A federal court has ruled that the House of Representatives, collectively, has standing to sue the Executive Branch over a provision in the Obama-care legislation dealing with cost-sharing subsidies. These subsidies are intended to help lower income people with their deductibles and co-pays. “Many legal observers expected the lawsuit to fail on standing: that Congress wouldn’t be able to show a way in which the Obama administration had harmed legislators, a prerequisite for a court challenge.”

House Republicans argue these subsidies are being illegally paid by the Treasury to insurers and claims the House “never appropriated” the funding. The House alleges it “has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by the unconstitutional actions of defendants . . . which, among other things, usurp the House’s legislative authority.”

Courts hear cases and controversies, and unless a plaintiff has sustained some type of injury, courts cannot take the case and will dismiss it for lack of standing. But here, the court found the House has standing to sue because they are allegedly harmed as an institution, not as individual members. The court held, “The Congress is the only body empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing monies to be spent from the U.S. Treasury. . . . Yet this constitutional structure would collapse, and the role of the House would be meaningless, if the Executive could circumvent the appropriations process and spend funds however it pleases. If such actions are taken . . . the House as an institution has standing to sue.”

Posted by Kevin Pereira.

This past Thursday, the F.B.I. arrested Benjamin Wey at his home located in Manhattan. He was charged for “securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy and money laundering in an eight-count indictment unsealed in a federal court in Manhattan.” In addition, Mr. Wey had already been arrested for sexual harassment a couple months prior to this incident. Mr. Wey was making Chinese companies public in the United States using a process known as a reverse merger. To explain, a reverse merger is a way for private companies to go public by buying the “shell” of a public American company.

Mr. Wey fulfilled this fraud by involving his family members and close friends. He portrayed the Chinese companies he was taking public to be mature and prosperous so that inventors were fooled into thinking that they were successful corporations in the NASDAQ stock market. Therefore, many clueless investors were investing into these masked corporations, which were being upheld by his family members. In addition, Mr. Wey’s banker, Seref Dogan Erbek, was helping falsify the “sales, volume, demand and price of the shares of the companies they took public.” The SEC in a civil complaint charged Mr. Erbek, Mr. Wey’s wife, his sister, and two lawyers as being part of the fraudulent matter.

Mr. Wey was inflating the prices of the shares by trading them between his family and friends. By doing this, the sudden increase in price attracted many eager investors. Once Mr. Wey had an audience, he would sell the inflated shares and generate millions of dollars. The money he was making would be sent to bank accounts offshore in Japan and Switzerland. Mr. Wey’s family members would then transfer the money back into the United States, stating it was a gift.

Kevin is a marketing major at Seton Hall University, Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Posted by Joseph Papandrea.

All different opinions are being thrown around in this case between Apple and the Federal Government. Syed Farook’s phone is what the Federal Government wants to access, due to his previous activity. Farrook killed 14 people during the San Bernardino attack. His relations to ISIS is why the government wants to access his phone. The judge decided to side with Apple in not letting the Fed’s access Farrok’s phone. Apple’s argument not to unlock this phone is because it affects everyone who owns iPhones. “Apple’s lawyers argue that the government’s demands would ultimately make iPhones less safe”(Riley). Apple being able to unlock this phone would make it less safe because phones could fall into the wrong hands. Apple in the past has helped the law enforcement in a drug dealer case. In this case it is much more serious and dangerous for society. Judge James Orenstein says there is no way he can force Apple to hack and access the phone.

The Federal Government holding this phone and stressing about this case does not make sense. There has to be a way the government can hack into the phone themselves, but do not want to reveal that power. If they are able to do that without the help of Apple that could also put a lot of people in danger.

Both Apple and the Federal Government are making a lot of things difficult. Apple was faced with a big decision about whether they were going to help access Farrok’s phone. If Apple accesses the phone, it can help the government in many ways. Their view on it though is that it affects every iPhone owner. Apple’s power to access one phone will give the government access all. A lot of people would side with Apple for fear of their own privacy, but others will argue and say that it will benefit the government because there can be evidence leading to ISIS. Apple decision is probably what is best for the company. Apple wants to stay loyal to its customers and do not want to lose income. People knowing that Apple is able to unlock a phone so easy is where customers lose trust with the company.

