (Hakim, Monsanto Weed Killer). These emails also suggested that an officer at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made efforts to abolish negative reviews conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services about glyphosate. The documents also show that the safety assessment performed by the EPA caused disagreements within the agency itself. Robin Greenwald, a lawyer at Weitz & Luxenberg, and is also part of the litigation says, “There are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto, even the EPA has disagreements within the agency.” These actions leave users uneasy and concerned for their health.

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

Posted by Marina Tesoriero.

On March 14, federal courts unsealed documents that question the safety of Monsanto’s lead product, Roundup weed killer. Monsanto’s products, including Roundup, are used everywhere, from commercial farms, to the seeds in your backyard. Previous research has found this product and other similar products to be reasonably safe to use. That was until recently, a federal court case in San Francisco disputed that “Roundup’s main ingredient might cause cancer.”

Judge Vince Chhabria is ruling over litigation brought by people who claim to have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as a result of exposure to glyphosate, the main ingredient found in Roundup (Hakim, Monsanto Weed Killer). Chhabria is also accountable for unsealing documents. In one unsealed email, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive allowed other company executives to hire academics to write their name on the research ghostwritten by Monsanto. Monsanto denied having scientists ghostwrite papers and insists glyphosate is not a carcinogen.

Documents attained by federal courts show emails show between Monsanto and federal officials that suggest, “Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributes to academics” (Hakim, Monsanto Weed Killer). These emails also suggested that an officer at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made efforts to abolish negative reviews conducted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services about glyphosate. The documents also show that the safety assessment performed by the EPA caused disagreements within the agency itself. Robin Greenwald, a lawyer at Weitz & Luxenberg, and is also part of the litigation says, “There are superb scientists in the world who would disagree with Monsanto, even the EPA has disagreements within the agency.” These actions leave users uneasy and concerned for their health.

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

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 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 Ricardo Collado.

One of the most awkward questions you can be asked in a job interview is “What are you salary requirements?” or “How much are you making in your current job?”. Massachusetts has become the first state to bar employers from asking about applicants’ salaries before offering them a job. The new law will require hiring managers to state a compensation figure upfront, based on what an applicant’s worth is to the company, rather than on what he or she made in a previous position.

Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker signed a law, which goes into effect on July 1, 2018. The pay disparity between men and women is still pronounced nationwide, even the size of the gap is in dispute. This bill is being pushed  as a model for others states, as the issue of men historically outearning women who do the same job has leapt onto the national political scene. A new research from career site Glassdoor, which analyzed pay by job title at individual companies, said women earned 94.6 cents for every dollar earned by men in the same positons. Also the law will require equal pay not just for workers whose jobs are alike, but also for those whose work is of “comparable character” or who work in “comparable operations.” Workers with more seniority will still be permitted to earn higher pay, but the law effectively broadens the definition of what is equal work.

“I think very few businesses consciously discriminate, but they need to become aware of it,” said State Senator Pat Jehlen, a Democrat and one of the bill’s cosponsors. “These are things that don’t just affect one job; it keeps women’s wages down over their entire lifetime.” For example if  you are in a job interview and a hiring manager asks you how much you make or how much you are looking for, Sethi, HR consultant, says you should say something like, “You know what, I’m happy to discuss money down the road, but right now I’m just trying to see if there’s a good fit for both of us. I’m sure you’re trying to do the same thing.”

Massachusetts joins at least 12 other states that already require companies to let employees compare notes about how much are paid. Massachusetts has created a new wave, not only to close wage gaps but to lower poverty rates and create a stronger economy for our country as a whole.                                                                       

Ricardo is an accounting major at Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class 2018.

Sources:

New York Times, http://nyti.ms/2aKzR5c

Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/massachusetts-equal-pay-law-2016-8

Quartz, http://qz.com/749476/massachusetts-salary-history-job-interviews/

Posted by Dana Domenick

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company is Asia’s largest pharmaceutical company and one of the most successful in the world. In the late 1990s, Takeda globally released an antidiabetic drug known as Actos. According to the FDA, the purpose of pioglitazone, the generic name for Actos, is to “improve control of blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus” (fda.gov).

