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 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.

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 Abier Mustafa.

Stryker Corp., a device maker company, recalled its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implant devices in July 2012 after warning surgeons they could harm tissue around the hip and cause other health problems to its patients. Patients have complained of severe pain, unusual swelling and excessive metal debris in their blood, blaming all these symptoms on the Stryker devices. There are at least 1,800 cases Stryker consolidated before U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul, Minnesota. After facing more than 4,000 suits consolidated in the New Jersey state court and federal court in Minnesota alone, Stryker will pay a base amount of $300,000 per patient’s case. This settlement to patients who had the devices surgically removed prior to November 3^rd.

Stryker Corp. has reported more than $9 billion in revenue in 2013 on the advertisement of their hip implants lasting for years. After the devices failed patients within a short amount of time, the company has now agreed to pay more than $1 billion to resolve these lawsuits. However, “the company said that it set aside more than $1.4 billion to cover costs of handling cases over the recalled hips so the settlement fell into the “‘low end of the range of probable loss.’” “This settlement program provides patients compensation in a fair, timely and efficient manner,” Bill Huffnagle, a spokesman for Kalamazoo, Michigan-based Stryker, said in an e-mailed statement. A source also reveals that a majority of the payments will be made by the end of 2015.

Abier is a finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Avinash Sookdeo.

On February 15^th, Southwest Airlines Co. filed a lawsuit against Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), and several of its officers, including Bret Oestreich, its National Director, in a Texas federal court. AMFA represents about 2,400 of Southwest’s mechanics and others in related fields. The lawsuit claims that AMFA allegedly helped to organize boycotts regarding mechanics working overtime shifts while in negotiations, thereby violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA). This is largely due to the fact that both Southwest Airlines Co. and AMFA have been in contractual negotiations for four years, despite the intervention of a federal labor mediator.

AMFA is being sued for three violations of the RLA, including Section 6 of 45 U.S.C. § 156, where Southwest Airlines Co. claims irreparable harm. Two counts of violation of Section 2, 45 U.S.C. § 152 was also filed, claiming that the AMFA encouraged unlawful job action and did not take necessary or reasonable steps to stop the unlawful job action. Several weeks ago, AMFA filed lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, claiming that Southwest Airlines Co. has not maintained its status quo during its negotiations, and has communicated information to its union members directly, violating the Railway Labor Act.

Southwest Airlines Co., which is the fourth largest airline carrier, claims that the union failed in its duties “to prevent the workers from banding together to decline overtime work this month” (The Associated Press). The lawsuit comes after the company noticed a 75% decrease from average overtime shift. The company said the boycott resulted in them outsourcing extra employees, costing the company financially. According to court documents, Southwest Airlines Co. is seeking a declaratory judgement, an immediate injunction, and damages for the costs of extra staffing, amongst other things.

Avinash is a biology major in the College of Arts and Sciences and Legal Studies of Business Minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ec39df208463495e9d077bec242581eb/southwest-lawsuit-claims-union-workers-avoiding-overtime

http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Southwest.pdf

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/southwest-airlines/2016/12/16/mechanics-union-files-federal-lawsuit-southwest-airlines-take-leave-negotiating-tactics

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.

Posted by Sydney Kpundeh.

A disgruntled New Jersey father has brought products liability design defect and failure-to-warn claims against The New Jersey Port Authority Transit Corporation to recover for injuries arising out of a take-home asbestos exposure. The case’s premise surrounds the father’s daughter, who started to exhibit signs of mesothelioma, which he claims were a result of secondary exposure to friable asbestos fibers through direct contact with her father and while washing his asbestos-laden work clothing. The father is an employee of the Port as a train operator, yard operator, and supervisor. His job duties included the repair and maintenance of asbestos-contaminated air brake systems on the Port’s multiple unit locomotives. When his daughter’s symptoms started worsening, he filed a product liability design defect and failure-to-warn case against the Port and various manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive brake shoes. He claimed that his daughter’s injuries could have been caused by her exposure to asbestos dust created when he replaced the brakes on cars he worked on after hours.

When the case was put before the court, all parties moved for summary judgment. The Port’s argument was that federal legislation and court precedent preempted state tort claims related to locomotives. The automobile defendants argued that there was no evidence that the father’s contacts with automotive brake dust were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate to establish causation.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the injuries were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) under the doctrine of field preemption. The court ruled in such direction because they examined a number of previous decisions that had been considered in the scope of the LIA’s preemptive effect and found that the only way to ensure uniformity is that they must rule the same way.

The failure-to-warn claims that the father filed against the various manufacturers and sellers of asbestos-containing automobile brakes were dismissed summarily because there was insufficient evidence of medical causation linking their products to second-hand exposure. “[T]he evidence showed that the father replaced brakes shoes contaminated with asbestos on four occasions over a period of eight years.”

When he was asked about these times, he could not recall the names of the manufacturers of the replaced brake shoes nor could he recount the number of times he installed new brakes manufactured by the named defendants. Therefore, “it was clear that even if the father was exposed to one of each of the automotive defendants’ products over the eight-year period in question, this exposure was so limited that it failed to meet the frequency, regularity, and proximity test that is required for this type of case.” Hence, this is why the case was dismissed.

Sydney is a political science major and legal studies minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016. 

Posted by Sydney Kpundeh.

