Posted by Mihran Naltchayan.

Watching the news earlier, I heard a report that the juvenile ages among the states in the United States are all different. I always thought that any person eighteen or younger is considered a juvenile. That is a false assumption on my part.

In New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina, a juvenile is considered sixteen years or younger. I found this awkward because I don’t find people mature at age 16; I think after 18 years old juveniles should know between right and wrong and learn from it. In Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, a juvenile is age 17 or less. Wyoming is the only state that has established the age of juveniles to be 19 or younger. (Juvenile Justice 1). Everyone matures at different rates, but the average age people start maturing, I believe, is 18 years old.

“Relying on age as a sole determinant for adulthood has been criticized by many criminologists and policy makers since individuals develop at different rates.” (Juvenile Justice 2). I guess these states come up with these juvenile ages because of the environment/life they live in, but I disagree. It should be after high school, which is usually over 18, that states should be consider a person to be an adult.

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

Posted by Mihran Naltchayan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Shaaliyah T. Lyons. 

Background:

On ­­­­one Saturday night around 11:00pm stopped at a light, I looked up and realized I was being pulled over on Central Ave., in East Orange New Jersey.  Already in the far-right lane, I moved over slightly to get out the way of traffic.  I turned the car off and my two friends and I immediately started trying to figure out why we were being pulled over.  Is it my tinted windows? Was I speeding? What is the speed limit? Did someone throw something out at the window?  All in all, no one was really sure what actually happened but we all assumed it was my tinted windows, which have caused controversy in past.

Finally, the officer comes to the car with her flashlight beaming in the passenger and back seat as her partner comes on the driver side.  First, she asked for my license and registration.  Out of curiosity I asked why was I being pulled over.  She was hesitant and asked for my license again, for me this was a red flag.  I asked again for her reasoning for pulling me over. She proceeded to give me two reasons, one being my tints and the other because I was speeding.  In response to my tinted windows, I quickly explained that according to NJ Tint laws it depends on the part of the car:

Windshield: No tint is allowed on the windshield.

Front Side windows: No tint can be applied legally to this window.

Back Side windows: Any darkness can be used.

Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

Following this explanation, I showed her that my front windows were not tinted. In regards to the second the reason, I simply questioned what was the speed limit and how fast was I going.  It was at this moment in which friction arose between us.  She could not tell me how fast I was going but mentioned that she had to do 50mph to catch up to me. I gave her my information and waited for her to come back to the car.

As she walked back, her partner’s family member proceeded to pull up to the gas station next to where I was pulled over.  As I continue into the next part of the background of the incident, please keep in mind that the entire time her partner was not in the scene and conversing with his family member in the gas station.

When she came back, she explained that she had given me a careless driving ticket.  A careless driving ticket usually occurs after an accident or when someone is found to be carelessly driving and putting someone’s life in danger.  Her explanation went as follows, “Because I do not have a radar, I cannot give you a speeding ticket; therefore, I am going to issue you a careless driving ticket.” Here is when it gets confusing because at this point no one really knows if I was even speeding and if so how fast I was going.  My follow up question to her (before taking the ticket) was, “Just for clarification, because you cannot prove I was speeding, you have to give me another ticket (which is arguably worse than a speeding ticket)?” She did not answer the question. After a minute or so of going back and forth, she proceeded to aggressively place my tickets and paper work on my dash board.

My Court Appearances

A week after I received my ticket, I called the East Orange Municipal Court to go over my court date. From there, I was informed that the date on the ticket is not an accurate day; the court told me they would enter me as a not guilty plea and I was issued a new court date.  On my new court date, the first person I talked to was the prosecutor, who gave me the opportunity to plead guilty to the obstruction of traffic.  This was a fine under $100, no points on my license, and I wouldn’t have to be in court all day.  I declined this offer, as you can tell from my story, I was doing the opposite of obstructing traffic, I was in fact going with the flow of traffic.  When it was my time to speak to the judge, they realized that even though I previously pled not guilty, the officers involved were not notified.

The following week, I submitted a request for discovery regarding my case.  Almost a month later, I came to court prepared with the copy of my discovery request, my witness, as well as the facts of the case.  The facts of this case went as followed:

1. A cop is not supposed to catch up to a car and proceed to pull them over; they are to pace behind them to have a gage of how fast they are going.A cop is not to place their hand on your property it can be considered trespassing on private property.

