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 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.

One of the causes of action a plaintiff can bring in a product’s liability lawsuit is a defective design claim. General Motors is facing multiple lawsuits over faulty ignition switches installed in the following vehicles: Chevy Cobalt (2005-2010) and HHR (2006-2011); Pontiac G5 (2007-2010) and Solstice (2006-2010); Saturn Ion (2003-2007) and Sky (2007-2010). More than 2.6 million have been recalled.

A Georgia couple who settled a lawsuit with GM for their daughter’s death is suing again on the grounds that GM’s lead design engineer lied when he testified he had no knowledge of any design “changes” to the switches. Their daughter was killed when her 2005 Cobalt slipped into accessory mode, cutting off the engine and causing her to collide with another vehicle. Her family settled based on this information.

But in recent disclosures to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Congress that testimony appears to be false. The company apparently knew about the problem for years. Now, the family has filed another lawsuit claiming they would not have settled if they had known that evidence was concealed. GM denies the accusation.Settlements are contractual, and therefore, considered final once the parties agree to the terms.  Like all contracts, there are certain situations where a settlement agreement would be deemed void.  In this case, plaintiffs would have to convince a judge that they were somehow misled or defrauded by what GM did or said in order for the settlement to be void and the case to proceed.

Healthcare providers, small business, and individuals have filed antitrust lawsuits against Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They allege the 37 independently-owned companies that make up the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association are colluding to avoid competition, raise prices on premiums, and clamp down on payments to providers. Plaintiffs are seeking class action status.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield covers about a third of the nation. In the 1930s, doctors provided insurance under the Blue Shield name and hospitals used Blue Cross. Eventually, the names were trademarked and now companies that use the names operate within an exclusive territory–many in a single state.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, defendant says “its licensing deals simply codify trademark rights that date back decades and ‘do not constitute an agreement to do anything unlawful.’” They claim their model has been around for long time and has withstood government scrutiny. But plaintiffs contend this is cartel-like behavior. The model stifles competition and leads to inflated premiums.

The case will pit antitrust law against trademark rights. Plaintiffs may have a point, especially since at least in one area, California, Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans “compete directly against one another . . . where Anthem Blue Cross battles Blue Shield of California.” That fact appears to cut against defendants’ contention that the deals among licensees are only made to protect trademarks.

A district court judge has declined to dismiss the case, ruling plaintiffs “‘have alleged a viable market-allocation scheme.’”

One of the causes of action a plaintiff can bring in a product’s liability lawsuit is a defective design claim. General Motors is facing multiple lawsuits over faulty ignition switches installed in the following vehicles: Chevy Cobalt (2005-2010) and HHR (2006-2011); Pontiac G5 (2007-2010) and Solstice (2006-2010); Saturn Ion (2003-2007) and Sky (2007-2010). More than 2.6 million have been recalled.

A Georgia couple who settled a lawsuit with GM for their daughter’s death is suing again on the grounds that GM’s lead design engineer lied when he testified he had no knowledge of any design “changes” to the switches. Their daughter was killed when her 2005 Cobalt slipped into accessory mode, cutting off the engine and causing her to collide with another vehicle. Her family settled based on this information.

But in recent disclosures to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Congress that testimony appears to be false. The company apparently knew about the problem for years. Now, the family has filed another lawsuit claiming they would not have settled if they had known that evidence was concealed. GM denies the accusation.Settlements are contractual, and therefore, considered final once the parties agree to the terms.  Like all contracts, there are certain situations where a settlement agreement would be deemed void.  In this case, plaintiffs would have to convince a judge that they were somehow misled or defrauded by what GM did or said in order for the settlement to be void and the case to proceed.

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.

Criminal law is certainly an important part of the study of business law, and Fourth Amendment questions always seem to come up in class.  Students are very interested in learning about when the police can search a person’s car, office or home, or when and where can they arrest someone. Generally, police need a warrant either to search a person’s property or to arrest, unless it falls within a constitutional exception.

Most students do not know that there is a difference between an arrest warrant and a search warrant.  An arrest warrant is an order by the court directing a sheriff, constable or police officer to find and arrest a person who is wanted for a crime.  In contrast, a search warrant permits a law enforcement officer to search a person’s place of residence or other location for evidence of a crime.  An arrest warrant, however, does not permit the police to search a home or building for a person where the police reasonably believes the person named in the arrest warrant may be found without the consent of the owner.  The question then becomes whether there are any other times police may enter certain areas of a third-party home and search for a person even though they are only acting pursuant to an arrest warrant.

In the New Jersey Appellate Division decision, State v. Craft, 425 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 2012), Judge Graves held that exigent circumstances permitted the police to enter a bedroom of a third-party home to arrest defendant for a shooting even though they were operating solely under the authority of an arrest warrant.  The facts are as follows.

The Newark Police Department’s Fugitive Apprehension Team is responsible to dispatch officers to certain addresses where fugitives may be found based on certain intelligence.  James Craft was wanted for a shooting.  Officers arrived at the location noted in the arrest warrant.  It was a three-family dwelling located on South 13th Street.  The police believed that defendant was residing there with family on the second-floor.