In conclusion, both Apple and the Federal Government are stuck between what is morally right. Apple is doing what is best for the company, because if the technology falls into the wrong hands it will bring the company down. I believe the Federal Government must have someone who can find a way to access this phone., because they have the technology already and are looking for a means to protect that secret. They can listen in on anything. In my opinion Apple is not wrong for not wanting to unlock the phone, because they are only protecting the company.

Joseph is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Michael Larkin.

In a case that has been around for over a decade, Richard Suen will meet in the Nevada Supreme Court for the second time with Las Vegas Sands. This case is about the Las Vegas Sands casino opening up a location in Macau, China. The argument is whether or not Suen had a major role in this transaction to be able to share in the profits that the Sands casino would make.

Macau is the world’s largest gaming market so Sands would be able to share in the profit and attempt to make money. In order to open a location there, Sands would have to have had a license authorized by the Chinese government and business officials. Suen was a Hong Kong businessman who was able to set up these relationships for Sands in order for them to get the license with a payment of $5 million and 2 percent of profits. This is where the case gets tricky as Sands argues that Suen did not have a major influence in setting up these relationships, therefore, the company owes him nothing. Suen argues that if it were not for him, then Sands would have had no chance of getting the Macau license and because of this, he wants money due to the service he did. Suen filed a lawsuit saying that Las Vegas Sands owes him $115 million. Going back to 2008, Suen won $43.8 million dollars and later in 2010, he won another $70 million. Now continuing to the present, Las Vegas Sands is fighting these awards again in the Supreme Court.

Sands’ biggest argument is that there is a lack of evidence in the previous trials. What has been proven, however, is that there were cases where Sands’ executives recognized Suen and the work that he did. It appears that Suen does have the right to receive some payment, but all of it is the real question. Las Vegas Sands was trying to expand their locations to one the biggest gaming area of the world, but because they disregarded someone who helped, they have been facing a long-run issue.

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

Both sides of the political isle are pressuring the Fed to be more transparent regarding its monetary policy and cease “cozying up” to the banks it oversees. There are several legislative proposals that some prior Presidents of the Fed consider to be a threat to its independence. If any one of them are passed, it would be the first major overhaul of the institution since the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby is concerned with the Fed’s portfolio, because since 2008 the Fed more than quadrupled its balance sheet to $4.5 trillion. It purchased bonds to suppress longer-term interest rates, but Shelby is at a loss to discover as to what the Fed is going to do with them.

Sen. Rand Paul, along with 29 other Republican Senators, the Majority Leader, and one Democrat, is sponsoring a bill requiring the Fed to be subject to “regular audits” of its monetary policy by the General Accounting Office (GAO). Paul reasoned it is “‘unseemly that an organization that we’ve given the power, the monopoly, of making money uses that power then to try to thwart transparency.’”

Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan, head of the House Financial Services panel’s subcommittee on monetary policy, wants to require the Fed to use a mathematical rule when it changes interest rates. New Jersey Republican Representative Scott Garrett has introduced a bill entitled, the “Federal Reserve Transparency and Accountability Act” that “would require the central bank to perform a cost-benefit analysis of any new banking rule, submit internal audits and performance reviews to Congress and send a top official to testify before lawmakers on financial rule-making.”

There is at least some change to the selection of governors. Current law now requires at least one member of the seven-member Board of Governors to have community banking experience. It brings experience other than the traditional “academic” or “megabank” experience, as the proponent of the original bill, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, described. Individual governors on Fed’s Board of Governors are required to be confirmed by the Senate. The Board of Governors makes important decisions on interest rates and how banks are regulated. But specific expertise in banking is not a requirement for any of the positions. “Of the board’s current five members, three are economists and two are lawyers.” The addition of a governor with community banking experience, however, lends more diversity in the decision-making process.

