Posted by Xiangni Meng.

There have been at least 16 deaths caused by a ruptured Takata air bag inflator worldwide. The first U.S. death report of a Takata inflator is a 17-year-old high school senior, who died in Texas in a moderate speed crash. The most recent death in the United States was confirmed by U.S. safety regulators. A 50-year-old California woman died in a Honda Civic that was first recalled in 2008 because of a defective airbag.

The problem is that “[t]he defective air bag inflators deploy with too much force sending metal fragments flying.” This accident spurned the search and recall for noncompliant vehicles. This deficiency covers more than 60 million air bags in vehicles from BMW, Ford, Honda, Tesla, Toyota, and 12 other corporations. That is one of every five cars on the road in the U.S. The biggest recall could affect more than 100 million vehicles around the world.

Actually, about 11.4 million inflators in the United States have been fixed, while more than 20 million were left unrepaired. Takata spokesman Jared Levy said the “tragedy underscores the importance of replacing those airbag inflators that have been recalled by automakers.” However, owners can be difficult to find. Even Honda has mailed letters, placed Facebook ads, made telephone calls, and in some instances visited owners, but some owners just refuse to get it repaired. “Safety advocates have called for laws banning the sale of any vehicle until recall repairs are made, or a national requirement that recalls be done before license plates can be renewed.” Spokesman Bryan Thomas said, The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) doesn’t have legal authority to order those recalling steps.

A Senate investigation and personal injury litigation have turned up company documents suggesting that Takata executives ignored their own employees and hid the potential danger from Honda, their biggest customer, as well as from U.S. regulators. It is said Takata is seeking a financial investor to help pay for huge liabilities from the world’s biggest auto recall. Also, Takata could face $200 million fine over faulty airbags.

Xiangni is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/29/business/ap-us-air-bag-danger.html?src=busln

http://fortune.com/2016/10/21/takata-air-bag-deaths/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-06-02/sixty-million-car-bombs-inside-takata-s-air-bag-crisis

Posted by Alexa Constantine.

The New York Times on October 11th of this year released the article describing Wells Fargo’s fraud scandal that was brought to the public eye last month. The ethics scandal came to light last month, but the fraud has been going on for years, maybe even a decade with the first report in 2005. Julie Tishkoff in 2005 wrote to the Wells Fargo human resources about how she saw employees setting up sham accounts, forging customer signatures, and the sending out of unsolicited credit cards. Her complaining went on for four years. Tishkoff was not the only employee who was complaining to the internal ethics hotline, the human resources department, and to the managers and supervisors.

In 2011, John G. Stumpf, the board chairman, received at least two letters from Wells Fargo employees describing the illegal activities they have witnessed. Mr. Stumpf became president the year Julie Tishkoff wrote to human resources. In September of this year, Mr. Stumpf testified in front of Congress, twice, stating that, “he and other senior managers only realized in 2013 that they had a big problem on their hands — two years after the bank had started firing people over this issue.” In 2013, Wells Fargo launched the internal investigation within their company for the fraud they realized that was happening. But by then, the prosecutors and regulators caught on and in May of 2015 a lawsuit was filed. The Los Angeles city attorney filed the lawsuit for the creation of unauthorized accounts against Wells Fargo. The case was settled this September of 2016.

After the lawsuit settled, Mary Eshet, spokeswoman for Wells Fargo said, “We have made fundamental changes to help ensure team members are not being pressured to sell products, customers are receiving the right solutions for their financial needs, our customer-focused culture is upheld at all times and that customer satisfaction is high.” And since September 8th, Wells Fargo will pay $185 million in fines for the opening about two million customer accounts and credit cards without authorization. Wells Fargo is taking responsibility for the scandal and is making changes to the company.