2. As stated before, there are no laws against the tints on my car.

3. In a 15 mile radius there is only one speed limit sign that is almost impossible to see at the time I was pulled over (brought in a picture).

4. The officer could not prove that I was driving in a careless manner that could endanger others.

When I entered the court room, I was asked if I wanted to continue to plead not guilty.  I confirmed.  When it was my turn to speak to the judge, he issued me a new court date.  That is when I explained that this is my 2^nd time and court and the officer has already been notified.

I motioned to dismiss this case due to lack of evidence against me, and he approved my motion and dismissed the case!  In the end, I did not have to pay any fine or have any points added to my license.

Shaaliyah is a sports management major with a certificate in entrepreneurial studies, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Shaaliyah T. Lyons. 

Background:

On ­­­­one Saturday night around 11:00pm stopped at a light, I looked up and realized I was being pulled over on Central Ave., in East Orange New Jersey.  Already in the far-right lane, I moved over slightly to get out the way of traffic.  I turned the car off and my two friends and I immediately started trying to figure out why we were being pulled over.  Is it my tinted windows? Was I speeding? What is the speed limit? Did someone throw something out at the window?  All in all, no one was really sure what actually happened but we all assumed it was my tinted windows, which have caused controversy in past.

Finally, the officer comes to the car with her flashlight beaming in the passenger and back seat as her partner comes on the driver side.  First, she asked for my license and registration.  Out of curiosity I asked why was I being pulled over.  She was hesitant and asked for my license again, for me this was a red flag.  I asked again for her reasoning for pulling me over. She proceeded to give me two reasons, one being my tints and the other because I was speeding.  In response to my tinted windows, I quickly explained that according to NJ Tint laws it depends on the part of the car:

Windshield: No tint is allowed on the windshield.

Front Side windows: No tint can be applied legally to this window.

Back Side windows: Any darkness can be used.

Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

Following this explanation, I showed her that my front windows were not tinted. In regards to the second the reason, I simply questioned what was the speed limit and how fast was I going.  It was at this moment in which friction arose between us.  She could not tell me how fast I was going but mentioned that she had to do 50mph to catch up to me. I gave her my information and waited for her to come back to the car.

As she walked back, her partner’s family member proceeded to pull up to the gas station next to where I was pulled over.  As I continue into the next part of the background of the incident, please keep in mind that the entire time her partner was not in the scene and conversing with his family member in the gas station.

When she came back, she explained that she had given me a careless driving ticket.  A careless driving ticket usually occurs after an accident or when someone is found to be carelessly driving and putting someone’s life in danger.  Her explanation went as follows, “Because I do not have a radar, I cannot give you a speeding ticket; therefore, I am going to issue you a careless driving ticket.” Here is when it gets confusing because at this point no one really knows if I was even speeding and if so how fast I was going.  My follow up question to her (before taking the ticket) was, “Just for clarification, because you cannot prove I was speeding, you have to give me another ticket (which is arguably worse than a speeding ticket)?” She did not answer the question. After a minute or so of going back and forth, she proceeded to aggressively place my tickets and paper work on my dash board.

My Court Appearances

A week after I received my ticket, I called the East Orange Municipal Court to go over my court date. From there, I was informed that the date on the ticket is not an accurate day; the court told me they would enter me as a not guilty plea and I was issued a new court date.  On my new court date, the first person I talked to was the prosecutor, who gave me the opportunity to plead guilty to the obstruction of traffic.  This was a fine under $100, no points on my license, and I wouldn’t have to be in court all day.  I declined this offer, as you can tell from my story, I was doing the opposite of obstructing traffic, I was in fact going with the flow of traffic.  When it was my time to speak to the judge, they realized that even though I previously pled not guilty, the officers involved were not notified.

The following week, I submitted a request for discovery regarding my case.  Almost a month later, I came to court prepared with the copy of my discovery request, my witness, as well as the facts of the case.  The facts of this case went as followed:

1. A cop is not supposed to catch up to a car and proceed to pull them over; they are to pace behind them to have a gage of how fast they are going.A cop is not to place their hand on your property it can be considered trespassing on private property.

