Posted by Joe Casey.

In the business world the line to remain ethical and make profit is thin. In the recent months Samsung has toed the line with the ethical standards of business due to their latest smartphone repeatedly catching fire all throughout the world. Samsung acting as swiftly as possible called for a quick recall of 2.5 million units of this phone however, the recall has gone anything but quick.

While Samsung seemed to be gaining ground on Apple in the smartphone business, they have produced their newest phone the Samsung Galaxy Note 7; the issue that has risen is that these phones are beyond unsafe and yet people still seem to be using them even after the initial recall. Due to the recall, Samsung has seemingly alleviated the possibility to be liable for any lawsuits that will come after the recall has been issued but the harm that was done prior to the recall has in estimate, “further dented Samsung’s reputation and shaved as much as $14 billion off its market value” (Times).  One of the many issues that face Samsung is that it seems they have wavered from government recall protocol and instead are trying to “save face” by venturing out on their own and advertising to bring the devices back for a change of battery when the issue is much more complex. The first recall while slow had seemed to stop the issue of their exploding phone as soon as October 1st.

Five days had passed since the recall seemed to fully become effective, until October 6^th when the first report of a replacement phone being defective hits the news. This stream picks back up and again Samsung is forced to stop producing the phone all together making it the largest smart phone recall to date. Finally, on October 11^th “Samsung announces it is stopping all sales of the phone while it investigates the problems.”(BBC). While Samsung at first was able to stay ethical, they decided to find an immediate solution due to the money they would lose and are now dealing with a larger problem all together.

This hit is only the beginning in the repercussions after this will be seen further in the court system yet their ethical standing to act as quickly as possible even though it went against the governments wishes on how to handle the recall was best for their business. Instead of staying unethical and ignoring the problem they chose to deal with it head on.

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

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37615496

Posted by Mike Bocchino.

Tom Brady has been accused of knowing about his team deflating footballs in the 2015 AFC championship game against the Indianapolis Colts. The footballs’ air pressure had been significantly reduced to a point where other players could tell the difference. The NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, investigated and suspended Brady for knowing about the tampering of the footballs. Brady fought the suspension in federal district court and his lawyers persuaded the judge. He ruled that Brady did not need to serve his suspension because it was an unfair punishment for just being accused of knowing about the deflation.

The commissioner then took the case to the court of appeals where they did not look at the facts of whether or not Brady deflated the ball, but rather whether or not Goodell was able to cast such a punishment on a player. They looked solely at whether Goodell, as arbitrator, acted in the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement. Judges Barrington Daniels Parker Jr. and Denny Chin wrote in their opinion, “We hold that the commissioner properly exercised this broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to confirm the award.”

Basically they agree that the commissioner acted on the powers which he, the league, and the players union had all agreed upon in 2011. So those of you out there saying that Goodell has too much power, the players agreed to what he can and cannot do. Plus, the tampering of footballs is cheating and this is not the first time that Brady had been caught cheating, never mind countless times that he did not get caught. It was only a matter of time.

But overall, the court of appeals did a great job looking at whether or not Roger Goodell stepped over the line or acted within his range of duties and whether or not it was the best interest of the league, which it was.

Mike is business administration major with a concentration in finance at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

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.

Posted by Lauren Mudrick.

In April 2015, the Entertainment and Sports Performing Network (ESPN) filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against the telecommunications company, Verizon, for breaching a contract. Disney, who owns ESPN, claimed that Verizon made a unilateral decision, with little to no discussion with cable networks, when it released a new cable package called FiOS Custom TV.

The package took channels from basic cable and separated them into smaller specific categories. “ESPN claims that it would have most likely embraced this new innovative package if it were done in compliance with their contractual agreement.” Verizon claims that it is “within the company’s rights under the agreement to give customers these choices, and that this is what the customers want.” 21st Century Fox and NBC Universal joined ESPN in its disagreement with Verizon. These companies too claimed that the FiOS cable package violated their contracts.

A contract is a promise made between parties for which the law recognizes the performance of as a duty, or gives a remedy to the breach of. The said companies had in the past formed a contract with five basic elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, and legality. With these five elements, the contract is valid unless it is declared voidable or unenforceable. If breached, the courts may rule an equitable remedy for the plaintiff. If Verizon really did go against any element of this contract, ESPN will “be made whole again” by a remedy due from Verizon.