The scandal still continues after the settlement. Former employees whose are suing Wells Fargo state that many of the managers at the branch level and the people who heard their ethics complaints are still employed. The employees who complained and brought to light the fraud within the company lost their jobs shortly after they complained. Between 2011 and this year, Wells Fargo terminated the employment of 5,300 workers, “around 10 percent of those worked at the branch manager level or above, according to the bank, but only one — an area president — had a high-level management role.” The whistleblowers lost their jobs while the people who should have acknowledged the fraud kept their jobs. Mr. Stumpf acknowledged the outrage of former employees about how the bank should have heeded what they said were warning and taken action earlier by saying, “We should have done more sooner.” Mr. Stumpf’s answer does not satisfy former employees.

Alexa is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Shahrani Bhatti.

On January 30th of 2018, U.S. regulators made it known that they feel Congress should expand regulation of the bitcoin as well as a growing number of other cryptocurrencies. Their reasoning being that the currency is not subject to investor-protection laws. The chairmen of the SEC and the CFTC told senators that the exceedingly popular cryptocurrency has surmounted state regulation. This is only one of a growing number of concerns, as U.S. banks are taking a step forward and stopping credit card purchases of bitcoin in addition to bitcoin prices dropping dramatically as governments in China, India and South Korea have placed restrictions on cryptocurrency trading.

The chairmen continued, saying that in order to regulate cryptocurrencies and protect investors, Congress would need to become involved as the SEC and the CFTC hold no power in regards to the market of products like bitcoin. At a testimony earlier this year, Christopher Giancarlo of the CFTC said that if they were given jurisdiction in this situation that it would be a, “dramatic expansion of the CFTC’s regulatory mission.”

Both market regulators have also halted illicit operations that have attempted to capitalize investors’ growing desire for returns similar to that of bitcoin’s skyrocketing $17,900 in only December of last year. The SEC has also stopped initial coin offerings, a fundraising method that has accumulated billions from investors in exchange for the issuance of new digital currencies like the bitcoin, as the demand for them continues to grow. Chief of the SEC, Mr. Clayton said that unlike the bitcoin, however, that these other issuances leave the issuer vulnerable to federal anti-fraud and investor-protection laws. Because of unregulated exchanges, Chief Clayton says, market prices can intensely rise.

While the bitcoin is still mainly unregulated, its derivatives are continually inspected. The CTFC has examined how these tokens should be allotted for trading. Mr. Giancarlo has come up with a new process for other duplicate tokens of the bitcoin, which consist of intensified information sharing agreements between exchanges and the CFTC, and agreements by exchanges to coordinate launches with CFTC’s staff.

I believe cryptocurrency regulation is a necessity at this time. Investors need to be protected from fraud. If the U.S. begins to regulate these currencies, then other countries may also follow suit. The cryptocurrencies may also grow and lead to an increased number of jobs which can only benefit the U.S. economy. If this benefits the U.S. economy, a larger standard of living will persist and the U.S. will become a more powerful country — as a high standard of living among people, high GDP and a good economy are the defining features of powerful countries. Cryptocurrency may give the current U.S. national currency a run for its money, but in the long run, the benefits will outweigh the costs as cryptocurrencies are easier to manage and track as the exchanges are basically exclusively carried out online.

Shahrani Bhatti is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Posted by Gurpreet Kaur.

CNN Money released an article on Well Fargo’s employees secretly withdrawing money from customers’ bank account and transferring to new accounts since 2011. The article was published on September 8th of this year and Wells Fargo bank was forced to fire 5,300 employees in Los Angles for setting up accounts for customers. This fraud was taking place without any of the customers’ knowledge. After this fraud, many customers were fumed because their bank accounts were unsafe. The employees’ fraud was unethical and illegal because they were creating credit card accounts without letting their customers know.

Brian Kennedy, a Maryland retiree, was one of the victims and he told CNN Money “he detected an unauthorized Wells Fargo account had been created in his name about a year ago. He asked Wells Fargo about it and the bank closed it.” Wells Fargo’s customers had trust in the bank. The victims of this fraud could have filed for refunds, but it wasn’t necessary because Wells Fargo agreed to refund 5 million dollars to them. The settlement in Los Angles required Wells Fargo to warn their California customers to shut down their unrecognized accounts. The fraud caused the bank to unemployed 5,300 workers over these five years.