2. As stated before, there are no laws against the tints on my car.

3. In a 15 mile radius there is only one speed limit sign that is almost impossible to see at the time I was pulled over (brought in a picture).

4. The officer could not prove that I was driving in a careless manner that could endanger others.

When I entered the court room, I was asked if I wanted to continue to plead not guilty.  I confirmed.  When it was my turn to speak to the judge, he issued me a new court date.  That is when I explained that this is my 2^nd time and court and the officer has already been notified.

I motioned to dismiss this case due to lack of evidence against me, and he approved my motion and dismissed the case!  In the end, I did not have to pay any fine or have any points added to my license.

Shaaliyah is a sports management major with a certificate in entrepreneurial studies, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Mihran Naltchayan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Shaaliyah T. Lyons. 

Background:

On ­­­­one Saturday night around 11:00pm stopped at a light, I looked up and realized I was being pulled over on Central Ave., in East Orange New Jersey.  Already in the far-right lane, I moved over slightly to get out the way of traffic.  I turned the car off and my two friends and I immediately started trying to figure out why we were being pulled over.  Is it my tinted windows? Was I speeding? What is the speed limit? Did someone throw something out at the window?  All in all, no one was really sure what actually happened but we all assumed it was my tinted windows, which have caused controversy in past.

Finally, the officer comes to the car with her flashlight beaming in the passenger and back seat as her partner comes on the driver side.  First, she asked for my license and registration.  Out of curiosity I asked why was I being pulled over.  She was hesitant and asked for my license again, for me this was a red flag.  I asked again for her reasoning for pulling me over. She proceeded to give me two reasons, one being my tints and the other because I was speeding.  In response to my tinted windows, I quickly explained that according to NJ Tint laws it depends on the part of the car:

Windshield: No tint is allowed on the windshield.

Front Side windows: No tint can be applied legally to this window.

Back Side windows: Any darkness can be used.

Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

Following this explanation, I showed her that my front windows were not tinted. In regards to the second the reason, I simply questioned what was the speed limit and how fast was I going.  It was at this moment in which friction arose between us.  She could not tell me how fast I was going but mentioned that she had to do 50mph to catch up to me. I gave her my information and waited for her to come back to the car.

As she walked back, her partner’s family member proceeded to pull up to the gas station next to where I was pulled over.  As I continue into the next part of the background of the incident, please keep in mind that the entire time her partner was not in the scene and conversing with his family member in the gas station.

When she came back, she explained that she had given me a careless driving ticket.  A careless driving ticket usually occurs after an accident or when someone is found to be carelessly driving and putting someone’s life in danger.  Her explanation went as follows, “Because I do not have a radar, I cannot give you a speeding ticket; therefore, I am going to issue you a careless driving ticket.” Here is when it gets confusing because at this point no one really knows if I was even speeding and if so how fast I was going.  My follow up question to her (before taking the ticket) was, “Just for clarification, because you cannot prove I was speeding, you have to give me another ticket (which is arguably worse than a speeding ticket)?” She did not answer the question. After a minute or so of going back and forth, she proceeded to aggressively place my tickets and paper work on my dash board.

My Court Appearances

A week after I received my ticket, I called the East Orange Municipal Court to go over my court date. From there, I was informed that the date on the ticket is not an accurate day; the court told me they would enter me as a not guilty plea and I was issued a new court date.  On my new court date, the first person I talked to was the prosecutor, who gave me the opportunity to plead guilty to the obstruction of traffic.  This was a fine under $100, no points on my license, and I wouldn’t have to be in court all day.  I declined this offer, as you can tell from my story, I was doing the opposite of obstructing traffic, I was in fact going with the flow of traffic.  When it was my time to speak to the judge, they realized that even though I previously pled not guilty, the officers involved were not notified.

The following week, I submitted a request for discovery regarding my case.  Almost a month later, I came to court prepared with the copy of my discovery request, my witness, as well as the facts of the case.  The facts of this case went as followed:

1. A cop is not supposed to catch up to a car and proceed to pull them over; they are to pace behind them to have a gage of how fast they are going.A cop is not to place their hand on your property it can be considered trespassing on private property.

