Many companies provide workers with cell phones for company business. And they expect that their workers respect its proper use. But companies should afford their workers the same respect in terms of privacy.

In a recent report, a woman was fired for deleting an app her employer used to track her movements. She sued for invasion of privacy–a concept covered in Business Law class. Her employer used the phone to follow her off-hours, akin to a “‘prisoner’s ankle bracelet.’”

But the employer is not all wrong. As a traveling saleswoman, her employer had an interest in knowing her whereabouts, however, where they crossed the line was continuing to monitor her off-hours. Employees were not permitted to disable any GPS tracking on the phone and they had to keep it on 24/7.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the government is prohibited from invading someone’s privacy without probable cause and a warrant. The present case deals with the private sector, however. The woman probably had no right to delete the app, because it is company property since it is on a company phone; however, she still could have disabled the phone off-hours and not be in any trouble. Under California law, where she lives, employers are prohibited from following her in this manner when she is off-duty. Many other states have the same prohibitions.

One convenient way (and perhaps the woman in this case could have used) of stopping someone from using a cell phone as a GPS tracker is to put the cell phone in the refrigerator. Apparently, that will block the signals coming in and going out.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged three software company founders with insider trading and forced them to disgorge $5.8 million in illegal profits, penalties and interest.  Insider trading occurs when people in high levels of management trade company securities based on non-public information.

Lawson Software’s co-chairman, Herbert Richard Lawson, tipped his brother and a family friend (both retired from the company in 2001) about the probable sale of the company to Infor Global Solutions, a privately held software provider.  While negotiations were occurring, the media learned of a possible merger.  Lawson Software’s stock price began to climb based on analyst reports of a possible bidding war with more than one company considering acquiring Lawson Software.  The reports were predicated on an article indicating that Lawson Software conducted a “market check” through its financial advisor to see if there were any other companies interested in a merger.

But Infor Global was the only company interested in buying, as the market check produced “little-to-no interest.”  Lawson Software notified the public that Info Global offered to pay $11.25 per share, however, the media was still reporting incorrectly that other companies were interested in acquiring the company and that the merger would likely be for $15-16 per share.  Those companies listed in the media reports were actually the same companies that declined purchasing Lawson Software in the market check investigation.

The SEC charged defendants both knew the reports were false and Infor Global would not increase its offer any more than $11.25.  But in face of that knowledge, Lawson, his brother and his friend sold shares of the company for approximately $1 over Infor Global’s price, pocketing millions.  Defendants agreed to disgorge the profits and “to the entry of final judgments enjoining them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.”

An associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated, “Richard Lawson conveyed material information that was contrary to what was being publicly reported, and his brother and friend made a windfall when they subsequently sold their company shares at inflated prices.”  He further stated, “When news surfaces about the possibility of a merger and details of the media reports are incorrect, it is illegal for insiders who know the true facts to trade and profit.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged three software company founders with insider trading and forced them to disgorge $5.8 million in illegal profits, penalties and interest.  Insider trading occurs when people in high levels of management trade company securities based on non-public information.

Lawson Software’s co-chairman, Herbert Richard Lawson, tipped his brother and a family friend (both retired from the company in 2001) about the probable sale of the company to Infor Global Solutions, a privately held software provider.  While negotiations were occurring, the media learned of a possible merger.  Lawson Software’s stock price began to climb based on analyst reports of a possible bidding war with more than one company considering acquiring Lawson Software.  The reports were predicated on an article indicating that Lawson Software conducted a “market check” through its financial advisor to see if there were any other companies interested in a merger.

But Infor Global was the only company interested in buying, as the market check produced “little-to-no interest.”  Lawson Software notified the public that Info Global offered to pay $11.25 per share, however, the media was still reporting incorrectly that other companies were interested in acquiring the company and that the merger would likely be for $15-16 per share.  Those companies listed in the media reports were actually the same companies that declined purchasing Lawson Software in the market check investigation.

The SEC charged defendants both knew the reports were false and Infor Global would not increase its offer any more than $11.25.  But in face of that knowledge, Lawson, his brother and his friend sold shares of the company for approximately $1 over Infor Global’s price, pocketing millions.  Defendants agreed to disgorge the profits and “to the entry of final judgments enjoining them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.”

