Posted by Alivia Confessore.

The Stain on forced labor on Nike Shoes- Extra Credit Blog Post 1
The article “The China Challenge: The Stain of forced Labor on Nike Shows”, by Amelia Pang, is about how Nike’s shoe factory is forcing young women and child to work. Nikes largest shoe supplier factory is owned by south kora in Taekwang, 8 million pairs of shoes are produced a year. It has partnered with the chinses government forced labor programs, which is why young women and children are being forced to work in the factories.

Theses programs are linked to crimes against humanity. One of the programs takes Turkic residents and forces them to leave behind their children and families to work in factories across China. Victims can’t even return home after finishing their work in the factories as the government relocated them. After arriving to the factors and working all day making shoes, they have to attend a “military style management” classes at night for “patriotic education”.

Nike has claimed they don’t use forced labor anymore. After multiple reports of the way theses factories are ran and how connected they are with Nike, do we believe their statement? In the article it states, “When I asked Nike to provide a general description of its new auditing protocol, its communications department declined to provide any comment beyond a link to a vague statement on its website”(Pang). Nike declining to comment on this issue is suspicious and make me believe this situation is still going on.

Alivia is a business administration major with a minor in criminal justice at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Works Cited
Pang, amelia. “The China Challenge: The Stain of Forced Labor on Nike Shoes.” Www.discoursemagazine.com, 5 Jan. 2022, www.discoursemagazine.com/p/the-china-challenge-the-stain-of-forced-labor-on-nike-shoes.

Posted by Red Beyer.

Mike Jeffries, former CEO of the Abercrombie & Fitch brand, has recently been accused of running a sex-trafficking operation involving abuse of the company’s male models. On Friday, October 27th, 2023, a lawsuit was filed claiming that “the CEO allegedly used promises of a job at Abercrombie to lure young men to locations around the world and coerced them to have sex with him and others” (Fox Business).

Actor and model David Bradberry, who initiated the lawsuit, claims that the former-CEO would purposely seek out college-aged men, coercing them into sexual activity and subjecting them to various forms of assault. In regards to his personal experience with the company, Bradberry was approached by Jeffries himself in 2010, where he was told he would not be allowed a meeting with the brand’s modeling scout unless the two were to engage in an act of ‘oral sex.’

Even after this event took place, Bradberry alledgedly continued to be forced into sexual situations in promise of a job. However, even after allegedly being drugged, raped and sexually abused by Jeffries and his team, Bradberry’s lawyer states that he was still never hired for the job.

Jeffries stepped down from his position in 2014, just four years after his encounter with David Bradberry due to a “a string of poor results” within the company. However, despite his current lack of authority, Bradberry is still determined to take legal action against Jeffries for the abuse he imposed upon his workers.

Red Beyer is a business and finance major attending the Stillman School of Business in Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Link to the original source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/abercrombie-sued-former-ceos-alleged-abuse-male-models Links to an external site.

Posted by Onyekachi Ajaero

The blog discusses how the Delaware Court of Chancery’s jurisdiction over claims involving the release of escrowed funds is evolving. The court’s limited jurisdiction is first outlined, with a focus on the significance of equitable character or relief in determining the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Xlete case, which first established the Court of Chancery’s recognition of equitable jurisdiction over claims for the release of funds held in escrow, is cited by the author as a historical precedent. Recent rulings from the Court, which point to conflicts between the availability of sufficient legal remedies and the need for equitable relief, have cast doubt on the precedent’s ability to be applied going forward.

The blog then delves into specific cases, such as Elavon v. Electronic Transaction Systems Corp., ISS Facility Services, Inc. v. JanCo FS 2, LLC, and Buescher v. Landsea Homes Corp., where the Court of Chancery dismissed claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, challenging the traditional reliance on the Xlete precedent. Vice Chancellor Glasscock’s opinions highlight the need for a more nuanced interpretation of claims involving the release of escrowed funds, emphasizing the availability of declaratory judgments as adequate legal remedies and questioning the necessity of equitable relief. The author urges practitioners to consider the implications of these recent decisions, including the potential transfer of cases to the Delaware Superior Court’s Complex Commercial Litigation Division (CCLD), which has proven to be a reliable alternative for resolving complex business disputes.

The blog, taken as a whole, highlights how the Court of Chancery’s handling of cases involving the release of escrowed funds is changing and warns practitioners not to rely solely on previous decisions. The Court’s recent rulings appear to indicate a change in its position on equitable jurisdiction, which should cause parties and their attorneys to carefully consider which courthouse is best for their particular claims. The blog also emphasizes the CCLD’s increasing acceptance as a substitute forum for handling complicated business conflicts, stressing the significance of taking into account both courts’ qualifications and capacities when pursuing legal action concerning post-closing disagreements over escrowed funds.