The New York branch has been the target of Democrats, in particular Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. She has been critical of the current president, William C. Dudley, of being too chummy with big banks. Warren wants more congressional oversight of the central bank. Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island suggests that selection of the New York Fed president should be confirmed by the Senate and has proposed a bill requiring it. Currently, the bank’s directors select the twelve district bank presidents who are then sent on for approval by the Fed board located in Washington.

A lot of criticism surrounds the amount of power the president of the New York branch has over policy set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The president of the New York bank is the only president that does not have to rotate on the committee. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher called for the “stripping” of the New York president’s permanent role on the FOMC, because the New York branch wields too much power and influence. The Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington lobby consisting of 6,500 members, agree.

Both Democrats and Republicans want a more accountable Fed, but there are detractors who believe that legislation would only have the effect of politicizing the central bank. In one poll, 24% of Americans polled believe that politics should stay out of the Fed.

Posted by Connie Huang.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, fraud is “the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person; a person who pretends to be what he or she is not in order to trick people; [or] a copy of something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people.” Therefore, a person who pretends to be something they’re not in order to trick people and using dishonest ways to take something valuable from someone is fraud.

A former general counsel of a law firm in South Florida was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. He was sentenced to federal prison because he helped a managing partner  “swindle investors by selling them ‘income’ from faked settlements.” He will probably be testifying against other defendants.

According to the article, defendant’s attorney argued that his client “had been punished enough by losing his New York law license and his home and declaring bankruptcy.” I agree that defendant has been punished enough, because losing one’s ability to work and make money (a law license) and maintain a house is hard on his life as it is. That is a lot to lose. The defendant apologized in court to his family members, which I believe is a rightful thing to do. He has declared he has been guilty to charges relating to wire fraud.

“Former General Counsel of Notorious Rothstein Law Firm Gets 18 Months for Fraud.” ABA Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.

Connie is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Joseph Papandrea.

Chipotle is a company that has had a rough year due to people getting sick from eating at the popular fast-food chain. Steve Ells and Monty Moran, two executives who share the job as CEO, were affected when people started getting sick. Just before that outbreak, the company’s stock reached an all-time high. It was going for $758 a share, but once people started getting sick it was down to a little over $507 a share. Both Ells and Moran brought in around $13.8 million each, with the based salaries increasing by just over $100,000. The outbreak of this health crisis hurt Chipotle’s sales and had a huge impact on their image. For this to happen during a time where stocks and sales were up is tragic. The company did the right thing by temporarily closing their restaurants for the safety of society. The company had to sit down and figure out what was causing this health crisis.

This was the first time the company had a decrease since opening 10 years ago. The company took in only $68 million in profit, which reflected a 44% drop. Things like this are going to happen to companies. A company that is very successful has its down falls. Chipotle did the right thing by closing temporarily. Getting their image back from this crisis will be be tough. The focus for the company should be getting the trust back from their customers. We know this breakout was called E.coli, but the cause was never determined.

The best thing the company could do is advertise to get the trust back. The customers should always come first and their satisfaction should as well. The company still did fairly well even when the health issue broke out. This is an eye opening situation for all businesses, that even though there is a downfall they could always bounce back and get the customers trust back. Customers were hospitalized, and it is best that Chipotle is able to prevent that from happening again.

Joseph is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Peyton Adams.

Avery was wrongly convicted for strangling Maryetta Griffin.  According to sources, Avery did not admit to the crime, and if he did, it was a forced confession.  However, the jury did not believe him.

The prosecution was able to sway the jury, which caused Mr. Avery to go to jail for SIX years. His image was severely damaged; he lost touch with his children and grandchildren due to being wrongfully convicted.

New DNA evidence surfaced proving that Avery was not the murderer of Maryetta Griffin.  Instead, the DNA testing was linked to Walter Ellis, a serial killer.  Avery was unjustly incriminated by the Milwaukee Police and Avery’s accusations of him not confessing, or confessing unwillingly were proved correct.

The police in this case, therefore, destroyed a man’s life by making up incriminating statements.  Avery lost touch with loved ones; his image was attacked; and he was ONLY awarded $1M.