Eli Lilly and Company is an American pharmaceutical company based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Takeda entered a partnership with Eli Lilly in which the American company would market Actos in the United States. In 2011, a New York resident, Terrance Allen and his wife filed a suit against Eli Lilly and Takeda claiming that the drug caused Terrance Allen to develop bladder cancer. The defendant had evidence to prove that the company failed to warn that Actos increases the risk of cancer. The trial took place in Lafayette, Louisiana. The jury sided with the plaintiff and awarded $9 billion in punitive damages. Lilly had to pay $3 billion while Takeda had to pay $6 billion. Both drug companies appealed the verdict and the damages were slashed to $36.8 million.

This suit was just one of the almost 9,000 pending claims toward Takeda made by Americans who had used the drug. All litigants argued that the company failed to warn them that use of the drug heightened their risk of cancer. In April 2014, the Japanese pharmaceutical company came to a settlement of $2.4 billion to cover the damages in all of the suits and costs against them in the United States. According to the New York Times, the damages given to each plaintiff will vary depending on individual factors including the amount of drug consumed and each individual’s physiological history (Andrew Pollack). According to Business Insider, Takeda expressed that the company is not concerned about the large settlement and they will continue to sell the drug.

Dana is a psychology major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/business/international/japanese-drug-maker-ordered-to-pay-6-billion-over-cancer-claims.html http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm109136.htm

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-takeda-warns-of-loss-after–2.4-bn-diabetes-drug-settlements-2015-4

Posted by Paul H. Duffy.

Ever since Elon Musk tweeted on August 7th about the possibility of taking his company private he has been in deep trouble with the SEC. He made a series of tweets about the potential move saying funding was secured for $420 a share. After a few weeks, the SEC began to file a lawsuit against Musk after he backed out of the decision. The SEC claimed he misled investors and manipulated stocks. Initially Tesla and Musk were ready to fight the suit but a few days later things changed. “Elon Musk reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission that allows him to remain chief executive of Tesla Inc. but requires that he step aside from the chairman role for three years,” (Higgins and Michaels). The agreement also included a $20 million fine. Tesla also decided to make changes, “Tesla has agreed to appoint two new independent board members, establish a new committee of directors and create controls to oversee Mr. Musk’s communications, according to the SEC,” (Higgins and Michaels).

This isn’t the first time Tesla and Musk are in trouble with the SEC. Last year, the SEC began probing Tesla about misleading investors over the production of their newest model the Model 3. “As production started, he claimed about 1,600 cars would be made in the third quarter of 2017 before reaching 20,000 in December. Those forecasts were far below what he predicted roughly a year earlier, when he said as many 200,000 Model 3s would be made in the second half of 2017,” (Michaels, Glazer, and Higgins). While no official charges have been filed, the SEC has probed into Tesla’s manufacturing data. However, it will be difficult to prove Musk and Tesla intentionally tried to mislead investors. “Tesla already faces private litigation in a San Francisco federal court, where a group of investors alleged the company misled investors about how quickly it could ramp up Model 3 production,” (Michaels, Glazer, and Higgins). Tesla is fighting this saying they disclosed problems in a timely manner.

While Musk is a very famous and popular business owner, these problems seem to start adding up. Musk shows that tweeting business announcements on a personal account can create a grey area. Was his tweet an official business announcement or just a personal idea? Tesla is known as the company of the future and in the long run they will be stable and making profit. But with this increased production problems, Tesla could see their business really start going backwards. Time is of the essence especially as other established companies are moving into the electric car market. Time will tell if Tesla can right the ship.

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

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-pressing-tesla-directors-for-details-on-communications-with-elon-musk-1534450010

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-can-remain-tesla-ceo-but-must-step-down-as-chairman-in-sec-settlement-1538257394

Posted by Chris Jaramillo.

This article from CNBC dated February 1, 2017 states Volkswagen rigged many of their automobiles that have larger diesel engines to cheat and pass emissions tests. Wolfsburg-based Volkswagen has admitted it equipped diesel engines with software that turned the emissions controls off during every day driving which resulted in cars emitting 40 times the US limits of nitrogen oxides. This pollutant is very harmful to people and about 11 million cars worldwide have the deceptive software.

In a settlement Volkswagen has agreed to pay anywhere from $1.2 billion to as much as $4 billion in buybacks and compensation to settle the claims.  About 78,000 Audi’s, Volkswagen’s, and Porsche’s with 3.0-liter diesel engines are involved. The proposed settlement was filed before Judge Charles R. Breyer in US District Court in San Francisco. Previously, about 500,000 smaller 2.0-liter diesel engines were also rigged to cheat and pass emissions tests and Volkswagen agreed on a $15 billion in that settlement. The head of Volkswagen Group of America, Hinrich J Woebcken stated “all of our customers with affected vehicles in the United States will have a resolution available to them.  We will continue to work to earn back the trust of all our stakeholders.”  Owners of older models from 2009-2012 will be offered buybacks or trade-ins because they cannot be fixed to pass the emissions tests. They will also be monetarily compensated according to a statement from the owners’ attorneys.