An associate director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated, “Richard Lawson conveyed material information that was contrary to what was being publicly reported, and his brother and friend made a windfall when they subsequently sold their company shares at inflated prices.”  He further stated, “When news surfaces about the possibility of a merger and details of the media reports are incorrect, it is illegal for insiders who know the true facts to trade and profit.”

Business law students study the corporate entity and learn from the beginning that since corporations are legal persons they can be charged with crimes.  Corporations cannot be imprisoned, because they have no physical body, but they certainly can face monetary penalties. Such was the recent fate of Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse pled guilty to one count of “intentionally and knowingly” helping many U.S. clients prepare “false” tax returns.  For decades, Credit Suisse bankers fabricated “sham entities” to help hide the identities of U.S. clients who did not claim the Swiss accounts on their tax returns. They also failed to maintain records related to those accounts, destroyed documents sought by the U.S. government, and helped U.S. clients draw money from those accounts in ways that would not raise a red flag to the IRS. Out of the $2.6 billion, $1.8 went to the Treasury Department, $100 million to the Federal Reserve, and $715 million to the New York State Department of Financial Service.

The monetary penalty is the only punishment levied on the bank, as government officials feared anything further, such as ceasing operations, would have had a detrimental effect on the global economy. Moreover, top bank officials who were involved in the scheme will keep their jobs, even though there were calls for them to resign by their own statesmen.

Reportedly, the Department of Justice is looking to bringing charges against France-based BNP Paribas for similar offenses. But without some officer or director accountability, there will be no deterrence.

Posted by Shanice Cooper.

On February 15, 2016, in an article by Julie Hirschfield Davis, she details President Obama’s attempts in trying to persuade Congress how important trade is for small business worldwide. The article outlines the importance of small businesses being able to have the global accessibility for trade deals outside of the United States. In hopes of pushing Congress to approve these global trade deals, Obama has been generating various ways to build networking partners to increase business opportunity for more small corporations, such as, “including a series of programs to promote exports from rural areas and help more small and medium-size American businesses sell their goods and services overseas,” says Davis.

In addition to Obama’s local business programs, which allows small businesses to maximize their potential, he has been planning to meet with international firms. The purpose of the meetings will be to have people who have been successful due international trade deals testify to the importance of it: “American workers and businesses have benefited from previous trade deals and stand to gain substantially from pending agreements with Asia and Europe.” Due to the trade deals, much of our everyday living essentials are met. If it was not for Asian or European trade deals would tech remain the same? “Mr. Obama’s team is armed with statistics that it says show that the United States has essentially no choice but to strike trade deals to open more markets to American goods.” However, the only issue the President faces in his attempts to help American business owners are the Congress itself.

While Obama makes a compelling case to the law makers in how the restrictions in international trade is harming American owned businesses, Congress is slowly changing, understanding how strongly the President feels about it. “Getting these trade deals done will benefit our businesses and middle-class workers, not just in rural communities, but across the country,” said Bruce H. Andrews, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce. According to administration officials, they believe the new agreements will help American workers by opening markets to United States products and improving environmental and labor standards around the world. I think it is important for the American economy to be able to continue to negotiate internationally, because we may need it for future generations.

Shanice is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Business law students study the corporate entity and learn from the beginning that since corporations are legal persons they can be charged with crimes.  Corporations cannot be imprisoned, because they have no physical body, but they certainly can face monetary penalties. Such was the recent fate of Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse pled guilty to one count of “intentionally and knowingly” helping many U.S. clients prepare “false” tax returns.  For decades, Credit Suisse bankers fabricated “sham entities” to help hide the identities of U.S. clients who did not claim the Swiss accounts on their tax returns. They also failed to maintain records related to those accounts, destroyed documents sought by the U.S. government, and helped U.S. clients draw money from those accounts in ways that would not raise a red flag to the IRS. Out of the $2.6 billion, $1.8 went to the Treasury Department, $100 million to the Federal Reserve, and $715 million to the New York State Department of Financial Service.

The monetary penalty is the only punishment levied on the bank, as government officials feared anything further, such as ceasing operations, would have had a detrimental effect on the global economy. Moreover, top bank officials who were involved in the scheme will keep their jobs, even though there were calls for them to resign by their own statesmen.