Onyekachi is a finance and accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Blog link: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2023-november/delaware-court-of-chancery-calls-into-question-equitable-jurisdiction/

Posted by Siya Patel.

On September 10, 2022, 21-year-old college student Sarah Katz bought and consumed Panera Bread’s Charged Lemonades, passing away later that day. The lawsuit filed by her parents says that “the company ‘failed to properly warn’ customers about the potential dangers of Charged Lemonade and misleadingly marketing the drink as ‘clean.’” Katz had a preexisting heart condition known as Long QT Type 1 Syndrome since the age of five. She took daily medication and avoided any energy drinks or highly caffeinated drinks in general. Her condition affects the electrical system that controls the person’s heartbeat. According to the medical examination report, the cause of death was arrhythmia caused by the Long QT Syndrome. The report had no mention of the Charged Lemonade.

About two months after the death, Charged Lemonade gained a lot of traction on social media, especially TikTok. Many users were shocked to learn about the caffeine content in the drink. The FDA advises that “most healthy adults can safely consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine per day, or about four or five cups of regular coffee, depending on the brand and roast.” The large 30-ounce cup contains 390 milligrams, and the regular 20-ounce cup contains 260 milligrams of caffeine. The large serving “has more caffeine than a 12-ounce Red Bull and a 16-ounce Monster Energy Drink combined.” At the Panera location where Ms. Kantz bought the drink, the drink was “offered next to beverages that did not have caffeine or had less caffeine. It was not advertised as an energy drink. It was unclear how much of the drink Ms. Kantz consumed because she subscribed to Panera’s Unlimited Sip Club, which allows free refills at the self-serve station.

The complaint also mentions that the caffeine content could have potentially also been altered by the manner in which the drink was prepared. Panera workers mixed the drink at the restaurant itself which caused a lack of quality control. After drinking the lemonade, Ms. Katz went into cardiac arrest in a restaurant. She was taken to a hospital where she suffered a second cardiac arrest, ultimately leading to her death. On the Panera website, the lemonades are described as energy drinks, but they are also marked to contain clean caffeine. The actual caffeine content of each size is not listed.

Siya is a dual Diplomacy and Economics major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/us/panera-caffeine-charged-lemonade-death.html Links to an external site.

Posted by Logan Murray.

In September of 2022 a college student at the University of Pennsylvania, Sarah Katz, died after drinking one of Panera Bread’s Charged Lemonades. Katz had a heart condition for most of her life and was known for being very cautious and attentive when it came to what she consumed. Her parents state that Katz would not have known that the Panera Bread Charged Lemonades were an energy drink and likely thought it had a safe amount of caffeine.

Amanda Holpuch of the New York Times details the facts of the case. Holpuch writes, “The lawsuit said that the company “failed to properly warn” customers about the potential dangers of its Charged Lemonade and misleadingly marketed the drink as “clean,” even though the large size has more caffeine than a 12-ounce Red Bull and a 16-ounce Monster Energy Drink combined” (Holpuch). Both Red Bulls and Monster Energy Drinks are widely marketed and commonly thought of as energy drinks. It is alarming that a Charged Lemonade has as much caffeine as both drinks combined and is not marketed similarly. Holpuch addressed Katz condition stating, “Ms. Katz’s heart condition, Long QT Type 1 Syndrome, affects the electrical system that controls a person’s heartbeat, the complaint said. She was diagnosed with the condition when she was 5 years old, took daily medication and avoided energy drinks and other highly caffeinated beverages, the complaint said” (Holpuch). This is an important fact because it shows that Katz was attentive when it came to avoiding highly caffeinated drinks and would have avoided the Charged Lemonade as well if she was aware of its contents.

Holpuch also outlines the safety of the Charged Lemonade in the general sense. She writes, “About two months after Ms. Katz’s death, Charged Lemonade attracted widespread attention and media coverage after a video was posted on TikTok by a user who was shocked by the drink’s unexpected caffeine content […] Sarah Baus said in the video that she routinely drank the lemonade, but had only just learned about how much caffeine was in it” (Holpuch). I think this two-month timeline is also valuable to see how Panera Bread may not have changed it’s transparency practices following Katz death. Holpuch continues, “According to the [FDA], most “healthy adults” can safely consume up to 400 milligrams of caffeine per day” (Holpuch). The large 30-ounce Charged Lemonade contains 390 milligrams of caffeine. Holpuch also notes, “[T]he legal complaint said, the drink was offered next to beverages that did not have caffeine, or had less caffeine. It was not advertised as an energy drink […] The caffeine content could also have been affected by how the drink was prepared, according to the complaint, because Panera workers mix it at the restaurant, which caused “a lack of quality control”’ (Holpuch). The Charged Lemonade’s placement next to non-caffeinated drinks is potentially misleading to consumers and the lack of quality control is alarming due to how close a large Charged Lemonade is to the FDA stated maximum safe amount of caffeine (10 milligram difference). I would not be surprised if Panera Bread settled this lawsuit rather quickly.