2. As stated before, there are no laws against the tints on my car.

3. In a 15 mile radius there is only one speed limit sign that is almost impossible to see at the time I was pulled over (brought in a picture).

4. The officer could not prove that I was driving in a careless manner that could endanger others.

When I entered the court room, I was asked if I wanted to continue to plead not guilty.  I confirmed.  When it was my turn to speak to the judge, he issued me a new court date.  That is when I explained that this is my 2^nd time and court and the officer has already been notified.

I motioned to dismiss this case due to lack of evidence against me, and he approved my motion and dismissed the case!  In the end, I did not have to pay any fine or have any points added to my license.

Shaaliyah is a sports management major with a certificate in entrepreneurial studies, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

In class, students learn about bribery of public officials and its criminal penalties. Bribery can also be an ethics violation. Generally, public officials are prohibited from accepting gifts in relation to their official duties. Both federal and state governments have fashioned rules regarding acceptance of gifts and these rules can extend to family members.

In Section III of the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, for example, it states that no state officer or employee “shall accept any gift, favor, service or other thing of value related in any way to the State official’s public duties.” The same holds true for federal judges. Under the Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States under Title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 Concerning Gifts, judges “shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court . . . .”

But there are exceptions to the rules and each one has to be carefully construed. Some, like the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, will permit certain “gifts or benefits of trivial or nominal value” as long as the gift “does not create an impression of a conflict of interest or a violation of the public trust.” Other codes may provide a dollar-limit. For example, the “Regulations” for federal judges above provide that gifts having “an aggregate market value of $50 or less per occasion” are permitted “provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts accepted from any one person . . . shall not exceed $100 in a calendar year.”

Common sense is the foundation of these rules. If the gift has the appearance of impropriety, it is better to graciously decline it.

Posted by Alex Law.

A lawsuit had been filed on Wednesday, February 14th, against the New York and Atlantic Railway Company for the unfair treatment of 18 railway workers. According to one of the railway workers, Mario Pesantez, the railway company has denied the workers safety equipment, as well as withholding proper training. Furthermore, Pesantez claims that he was told to attend his work station by climbing over a chain-link fence by his employers. On the account of unfair treatment and low wages for vigorous labor, railway laborers have decided to take matters into their own hands by confronting the company in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

The New York and Atlantic Company tries to undermine the lawsuit by stating: “These allegations are baseless and without merit. The individuals making these employment claims were never N.Y.A.R employees, and as such, their claims are directed at the wrong party.” However, Kristina Mazzocchi, a lawyer for the railway workers, strongly disagrees with what the company asserted. According to Mazzocchi, the railway workers have “worked full time and were paid weekly, in cash.” In other words, these workers are official employees of the company  that have been mistreated for years as they were subjected to dangerous tasks while being under paid. An example of a task that were completed under dangerous circumstances was for Franklin Lopez, a railway worker, to “squeeze beneath derailed cars” in order to put the derailed cars back onto the track. In other words, Lopez had to complete his task fearing the possibility that he would be crushed to death.

According to the article, it seems that New York and Atlantic Company had experienced criticisms in the past in regards to their safety regulation and the treatment of workers. Specifically, the company has neglected to properly train the workers in using particular equipment for completing their tasks. It is also important to recognize that these workers had watched YouTube videos in order to learn how to perform different undertakings. Additionally, the labor workers faced discrimination when the article states: “Those workers, the suit added, were given a segregated and substandard changing area, subjected to racial slurs.” Based on these accounts, it is ultimately unacceptable for the railway company to under-pay their workers based on the notion that the workers had to face such circumstances. With that said, there is a major indication that the New York and Atlantic Company suffer from a flaw in their safety regulation.

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

Source:

Article Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/nyregion/railway-workers-lawsuit-discrimination.html

Posted by Mohammed Almanqari.

Uber Company is always thought of being sued now and then for one or two issues. Apparently, the company has sued an advertising company called Fetch Media. Uber has taken to court Fetch Media accusing it of click fraud. The company had improperly billed Uber for online advertisements, which were not genuine. Fetch Media took advantage of the same and benefited from application downloads that did not belong to it. Fetch Media is owned by Dentsu, one of the largest advertising company in Japan. The case was filed by Uber on 19^th September 2017 in the US District Court in San Francisco.