Richard Cordray is the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and he said, “Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses.”  Those employees transferred funds from customers’ accounts without their knowledge to new accounts they created. Customers were upset because they were facing overdraft fees and insufficient fees. Wells Fargo stated, “We regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request.” Wells Fargo’s market valuation was the highest in America, but the fraud led to lawsuits against Wells Fargo. In May 2015, “Feuer’s office sued Wells Fargo for authorizing accounts” and “after filing the suit, his office received more than 1,000 calls and emails from customers as well as current and former Wells Fargo employees about the allegations.”

Gurpreet is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Enerd Pani.

During the beginning of October, there was a vast change where control of the internet source code was transported from the United States, to what most likely will be the United Nations. The result is that countries not only in Europe, but all over the world can vie for control of the internet. Arguably unscrupulous countries such as Russia, China and Iran can cause issues with human rights violations and can censor areas of the internet in other countries, not only within their own home country. The second issue is that the President did not ask Congress for approval to give a piece of U.S property to overseas forces. The following action has been criticized as going against US interests, and mitigating any form of American supremacy.

Still, some people see this as a necessary step. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration believes the chance of government intrusion to be “extremely remote” (BBC). The issue arises when multiple shareholders with many different ideas on how the internet should be maintained all vie for control of singular entity. These “stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technological expertise” (BBC). One might wonder how such a important function can be put within the control of so many groups with different interests. There has even been calls by Russia and China for the Domain Naming Server to be put under the control “by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union” (BBC). The request put forward shows the desires countries with very shady human rights have towards getting control of such a important tool for free speech.

Many groups had argued that a delay on the acquisition should have been placed. The critics of the movement “argue that once the transition takes place it is irreversible, and that it would be prudent to temporarily maintain existing U.S. government authority” (fas 18). It would seem very controversial to transfer over such a valuable asset when there may not be any chance to change a decision. Also questions arise on how the “.mil” and “.gov” domains should be handled. These domains are sole property of the U.S Government, and cannot be used in any other way.

To conclude, the “giveaway” of ICANN is one shrouded in uncertainty. No one can be sure if the new stakeholders of the internet will continue to monitor it ethically. There has been major concern about some countries abusing the power of internet control, but many companies like the NTIA assure that they are looking to “protect U.S consumers, companies, and intellectual properties” (fas 12). It can be argued that ICANN was transferred unethically, though now the deed is done. The future will tell if this move will either effect, or mitigate personal freedoms on the internet.

Enerd is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

Posted by He Yin.

Since the beginning of 2017, the combined market value of all encrypted currencies has risen from $17.7 billion to nearly $836 billion on January 5, 2018, more than 4,500% in more than a year. In such a short time, no investor has ever seen a significant appreciation of such an asset class.

China is often seen as one of the biggest battleground states in the secret revolution. Last summer, the Chinese government halted an initial public offering (essentially an initial public offering but used in digital currency) and announced that it would close the country’s cryptocurrency exchange.

Just recently, the Chinese government announced that it would track the facilities of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. On January 3rd, a press release issued by the central bank outlined a plan to limit the power supply of some bitcoin miners. Given that China is currently in the currency of mining occupies more than two-thirds of all the processing power of share, the move is an obvious for COINS community, and the evolution of the encryption currency is a whole.

Comment: China has been developing rapidly in the last forty years. Its economy is a well-functioning machine. As for Russia, however, it does not have as much. Its currency, the ruble, has been in turmoil more than once in the past few decades, and its dependence on oil has caused huge swings in its economic growth. So in theory, Russia appears to be the perfect candidate for the bitcoin revolution.