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

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 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.

The teen clothing chain, Aeropostale, filed for Chapter 11 protection, claiming online and fast-fashion retailers are the cause. The company expects to emerge within six months as a leaner company. It will close 113 stores in the U.S. and all 41 stores located in Canada.

“Online retailers and fast-fashion retailers such as H&M, Forever 21 and Inditex’s Zara have posed a threat to traditional apparel retailers, but American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co. have managed to turn around their businesses by controlling inventories and responding faster to changing fashion trends.”

The company may come out of this with restructured debt, but a long-term solution would require rethinking its brand.

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.

Posted by Brandon Glover.

The U.S. District Court in Riverside will be the venue of the case between tech giant Apple Inc., and the U.S. Federal Government. The FBI has requested Apple’s help in bypassing the iPhone encryption security of one of the shooters in the San Bernardino incident. The judge who presided over the initial case, ruled in favor of Apple, stating “prosecutors were stretching an old law ‘to produce impermissibly absurd results.’”

Prosecutors argued that the phone belonging to Farook most likely contained evidence from the attack on December 2, 2015; where he and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered 14 people. The two were later shot and killed in a police shootout. The FBI believes the couple was inspired by the Islamic State, and that the unlocking could reveal details about the attack as well as potential collaborators.

The Federal Government has argued that Apple could easily create a software that could bypass the security of the phone, retain its information, and then destroy it shortly thereafter. However, Apple has responded to that claim, stating “that creating software is a form of speech and being forced to do so violates its First Amendment.”

The federal government is currently appealing the ruling, which will most likely reach the Supreme Court.

Brandon is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Vicki Elter.

Experts in security and legal matters claim that if Apple has to create a software tool to help agents hack into an iPhone, many people will likely misuse it. In order to use Apple’s information in court, there will need to be numerous tests and work done by forensic experts. This will create more opportunities for leaks. Although the Justice Department explained that it just wants a tool that can just be used on the San Bernardino phone, hackers and other companies could potentially have access to the Apple’s methods.

There are over 200 other cases that are interested in using Apple’s tool to unlock iPhones. Additionally, other arguments against Apple releasing this tool explain that it could encourage hackers to conduct a reverse engineering. Although the software for the tool would be destroyed after its work is done, government employees could make Apple create it again.

Apple explains that the software would need a huge amount of testing before it is used. To finish the testing, Apple would need to send it to outside experts, which would increase the chance of the tool being stolen. Additionally, defense experts would demand scrutiny of the tool.

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

Posted by Andres Garcia.

Following the explicit shooting in San Bernardino, California, the FBI insisted Apple create a software that would aid them in their process of investigation. The proposed software would be inserted into the iPhone device belonging to one of the suspects in the mass shooting. The FBI asked Apple, Inc. after they could not guess the shooter’s password.

Apple, Inc. opposed the request and did not want to search their servers for the correct password. However, on Tuesday February 16, 2016, the court ruled that Apple must assist the FBI by handing out such private and confidential information. The decision enraged Apple CEO, Tim Cook, he stated that the verdict would invade the privacy of Apple customers.

I would definitely agree with Apple CEO, Tim Cook; the government ruling will greatly affect many personal lives. The decision may be unethical. I believe the government was in favor of the FBI. The court only looked at how the decision will positively affect the FBI at the moment. However, there can be harsher repercussion for individuals in our society. By granting the FBI permission to search someone’s data and information, the US government is essentially attacking a person’s privacy and security. The decision will sooner than later lead to more hackers infiltrating our personal devices.

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

Posted by Abul Hasnat Juned.

Apple Inc. and the U.S. government are headed to court because the government is trying to force Apple to hack into the iPhone of the dead San Bernardino attacker, Syed Rizwan Farook. The reason why the government’s wants to access Farook’s phone is that it may contain evidence regarding the San Bernardino shooting in which he killed 14 people.

Investigators are trying to find out what happened and also if there were any other collaborators from ISIS. Last month, Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to create software to help the FBI disable security features on the phone. Also, the magistrate judge ordered Apple to make software that erases all the information from the phone if a password is wrongly entered more than ten times. If Apple creates such software, the FBI would be able to electronically run possible combinations to open the phone without losing data.