After placing the charges, Uber said that it expected not less than forty million dollars as compensation for the damages caused by Fetch Media. However Uber is not fond of taking to court most of the issues it faces; in fact, according to report prepared by Bloomberg, Uber has been a plaintiff twice but has been accused in more than 250 cases. Ever since the internet became a money-making platform, fraud related to online advertising has been on the rise. “One of the biggest challenges we face as digital marketers is to reduce mobile ad fraud.” This was according to the chief executive of Fetch Media, James Connelly. According to the head of media at Fetch Company, Steve Hobbs, a big percentage of downloads from Fetch`s system are noted as invalid or not genuine.

Uber became aware of this fraud during a period when it was putting efforts to shut down and avoid a scandal that was different. Uber Company then requested Fetch Media not to post any advertisements on a certain website called Breitbart news which was being run by the former chief strategist of President Donald Trump. However, ads stills appeared on that site. Fetch canceled the running of ads from any network that was related to Breitbart but this did not reduce the number of application downloads. There is a specific fee paid to Fetch by Uber when a customer downloads the company`s application. From the years 2015 to 2017, Uber had paid close to $8.4m for ads regulated by Fetch Company.

Mohammed is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

http://www.fin24.com/Tech/Companies/uber-goes-on-rare-legal-offensive-suing-ad-agency-for-fraud-20170919

Bank of America reached a settlement with federal prosecutors over the sale of mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.  BofA will pay 10 billion cash and about 7 billion in consumer aid.  Most of BofA’s trouble is inherited from its purchase of Countrywide Financial.  BofA was charged with misrepresenting the quality of loans it sold to investors.

BofA sold residential mortgages from borrowers who were unlikely able to repay their loans; yet, these securities were promoted as safe investments.  Subsequently, the housing market collapsed and investors suffered billions of dollars in losses.

The consumer aid component should come in the form of reducing the principal on loans BofA knows it cannot recover in full.  This is one of the “consumer-friendly” activities BofA can engage in order to achieve “credits.” Credits consist of a multiple for each dollar spent on each form of consumer relief.  Critics claim that because of credits, tax write-offs, and “other tricks” the fines paid by banks who break the law are worth only a fraction of the amount.

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 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 Kayla Caveny.

The United States and Europe both have emissions standards for their vehicles. The standards are in place to limit the amount of pollutants the vehicle may make. However, there is a way to bypass those standards, illegal of course. This certain device is called a “defeat device,” which is any apparatus that unduly reduces the effectiveness of emissions control systems under conditions a vehicle may reasonably be expected to experience.

On September 18, 2015 U.S and European officials accused Volkswagen and Audi of installing these defeat devices within numerous diesel cars made between 2009 and 2015. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the cars that were tampered with “included software that circumvents EPA emissions standards for certain air pollutants.” The vehicles that were effected only release the EPA’s emissions standards when the car is actually being tested. The vehicle actually produces nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the “legal” standard. Because of these vehicles being tampered with over 11 million Volkswagen and Audie’s have now been subject to recall. Volkswagen did admit to not complying with governmental standards. However, the makers of Volkswagen and Audi told the owners of these cars that “this is an emissions issue, your vehicle is safe to drive.”

Volkswagen and Audi’s actions have now caused several lawsuits, especially within the state of Tennessee. Most of these lawsuits are against Volkswagen and many of the dealers within the United States. According to John Willis, a lawsuit in Chattanooga, Tennessee’s Federal Court included seven plaintiffs who sued Volkswagen’s parent company and a Tennessee based dealer for fraudulent concealment and violating Tennessee consumer protection law. They thought they were purchasing “green” vehicles that met or exceeded federal emissions standards.

The plaintiffs believe that once Volkswagen completes a government mandated recall to remove the illegal defeat devices, the cars will not perform as they were designed. In the end Volkswagen has a settlement of 10 billion for vehicle buybacks, lease terminations, and owner compensation, as well as a 2.7 billion dollars towards environmental programs to reduce polluting nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere. Volkswagen must also spend another 2 billion to promote zero-emission vehicles, which is even more than what they had originally planned to spend on the technology.

Kayla is a marketing student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

References:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/faq-volkswagen-diesel-emissions-settlement.html