Reportedly, the Department of Justice is looking to bringing charges against France-based BNP Paribas for similar offenses. But without some officer or director accountability, there will be no deterrence.

Posted by Bailey Obetz.

A contract is an agreement that can be enforced in court; it is formed by two or more parties, each of whom agrees to perform or to refrain from performing some act now or in the future. For a contract to be enforced something of value must be exchanged by all parties involved. Other elements that are considered in determining if a contract is enforceable are meeting of the minds, duration, and value of things exchanged. Meeting of minds is merely a phrase used in contract law that describes the intentions — a mutual understanding in the formation of the contract. The element of duration refers to the length of time it will take for the parties will complete their part of the contract. Confusion and interferences of duration can disrupt the meeting of the minds regarding the contract. The consideration element is something of value received or promised such as money. The best way to avoid hindering enforceability of a contract is to make all provisions clear and be sure they are understood by all parties involved.

Many times a dispute arises when there is a promise of future performance and in many cases it is uncertain if any contract exists at all. This article recommends that the best way to ensure an enforceable contract is to hire an attorney. Many future problems can be avoided if an attorney is hired and creates a detailed agreement. Also, an attorney can help a party avoid creating illegal or unenforceable provisions in a contract. Contracts are particularly important in the business atmosphere because they can enhance or break relationships that business men/women encounter on a daily basis.

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

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

Just recently, on May 12 in Philadelphia, an Amtrak train derailed and killed eight people and sent over 200 to the hospital. A question everyone is asking is why the train was going that fast and why it curved. Brandon Bostian, who was the engineer, has agreed to be interviewed and many feel that he will be able to answer some important questions.

Bostian claims that he has no recollection of the accident and denies a lot of claims made about the way he operated the train. It was proven that Bostian was going 106 miles per hour when the train should have only been going at 50 miles per hour. Bostian has refused to talk about that part of the case, as he has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and has only said that by the time he tried to pull the safety brakes, it was too late. Bostian has already gotten a lawyer and is prepared if he is sued. Even though there are not yet any charges against Bostian, he knows that he must prepare himself for what is to come. Mayor Michael Nutter said, “He doesn’t have to be interviewed if he doesn’t want to at this particular stage. . . . That’s kind of how the system works.”

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Many companies provide workers with cell phones for company business. And they expect that their workers respect its proper use. But companies should afford their workers the same respect in terms of privacy.

In a recent report, a woman was fired for deleting an app her employer used to track her movements. She sued for invasion of privacy–a concept covered in Business Law class. Her employer used the phone to follow her off-hours, akin to a “‘prisoner’s ankle bracelet.’”

But the employer is not all wrong. As a traveling saleswoman, her employer had an interest in knowing her whereabouts, however, where they crossed the line was continuing to monitor her off-hours. Employees were not permitted to disable any GPS tracking on the phone and they had to keep it on 24/7.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, the government is prohibited from invading someone’s privacy without probable cause and a warrant. The present case deals with the private sector, however. The woman probably had no right to delete the app, because it is company property since it is on a company phone; however, she still could have disabled the phone off-hours and not be in any trouble. Under California law, where she lives, employers are prohibited from following her in this manner when she is off-duty. Many other states have the same prohibitions.

One convenient way (and perhaps the woman in this case could have used) of stopping someone from using a cell phone as a GPS tracker is to put the cell phone in the refrigerator. Apparently, that will block the signals coming in and going out.

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

Just recently, on May 12 in Philadelphia, an Amtrak train derailed and killed eight people and sent over 200 to the hospital. A question everyone is asking is why the train was going that fast and why it curved. Brandon Bostian, who was the engineer, has agreed to be interviewed and many feel that he will be able to answer some important questions.

Bostian claims that he has no recollection of the accident and denies a lot of claims made about the way he operated the train. It was proven that Bostian was going 106 miles per hour when the train should have only been going at 50 miles per hour. Bostian has refused to talk about that part of the case, as he has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and has only said that by the time he tried to pull the safety brakes, it was too late. Bostian has already gotten a lawyer and is prepared if he is sued. Even though there are not yet any charges against Bostian, he knows that he must prepare himself for what is to come. Mayor Michael Nutter said, “He doesn’t have to be interviewed if he doesn’t want to at this particular stage. . . . That’s kind of how the system works.”

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.