He is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source:

Link: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/forget-china-this-country-has-become-the-most-intriguing-cryptocurrency-battleground

Posted by Enerd Pani.

During the beginning of October, there was a vast change where control of the internet source code was transported from the United States, to what most likely will be the United Nations. The result is that countries not only in Europe, but all over the world can vie for control of the internet. Arguably unscrupulous countries such as Russia, China and Iran can cause issues with human rights violations and can censor areas of the internet in other countries, not only within their own home country. The second issue is that the President did not ask Congress for approval to give a piece of U.S property to overseas forces. The following action has been criticized as going against US interests, and mitigating any form of American supremacy.

Still, some people see this as a necessary step. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration believes the chance of government intrusion to be “extremely remote” (BBC). The issue arises when multiple shareholders with many different ideas on how the internet should be maintained all vie for control of singular entity. These “stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technological expertise” (BBC). One might wonder how such a important function can be put within the control of so many groups with different interests. There has even been calls by Russia and China for the Domain Naming Server to be put under the control “by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union” (BBC). The request put forward shows the desires countries with very shady human rights have towards getting control of such a important tool for free speech.

Many groups had argued that a delay on the acquisition should have been placed. The critics of the movement “argue that once the transition takes place it is irreversible, and that it would be prudent to temporarily maintain existing U.S. government authority” (fas 18). It would seem very controversial to transfer over such a valuable asset when there may not be any chance to change a decision. Also questions arise on how the “.mil” and “.gov” domains should be handled. These domains are sole property of the U.S Government, and cannot be used in any other way.

To conclude, the “giveaway” of ICANN is one shrouded in uncertainty. No one can be sure if the new stakeholders of the internet will continue to monitor it ethically. There has been major concern about some countries abusing the power of internet control, but many companies like the NTIA assure that they are looking to “protect U.S consumers, companies, and intellectual properties” (fas 12). It can be argued that ICANN was transferred unethically, though now the deed is done. The future will tell if this move will either effect, or mitigate personal freedoms on the internet.

Enerd is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

FIFA’s Audit and Compliance Committee head, Domenico Scala, said if evidence shows Russia and Qatar bought votes to have the World Cup hosted in their country, ‘the awards could be invalidated.’” This comes on the heels of U.S. federal indictments charging FIFA officials with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption.

Russia and Qatar are not the subject of those indictments, but evidence may emerge from those proceedings about how they won the privilege of hosting the event.

The Justice Department charged fourteen people, including nine current or former FIFA figures and five sports marketing professionals, for allegedly “‘foster[ing] a culture of corruption and greed that created an uneven playing field for the biggest sport in the world,’” FBI Director James Comey said. The government alleged racketeering and corruption involving more than $150 million in bribes and kickbacks spanning two decades.

“The investigation grew out of allegations of payoffs to officials who decided where to hold the next two World Cups, the biggest international event in sports, that landed the games in Russia for 2018 and Qatar in 2022, according to three senior U.S. law enforcement officials. The U.S. was runner-up to Qatar’s win.”

FIFA appears to be relieved with the indictments. In a statement posted on its website, it said it “welcomes actions that can help contribute to rooting out any wrongdoing in football.”  FIFA further said, “We are pleased to see that the investigation is being energetically pursued for the good of football and believe that it will help reinforce measures that FIFA has already taken.”

The Clinton Foundation is under scrutiny for accepting money from FIFA and Qatar.  “In 2014, the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee, set up by the Qatar government to ensure a successful FIFA world cup, awarded the Clinton Foundation between $250,000 and $500,000; the State of Qatar donated between $1 million and $5 million.”  According to the Clinton Foundation website, the money was for “research and development for sustainable infrastructure at the 2022 FIFA World Cup to improve food security in Qatar, the Middle East, and other arid and water-stressed regions throughout the world.”

Posted by Tiffany Zapata.