The front door to the residence was open, and the police proceeded to the second floor.  The officers were in plain clothes, but at least one of them was wearing a badge around his neck. Defendant’s mother opened the door and permitted the police to enter.  The officers told defendant’s mother that they had a warrant to arrest her son. Defendant’s mother told the police that her son was not there, but offered to call him on her cell phone.  Upon dialing the number, the police heard a phone ringing behind a bedroom door. The officers believed it was defendant’s cell phone ringing and that he would most likely be in the bedroom.

When they opened the bedroom door, they found defendant attempting to escape.  The police testified they saw defendant drop a handgun as he climbed through the window.  They also discovered five vials of cocaine in plain view on the top of a dresser.  Defendant was arrested and charged.  The trial court suppressed the evidence finding that the “coincidence of a phone ringing” was insufficient evidence to justify entry into the bedroom without a search warrant and that the police did not have an “objectively reasonable belief” that “defendant both resided at and would be found at” his mother’s apartment.

On appeal, the court reversed, holding that “there was no constitutional violation by the police, and it was error to suppress the items that were seized. The arrest warrant provided probable cause for defendant’s arrest; the officers entered the apartment with [defendant’s mother’s consent]; and [the police] had reason to believe defendant was present in an adjoining room when a cell phone began ringing after [defendant’s mother] called her son.  In addition, the officers knew the arrest warrant was for ‘a shooting’ and, therefore, defendant was potentially dangerous.  Under these circumstances, there was a compelling need for immediate action to apprehend defendant, and it was impracticable for the officers to obtain a search warrant.  Thus, their entry into the bedroom was objectively reasonable, and the items seized were in plain view.”

Here, the exigency to protect persons inside the home from being shot by a potentially armed individual excused the police from failing to consider the possible “coincidence” of the phone ring. According to one of the officers, upon hearing the phone ring at the time defendant’s mother dialed, he reasoned since people generally stay close to their cell phones, he would find defendant next to his.  As a result, the search into the bedroom was reasonable.

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.

Posted by Stephanie Ramos.

Like no other company, Google has revolutionized the way we conduct web searches over the last ten years. However, in the years after it went public, Google’s increasing market dominance was generating both “sky-high profits and unwanted regulatory attention.” In April 2015, the European Union’s antitrust chief formally accused Google of abusing its dominance in web searches, bringing charges that could “limit the giant American tech company’s moneymaking prowess.” This is the first case that antitrust charges have been brought against Google, despite a years long faceoff between the company and regulators in the EU. Most importantly, it “will almost certainly increase pressure on Google to address complaints that the company favors its own products in search results over its rivals’ services.” In addition, a formal antitrust investigation into the company’s Android smartphone software is underway.

Regulators have focused on accusations that Google “diverts traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site.” However, Google has defended its business practices, by stating that “[P]eople can now find and access information in numerous different ways—an allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide of the mark.” In today’s modern world, privacy laws and consumer protection laws have come under intense scrutiny. Big companies, such as Amazon and Facebook, have become subjects of investigations in matters such as low-tax arrangements and protecting people’s online data. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission investigated “antitrust complaints against Google, but closed that inquiry in 2013 without reaching a formal finding of wrongdoing” in the way it arranges its Web search results. In addition, the investigation into Google can increase political tensions between the European Union and the United States.

Antitrust laws are statutes developed to protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring that fair competition exists in an open-market economy. In this case, the EU is accusing Google of abusing its powers by “diverting traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site. This case raises the issues of corporations and ethics. In this case, Google is a big company that generates billions of dollars in revenue. However, whether these revenues are generated through ethical practices is an ongoing question that EU is trying to solve. “Google will have [ten] weeks to make a formal response to the charges.” It “can also request a formal hearing during a procedure that commonly takes a couple of years and often results in companies’ eventually making appeals at the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

Stephanie is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Stephanie Ramos.

Like no other company, Google has revolutionized the way we conduct web searches over the last ten years. However, in the years after it went public, Google’s increasing market dominance was generating both “sky-high profits and unwanted regulatory attention.” In April 2015, the European Union’s antitrust chief formally accused Google of abusing its dominance in web searches, bringing charges that could “limit the giant American tech company’s moneymaking prowess.” This is the first case that antitrust charges have been brought against Google, despite a years long faceoff between the company and regulators in the EU. Most importantly, it “will almost certainly increase pressure on Google to address complaints that the company favors its own products in search results over its rivals’ services.” In addition, a formal antitrust investigation into the company’s Android smartphone software is underway.

Regulators have focused on accusations that Google “diverts traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site.” However, Google has defended its business practices, by stating that “[P]eople can now find and access information in numerous different ways—an allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide of the mark.” In today’s modern world, privacy laws and consumer protection laws have come under intense scrutiny. Big companies, such as Amazon and Facebook, have become subjects of investigations in matters such as low-tax arrangements and protecting people’s online data. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission investigated “antitrust complaints against Google, but closed that inquiry in 2013 without reaching a formal finding of wrongdoing” in the way it arranges its Web search results. In addition, the investigation into Google can increase political tensions between the European Union and the United States.