A disgruntled New Jersey father has brought products liability design defect and failure-to-warn claims against The New Jersey Port Authority Transit Corporation to recover for injuries arising out of a take-home asbestos exposure. The case’s premise surrounds the father’s daughter, who started to exhibit signs of mesothelioma, which he claims were a result of secondary exposure to friable asbestos fibers through direct contact with her father and while washing his asbestos-laden work clothing. The father is an employee of the Port as a train operator, yard operator, and supervisor. His job duties included the repair and maintenance of asbestos-contaminated air brake systems on the Port’s multiple unit locomotives. When his daughter’s symptoms started worsening, he filed a product liability design defect and failure-to-warn case against the Port and various manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive brake shoes. He claimed that his daughter’s injuries could have been caused by her exposure to asbestos dust created when he replaced the brakes on cars he worked on after hours.

When the case was put before the court, all parties moved for summary judgment. The Port’s argument was that federal legislation and court precedent preempted state tort claims related to locomotives. The automobile defendants argued that there was no evidence that the father’s contacts with automotive brake dust were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate to establish causation.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the injuries were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) under the doctrine of field preemption. The court ruled in such direction because they examined a number of previous decisions that had been considered in the scope of the LIA’s preemptive effect and found that the only way to ensure uniformity is that they must rule the same way.

The failure-to-warn claims that the father filed against the various manufacturers and sellers of asbestos-containing automobile brakes were dismissed summarily because there was insufficient evidence of medical causation linking their products to second-hand exposure. “[T]he evidence showed that the father replaced brakes shoes contaminated with asbestos on four occasions over a period of eight years.”

When he was asked about these times, he could not recall the names of the manufacturers of the replaced brake shoes nor could he recount the number of times he installed new brakes manufactured by the named defendants. Therefore, “it was clear that even if the father was exposed to one of each of the automotive defendants’ products over the eight-year period in question, this exposure was so limited that it failed to meet the frequency, regularity, and proximity test that is required for this type of case.” Hence, this is why the case was dismissed.

Sydney is a political science major and legal studies minor at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016. 

Posted by Frankie Panicucci.

Wells Fargo is a corporate bank with very high and unrealistic sales targets. To meet these unrealistic sales targets Wells Fargo employees were secretly opening millions of unauthorized bank and credit card accounts for customers without their knowledge. These unauthorized accounts that were created racked up fees and allowed Wells Fargo to make more money. The accounts that were created started all the way back in 2011. The company then learned of this behavior and fired about 5,300 employees over the years. In order to pull off the scheme, the employees transferred funds from a customer’s original account into a new one without their knowledge, and it is estimated that around 1.5 million accounts were created. Customers were then being charged for over drafting or not having enough of a minimum balance in the original account. Employees also submitted over five hundred thousand applications for credit cards without the customer’s knowledge. Some of these accounts were charged over $400,000 in fees.

Wells Fargo was eventually caught committing these crimes after being investigated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB). Wells Fargo is being fined with the largest fine since the CPFB’s inception; a fine of $185 million and also must refund customers $5 million. Of the $185 million, $100 million will go to the CFPB’s penalty fund, $35 million to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and $50 million will go to the City and County of Los Angeles. As part of the settlement Wells Fargo also needs to make changes to its “sales practices and internal oversight.” The CPFB declined to mention how the investigation began.

The initial suspicions of accounts being created for customers began when some customers complained to Wells Fargo about unauthorized accounts that were created on their behalf. L.A. City’s Attorney, Mike Feuer, says, “Consumers must be able to trust their banks.” Feuer sued Wells Fargo in May of 2015 in relation to the unauthorized accounts. Once the suit was filed, he began to receive calls and emails from customers regarding the issue. Wells Fargo hired a consulting firm to look into the allegations after the suit was filed. After the investigation Wells Fargo released an internal statement which says, “At Wells Fargo, when we make mistakes, we are open about it, we take responsibility, and we take action.”

Frankie is an economics and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Serkan Saka.

Have you ever thought how important it is for universities to receive government research support? As we know that reputation is also very important for all the universities. Columbia University one of the best universities in the world and a top university for medical research. Recently, however, Columbia requested research funds from National Institutes of Health (NIH) for medical research but was caught in related fraudulent activity.

According to Danielle Douglas-Gabriel’s article in The Washington Post, Columbia’s research costs were lower than what they actually received from NIH. One of the reasons is that Columbia University conducted their research off campus, but misinformed NIH that the research would be conducted on campus, which would make the research more expensive. After government investigation, Columbia University will pay $9.5 million to NIH to cover false charges (Douglas- Gabriel, 2016).

The school officially released a statement by Caroline Adelman, a spokeswoman says, “The government disagreed with the university’s approach and took the position that a lower indirect cost rate was appropriate.”(Douglas-Gabriel, 2016). On the other side the NIH’s statement says “ Money gained by such behavior deprives other research programs of funds that could yield life-altering new treatments”(Douglas-Gabriel, 2016). It is very important to inform correctly in any case. It is not important if you are a big institution or small business, as either could be involved in white-collar crime.

Serkan is a MS accounting student in Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Source:
Douglas-Gabriel, Danielle. (2016, July 14). [Columbia University to pay $9.5 million to Settle Fraud Charges]. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/07/14/columbia- university-to-pay-9-5-million-to-settle-fraud-charges/?utm_term=.f974cc316f05