Sergei Pugachyov former banker, senator, and confidante to Valdimir Putin is now speaking out on his placement on Interpol’s most wanted list. According to Pugachov, he made the list because of a campaign created by elite Russian politicians against him. He is currently facing charges in Russia and the UK due to the 2010 collapse of the International Industrial Bank.

Pugachyov commented on Interpol’s activity, stating “Interpol’s involvement is illegal and he’ll explore ‘all avenues’ to fight to get his name removed.” He was listed on the international law enforcement agency’s roster and is being charged with counts of embezzlement, according to Interpol.

In attempts to prove his innocence, Pugachyov is trying to bring light to the situation and call-out Russian politicians. He stated: “The involvement of Interpol by the Russian authorities is an attempt to give credibility to the actions of high-level Russian officials involved in the expropriation, including direct orders of President Putin and a number of Russian cabinet ministers.”

He was subject to a red notice by Interpol but was able to cancel it by challenging it in court. He is determined and says he will do anything in his power to cancel the second notice as well.

Pugachyov was once known as one of the richest men in Russia. He now lives a bare life, stripped of all his assets and politically targeted in Russia due to the collapse of the bank in 2010. With the history of Russian governments, we can speculate this will not end well for Pugachyov.

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

Posted by Faris Alzahrani.

On June 20th Christiano Ronaldo was accused by the government prosecutor for evading tax four times amounting to $16.5 million. Ronaldo was investigated and was expected to appear before Pozuelo de Alarcon court No. 1 on July 31. His summoning accorded with the same prosecutor who indicted Mourinho for evading tax two times. The prosecutor reported that there was enough evidence that Christiano Ronald used a shell firm to hide the cash she had acquired from the team image rights. However, Ronaldo pleaded not guilty.

It believed that Ronald had to move out of the country and join another football club because of the accusations against him. It was alleged that Mourinho committed tax deception in a period between 2011 and 2012; this is according to Madrid’s prosecutor. All of the evidence was based on the facts delivered by Spain Tax Office that indicated that Mourinho also hides money from profit rights and avoided to pay tax (Fox, 2017).

Everything was left in judges hands. It is crucial to note that these individuals are not the first to be accused of tax fraud. Last year a Barcelona striker, Lionel Messi was indicted for tax fraud on three counts that amounted to $4.6 million, this mainly from the income made from image rights. He was given a 21-month jail sentence, but he was not expected to serve in prison, since it was his first offense and his sentence was below two years.

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

Reference:

News, F. (2017, June 20). Cristiano Ronaldo, Jose Mourinho caught up in Spain tax scandal. Retrieved from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/06/20/cristiano-ronaldo-jose- mourinho-caught-up-in-spain-tax-scandal

Posted by Anna Fintor.

Wells Fargo is currently involved in a legal scandal in which it is said to have opened bank accounts and credit cards without the costumer’s consent. According to Reuters, “The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulators ordered United States’ third-largest bank by assets to pay $190 million in fines and restitution to settle civil charges.” The scandal has been going on for several years and there were as many as 2 million accounts opened illegally.

Wells Fargo has been known for its “high-pressure” sales culture, which one of my personal friends who has worked in one of the branches can account for. The Bloomberg article I have read describes how anonymous users have been posting cartoonish videos on YouTube presenting the negative work atmosphere at Wells Fargo. The videos show how management pressured and threatened workers that if the unreasonable goals were not met the workers would be let go.  It is suspected that the videos were created by employees as far back as in 2010.

While reading the articles, I remembered one of the discussions from class of how in large corporations top executives can pressure the bottom level workers to commit the illegal activity. One of the YouTube videos shows that bankers received $5 McDonald’s gift cards for opening a new account, while the executives received generous bonuses. In my opinion that’s very unethical and just wrong.

In the recent weeks the CEO, Jhon Stumpf has resigned and Wells Fargo continues to be under investigation. I feel like this situation is going to hurt Wells Fargo not only financially but also create bad reputation. Due to the popularity of social media, the videos will spread to a vast number of the population, including to those who may not be keeping up with the news.