Antitrust laws are statutes developed to protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring that fair competition exists in an open-market economy. In this case, the EU is accusing Google of abusing its powers by “diverting traffic from competitors rivals to favor its own comparison shopping site. This case raises the issues of corporations and ethics. In this case, Google is a big company that generates billions of dollars in revenue. However, whether these revenues are generated through ethical practices is an ongoing question that EU is trying to solve. “Google will have [ten] weeks to make a formal response to the charges.” It “can also request a formal hearing during a procedure that commonly takes a couple of years and often results in companies’ eventually making appeals at the Court of Justice of the European Union.”

Stephanie is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

This article “Injury on Weight Bench Results in Lawsuit But Ruling for Club,” discusses a lawsuit, which was filed by a fitness facility member at the gym center where he routinely exercised. The plaintiff, La Fata, filed a lawsuit towards the center, LA Fitness International, because he claimed that his injury was due negligence by the defendant, LA Fitness International. As stated in the article, “the member contended that the facility was negligent and responsible for what the member claimed was a willful injury.” This quotation alludes to La Fata’s perspective that LA Fitness International was responsible for his injury and believed that he was morally and ethically entitled to monetary compensation in this civil case in order to make the defendant compensate him for what he contended was significant injustice in which he was victimized.

Contrary to La Fata’s assertions, there was significant evidence omitted from what he claimed was a vindictive, immoral, and an unjust situation in which he was harmed and expecting compensation for the wrongdoing. This evidence significantly neutralized his claims for wrongdoing and negligence by the defendant LA Fitness International. The defense completely destroyed his argument in the statement, “At the time the plaintiff joined the defendant’s facility he signed a double-sided membership agreement which contained a release/waiver of liability. The release contained the usual language including a provision that the facility was relieved from any liability for injuries suffered “in, upon, or about LA Fitness premises or arising at LA Fitness facilities, services or equipment.” A bold face typed provision of the release indicated this member had “read and understood the entire agreement.” This quote indicates that the plaintiff knowingly signed a waiver for liability in the event of getting injured on the premises of LA Fitness, and most importantly, signed the contract that he had read and agreed regarding the rules and regulations. Therefore, the lawsuit was dismissed on summary judgment because La Fata knowingly signed this contract, which shields LA Fitness from liability. The clause defends the corporation from lawsuits such as these that could result in a significant financial award for damages.

Conclusively, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, LA Fitness International. Perceiving the deciding factors in this case, the judge placed significant importance upon the evidentiary support and the notion (as was taught in class) that it is not necessarily about who is right or wrong, but what one can prove. Within the domain and the rules of the law, it is more important who can provide more evidence to support a claim. In the end, it is about whichever party can ascertain more concrete and factual information to provide justification to decisively conclude who is righteous in the perception of the law. That will separate which individual, or party, is morally and ethically innocent by contemporary societal norms and beliefs.

Herbert, David L. “Injury On Weight Bench Results In Lawsuit But Ruling For Club.” Exercise Standards & Malpractice Reporter 23.6 (2009). Web. 14. Feb. 2015.

Fadi is a double major in nutrition food science and exercise science at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Posted by Fadi Huzien.

The article “Debate On Medical Malpractice Lawsuits,” discusses the intricacy of a singular aspect of business law that involves the controversial aspect of medical malpractice lawsuits. The primary reasoning behind the controversial nature of medical malpractice lawsuits is that they can be perceived from a beneficial and optimistic standpoint in the notion that if a medical professional is negligent then the victim would be able to receive some outlet of financial compensation to justify the negligent actions the physician took towards the patient/victim.

Conversely, however, there are many individuals seeking to intentionally profit off of a malpractice lawsuit in the immoral and unethical attempt to make as commonly referred to as a “quick buck.” In the article, the author eloquently articulated, “Some states have been gradually chipping away at medical malpractice laws seen by some as too plaintiff-friendly. For instance, a New York law limits the size of contingent fees in medical malpractice cases, thus reducing the financial incentive for plaintiffs’ attorneys.” This quote illustrates the belief that there are a multitude of profit-seeking individuals who aspire to take advantage of this law, which was originally created to empower the victimized individual or to allow financial compensation in a civil case to pay the families of the victims in the event of harm that had occurred due to the physicians negligence. As the quote portrays, contemporary legislatures are seeking to minimize this immoral mentality and reduce wrongful malpractice lawsuits that focus on making a significant profit by opportunistic individuals who are suing the doctor in a “get rich quick scheme.”

This article reveals that there is no simple black and white solution for these issues, because there are truckloads of gray areas. Although malpractice lawsuits are occurring in civil cases with righteous reasons and there are a wide spectrum of patients who became victims under the negligence of the physician operating on them, there is a wide-spectrum of profit-seeking fools who are filing malpractice lawsuits in the hopes of getting a financial benefit that the individual should not receive in the first place. In conclusion, this article summarizes both aspects to this controversy and insightfully portrays both sides of the controversy.

“Debate On Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.” Salem Press Encyclopedia (2013). Research Starters. Web. 7. Feb. 2015.

Fadi is a double major in nutrition food science and exercise science at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.