The US environmental authorities must approve Volkswagens proposed repair and the deal must still get court approval to take effect. Many German investors are suing the company saying that were not informed in a timely manner and Volkswagens shares plunged drastically.  Even though the company’s reputation took a beating sales didn’t stop and they passed Toyota last year to become the world’s largest carmaker by sales.

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

Posted by Catherine Caldwell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Elizabeth Wang.

Did you know that all the Apple employees had to show their bag(s) to store security while entering and exiting to and from their stores? Even on their breaks, they have to go through security screening. Former employees, Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle, initiated a class action lawsuit against Apple. It included 12,000 past and present workers among 52 stores throughout California.

This past July, the lawsuit was granted class-action status in San Francisco by U.S. District Judge William Alsup. The lawsuit claims that “Apple’s policy was demeaning and embarrassing and made them feel like they were being treated as criminals.”(Williams). Also, employees lost time standing in line for the security surveillance.

These searches were not avoidable. Apple’s claimed that employees were advised to opt to come in to work without bags to avoid this activity, and “the searches were so quick, there’s no need to pay out” (Williams).

Although they claim they lost time going through this security check, Apple does not have a better solution for this issue. I guess it is a theft prevention because their devices are small and expensive. The judge had granted the filing but had dismissed the lawsuit for now.

Elizabeth is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Sources:

Judge bins Apple Store end-of-shift shakedown lawsuit^[1]

Apple Class Action Lawsuit Is Dismissed^[2]

Ex-Apple bods suing Apple for bag searches get class …^[3]

^[1] Fiveash, K (2015). Judge bins Apple Store end-of-shift shakedown lawsuit … Retrieved November 13, 2015, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/09/judge_dismisses_apple_store_shift_shakedown_lawsuit/.

^[2]Reuters (2015). Apple Class Action Lawsuit Is Dismissed – The New York … Retrieved November 13, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/technology/apple-class-action-lawsuit-is-dismissed.html.

^[3]Williams, C (2015). Ex-Apple bods suing Apple for bag searches get class … Retrieved November 13, 2015, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/17/apple_store_class_action/.

Posted by Radhika Kapadia.

The real cost of bribery is a question that often lacks a definitive answer.  It seems that Och-Ziff Capital Management, a hedge fund headquartered in New York City, is learning a hard lesson for allegedly engaging in bribery in Africa.  The firm is set to pay a hefty price of $412 million dollars, but the SEC has added the implicit cost of hindering fundraising by insisting that the firm clear any potential deals with investors with state regulators, adding considerably lengthy minutes and cumbersome dollars to the fundraising process.

Because of the massive bribery allegations, the firm was unable to obtain a waiver for the penalties corporations subject to civil law enforcement sanctions or criminal charges, such as bribery, typically face.   As a result, the company will be faced with the tremendous cost of an increased fundraising process and the more-than-ever watchful eye of the SEC over future investment transactions.   In the burgeoning era of bribery cases, the question of whether dollar penalties are truly enough to deter corporations from engaging in illegal acts is often difficult to assess.  However, the SEC is beginning to believe that financial consequences, coupled with other implicit penalization costs will truly begin to reduce bribery within the corporate world.

The allegations against Och-Ziff are primarily as a result of their dealings with Dan Gertler, an Israeli diamond-trade millionaire.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Gertler was known to use political connections in Africa to defeat competitors.  The Wall Street Journal noted that approximately “$250 million of Och-Ziff dollars were used to bribe the current president of the Democratic Republic of Congo in exchange for diamond mining rights.”  Despite blatant warnings and advisement from their lawyers, Och-Ziff executives, such as chief executive Daniel Och, chose to deliberately ignore corruption allegations against Gertler. Subsequently, the African subsidiary of Och-Ziff pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery, resulting in one of the largest settlements under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.   It seems that Och-Ziff is slowly learning that the true cost of bribery is pervasive, and that ignorance truly is not bliss.

Radhika is a graduate student with a concentration in Forensic Accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

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 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/