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

Sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-21/psst-regulators-watch-videos-for-bank-scandal-after-wells-fargo

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-21/psst-regulators-watch-videos-for-bank-scandal-after-wells-fargon fines and restitution to settle civil charges

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-accounts-california-idUSKCN12J2O

Posted by Abigail Murphy.

A way to raise money, fund a project, or venture from a large number of people for a small startup in the earliest stage money sounds simple. Not so much. Every so often, there are crowdfunding campaigns gaining popularity via Facebook newsfeed, twitter feed, and emails. These campaigns come with issues of the right amount of regulation and increasing issue of inequality of funding portals.

After years of back and forth, in October 2015 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. JOBS allowed startup companies to safely use the internet to offer securities to investors. Prior to 2012, the internet could not be used to match investors and startup ventures due to the “general solicitation rule.” In a short 6 years, the SEC has developed their stance that the internet as a matchmaker for investors and startups is solicitation to a lacking concern for the inequality of funding portals.

A funding portal is the basic platform for the fundraising to take place and act as an intermediary. Both the funding portal pursuant and the broker-dealer must be registered through the SEC, however rising inequality have expressed that regulation is not enough. Concerns are expressed due to argument of crowds vs. expert’s wisdom, including liability. Wisdom for a crowd verses one single investor is never going to be definitive, while a single expert’s wisdom could be too specific. In addition, some are urging the SEC to reevaluate the liability of both parties in a crowdfund due to the easy loophole of fraud. If experts are considered the investors of crowdfunding, do their duties violate under the 1940 Advisers Act? Is crowdfunding an indirect security? This act set grounds for investors to follow and a guideline for compensations, economic activity, and other indirect securities. If the experts end up being categorized as investors, then they too are responsible for any fraudulent financial activity.

Personally, I believe that the overturning of the 2012 JOBS solicitation rule and the 2015 implementation of Title III of JOBS is all still very new. There are no past comparisons of any type of money exchange and investment to base crowdfunding off of. As this topic gains popularity and a crowd does flock to crowdfunding, there will be a need for heavier regulations on the liabilities and registration to create an ethical and financially stable funding portal. I was surprised to read about such an open ended definition when it comes down to the investor vs expert responsibilities in relation to the Advisers Act in 1940. Crowdfunding is an innovative way and already has several fundraising success stories. Over the next few years it will be interesting to see the investor return reports. As long as the finances stay in line, and both the crowdfund pursuant and the investors stay happy I see no issue in allowing the internet to play a role in matchmaking.

Abigail is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Source:

http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4958&context=nclr

Posted by Dalton Soffer.

Erin Andrews, a sportscaster who has worked for ESPN and currently for FOX, was recently awarded $55 million by a Nashville jury for her civil lawsuit against a Nashville, Tennessee hotel owner and her stalker Michael David Barrett. In 2008 Barrett used a hacksaw to tamper with Andrews’ peephole and secretly video taped her while she was undressed. The video was later released on the internet, and it turned in to a nightmare for Andrews. Her privacy was taken from her and she was publicly humiliated after the video surfaced. Andrews gave an emotional testimony and sent out an emotional post on twitter saying the support she has received throughout the whole process has helped her fight to hold those accountable for whose job it is to protect everyone’s security, safety, and privacy.

Andrews originally sought $75 million in her suit however the court settled for $20 million less than that. The jury found the stalker, Barrett, was 51% at fault and was ordered to pay out $28 million, while the West End Hotel Partners, which owns and operates that Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University, was found to be 49 percent at fault and asked to pay out more than $26 million. The West End Hotel Partners has said that Barrett is solely responsible for his criminal actions.

In my opinion, I feel like the settlement amount was fair but I do not feel that it was properly divided between the guilty sides. Barrett was more at fault than 51%, I would say he was more like 75% at fault in this and should be ordered to pay more of the settlement.

Dalton is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.