On the other hand, Apple risks losing business if they help the government in unlocking phones, because it would undermine the privacy of its customers. Apple wants to show that they are true to their customers. By taking a stand, they might bring in more consumers. There is also another risk for the Apple Company in unlocking the phone because phones could possibly be accessible to hackers and other countries. Companies, such as, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are offering their support for Apple and using it as a market strategy to gain respect from the public.

Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, “It’s too much for the government to conscript a company into writing code that undermines the security of the products they sell.” While the government says that Apple has helped them to extract data from such phones at least 70 times for law enforcement, Apple says the government is trying to force them to create a software that does not exist. Apple is arguing that the government is violating the company’s constitutional rights by threatening the privacy of its customers. Apple is taking a stand not only for their customers’ privacy, but also for the company’s profit because if they help the government to access the phone, their business profits would rapidly drop.

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

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 Alonso Arbulu.

In June 2016, a federal court of appeals upheld government net-neutrality rules. The Federal Communications Commission enacted this new ordinance under the past chairman, Tom Wheeler. According to this law, both the government and Internet providers should treat all data on the web as equal.

An issue arose, when T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T started offering zero-rating plans, in which they gave their customers free data when using certain apps. The FCC perceived that the implementation of these data plans violated the net-neutrality rules by favoring certain content owned by the internet providers. In Tom Wheeler’s words, these firms’ practices negatively affected competition through “potentially unreasonable discrimination in favor of their own affiliates.” Accordingly, the FCC under the supervision of Tom Wheeler started an investigation to determine whether or not these companies were adversely affecting consumer benefits by breaking net-neutrality rules. In response to the inquiry, the telecommunication firms claimed that their practices benefited customers by increasing competition, and provided free data and easily accessible content at a better price.

At the beginning of February this year, Ajit Pai was tapped to be chairman of the FCC. Despite the past leadership’s perspective of the zero-rating plans, Ajit Pai decided to close the investigation, dropping the charges against the Telecommunication companies. According to the FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly “companies, and others can now safely invest in and introduce highly popular products and services without fear of commission intervention based on newly invented legal theories.” O’Rielly’s comments highlight the benefits of zero-rating plans and endorse Ajit Pai’s decision on this issue.

Alonso is an economic and finance student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Article links:

https://thetechportal.com/2017/02/04/fcc-against-net-neutrality-zero-rating-schemes-t-mobile-bingeon-att-sponsored-data/

FCC suspends probes of telecommunications firms

Background information:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-setting-stage-for-legal-battle-1424974319

Posted by Charles Matta.

UPS (or United Parcel Service) is known worldwide as the world’s largest package delivery company and provider of supply chain management solutions. There is no questioning the success that this company has had, but is there a question of their morality? Recently, UPS was supposed to be looking for clues and observing its trucks thoroughly for illegal transportation of products. It was found that UPS had been illegally transporting untaxed cigarettes from Indian reservations to customers throughout the state of New York. And while they were supposedly “observing the trucks” it was in fact believed that they had “turned a blind eye” and now the tax regulators of the state of New York are asking for the judge to impose an 873 million dollar penalty.

An eight day federal civil trial occurred with closings statements regarding the issue saying that UPS “had a corporate culture that favored sales opportunities over a responsibility to help New York enforce tax law.” The article states that this happened because: “Tobacco retailers located on upstate reservations were given price discounts for shipping in volume. Delivery drivers were allowed to accept iPads and other gifts from shippers. Account executives, whose compensation was tied to keeping big accounts, ignored signs that some customers signing delivery contracts dealt in cigarettes.” The lawyers of New York City and New York State are saying that UPS must be held accountable for what they determine to be about a decade’s worth of misconduct.

On the other hand, UPS has argued that it did follow the rules and restrictions applied to the company, but they can only do so much about policing its 1.6 million daily shippers are sending in sealed packages. In its legal filings, its lawyers said the city and state have offered no proof it “knew or consciously avoided knowing that any shipper was shipping cigarettes.” Now, UPS has terminated contracts with shippers who were known to be violating these packaging rules. “The state and city impose some of the highest taxes on cigarettes in the country in an effort to halt tobacco use,” and because of this, there are 28,000 deaths annually which causes tax payers 10.4 billion in health care related costs. One account executive writes “’I wish UPS would just take the high road, and say NO TOBACCO, NO ACHOHOL (sic), PERIOD.” UPS needs to be more strict on what is or isn’t successful and must find a way to monitor their business operations better.

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