John Stainthorp with Peoples Law Office in Chicago said, “If you think about it, six years while you’re in prison, you can’t get up when you want, you can’t see the people you want, go to bed when you want, read what you want.”  His life was ruined due to the fact that the police did not do the correct investigation to make sure that they had accused the correct man.

Mr. Avery was released after six years, but his life will never be the same AGAIN!  The Milwaukee Police should be questioned for the accusations they made in court against the plaintiff.

Peyton is a marketing major with minors in business law and nonprofit studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Matthew Cassidy.

In 1988 the Video Privacy Protection Act was passed by Congress to prevent private information about tape rentals or sales records from being released to the public. The case involves a man named Mark Ellis who downloaded the Cartoon Network Application on his Android smartphone in order to watch shows on that network.

The app is able to track viewer history and an Android phone I.D.; it then sends the information to an analytics company named Bango. Bango is a very advanced organization that can not only monitor customer behavior, but also link user’s information about the user through the Android I.D.

Cartoon Network’s third party partner, Bango, violated the Video Privacy Protection App by gathering personal identification from the Android user’s I.D.  The court weighed its opinions on another case called Re Hulu Privacy Legislation that involved the Privacy Protection Act. This case helped Cartoon Network by providing the true definition of a subscriber to just visiting a website. Therefore, Ellis was not “committed” to the application, so therefore the Privacy Protection Act did not apply to him.

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

Both sides of the political isle are pressuring the Fed to be more transparent regarding its monetary policy and cease “cozying up” to the banks it oversees. There are several legislative proposals that some prior Presidents of the Fed consider to be a threat to its independence. If any one of them are passed, it would be the first major overhaul of the institution since the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby is concerned with the Fed’s portfolio, because since 2008 the Fed more than quadrupled its balance sheet to $4.5 trillion. It purchased bonds to suppress longer-term interest rates, but Shelby is at a loss to discover as to what the Fed is going to do with them.

Sen. Rand Paul, along with 29 other Republican Senators, the Majority Leader, and one Democrat, is sponsoring a bill requiring the Fed to be subject to “regular audits” of its monetary policy by the General Accounting Office (GAO). Paul reasoned it is “‘unseemly that an organization that we’ve given the power, the monopoly, of making money uses that power then to try to thwart transparency.’”

Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan, head of the House Financial Services panel’s subcommittee on monetary policy, wants to require the Fed to use a mathematical rule when it changes interest rates. New Jersey Republican Representative Scott Garrett has introduced a bill entitled, the “Federal Reserve Transparency and Accountability Act” that “would require the central bank to perform a cost-benefit analysis of any new banking rule, submit internal audits and performance reviews to Congress and send a top official to testify before lawmakers on financial rule-making.”

There is at least some change to the selection of governors. Current law now requires at least one member of the seven-member Board of Governors to have community banking experience. It brings experience other than the traditional “academic” or “megabank” experience, as the proponent of the original bill, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, described. Individual governors on Fed’s Board of Governors are required to be confirmed by the Senate. The Board of Governors makes important decisions on interest rates and how banks are regulated. But specific expertise in banking is not a requirement for any of the positions. “Of the board’s current five members, three are economists and two are lawyers.” The addition of a governor with community banking experience, however, lends more diversity in the decision-making process.

The New York branch has been the target of Democrats, in particular Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. She has been critical of the current president, William C. Dudley, of being too chummy with big banks. Warren wants more congressional oversight of the central bank. Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island suggests that selection of the New York Fed president should be confirmed by the Senate and has proposed a bill requiring it. Currently, the bank’s directors select the twelve district bank presidents who are then sent on for approval by the Fed board located in Washington.

A lot of criticism surrounds the amount of power the president of the New York branch has over policy set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The president of the New York bank is the only president that does not have to rotate on the committee. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher called for the “stripping” of the New York president’s permanent role on the FOMC, because the New York branch wields too much power and influence. The Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington lobby consisting of 6,500 members, agree.

Both Democrats and Republicans want a more accountable Fed, but there are detractors who believe that legislation would only have the effect of politicizing the central bank. In one poll, 24% of Americans polled believe that politics should stay out of the Fed.