Logan is a Sports Management & Mathematical Finance Major, Legal Studies Minor, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.

https://www.law.com/therecorder/2023/10/12/family-of-man-killed-in-october-2021-plane-crash-files-product-liability-lawsuit-against-textron/

Posted by Catriona Larouche.

In early October, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued “an important decision making clear that in a breach of a contract dispute, the aggrieved party may recover more in damages than the parties’ contract permits, such as punitive, incidental, and consequential damages”. For a long time, it remained unclear in Tennessee whether sophisticated parties negotiating goods and services contracts would prohibit recovery of consequential, incidental, and other damages beyond what was included in their contract. Consequently, parties entering a contract could decide what recovery they might receive in the event of a breach without resorting to common law or statutory liability for other damages, placing some parties at a disadvantage.

Let’s assume the scenario where there is a sophisticated contract between two parties. Company A agrees to provide a service to Company B but fails to meet deadlines and breaches the contract. Shortly after signing the contract, Company A knew it would not be able to fulfill its duties to the contract. At the time of the contract signing, Company B did not anticipate such a breach and used a standard services agreement limiting them to damages of the price paid and excluding any consequential, incidental, and punitive damages. In this case, Company B has already paid Company A, and now, due to the breach, company B cannot fulfill its promises to its clients. As a result, Company B incurs a greater loss that is beyond the contract terms. In this case, the newly Tennessee Supreme Court decision would indeed help Company B in retrieving its losses not covered in the original contract. This past scenario is exactly what happened on September 28th, 2023, in the ruling of Commercial Painting Inc. The Weitz Company LLc case.

It is also crucial to keep in mind the economic loss doctrine in product liability cases. Since 2009, the Tennessee courts, for example in the Lincoln General Ins. Co. v. Detroit Diesel Corp. case has changed the economic loss liability doctrine in product liability cases. This doctrine says that when damages from a breach of contract are only economic damages, the plaintiff has no action under tort law. Therefore, if a defective product only damages itself, meaning it does not cause personal injury, the owner is in the same position as if it never had the product. The remedy in these cases should be limited to what was specified in the contract. Unfortunately, the economic loss doctrine is flexible and can be challenging in certain cases where it is difficult to differentiate recoverable tort damages or not.

In my opinion, I do believe this ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court is fair. It assures that parties need to be held responsible for their actions and that the party who suffers from the breach gains reasonable damages. On the other hand, if only economic damages are present, the law will not provide other remedies, which I do also think is a fair decision.

In conclusion, the aim of this decision it to prevent parties from evading responsibility for their actions and to ensure that parties suffering from the breach of contract are properly supported, even if the remedies were not explicitly written in the contract.

Catriona is an International Business Major and Legal Studies in Business Minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.

https://www.adamsandreese.com/news-knowledge/allen-woods-tennessee-supreme-court-economic-loss-doctrine Links to an external site.

Posted by Emilia Fedasz

“Family of Man Killed in October 2021 Plane Crash Files Product Liability Lawsuit Against Textron” is a legal news article written by Allison Dunn and published by Law.com. The article describes the filing of a Product Liability Lawsuit against Textron, the aviation company that cleared a plane for departure which would later crash.

The plane was being flown by Sugata Das from Yuma, Arizona when it crashed on a street in California, killing Das and his passenger, Steven Krueger. On behalf of Krueger, his brothers and sister filed a complaint in the San Diego Superior Court alleging strict product liability and negligence against Textron and employees, who are unidentified and may be responsible for tort. The plaintiffs allege that Textron serviced the plane and the plane’s replacement parts. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, only a preliminary report has been completed and the cause for the crash has not yet been determined. The plaintiffs do not allege a specific defect in the complaint, but they allege that there were defects in the “engine and/or component/replacement parts were a substantial factor in causing the loss, damage and injuries to Plaintiff…and as such, Defendants, and each of them, are strictly liable therefor.” The plaintiffs also allege that Textron and Textron’s employees were negligent in the process of manufacture, assembly, and inspection.

The family of Krueger seek noneconomic damages for his loss and economic damages for the loss of financial support and/or loss of inheritance as well as a judgement in their favor to cover the cost of the funeral and burial, his wrongful death, survival damages, the expenses of bringing the litigation, and pre and post judgment interest. The Counsel for Textron has not been yet announced and Stephanie Harder, a spokesperson for Textron Aviation, declined to comment.

Emilia is a Finance and Business Law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Posted by Colin Byrne.

In this article from August 29^th of 2023, It explains a huge products liability case involving the Military, the Government, and the company at blame, 3M. The company, 3M, supplied the military earplugs that were supposed to keep the soldiers from losing their hearing. This product was supposed to let the soldiers hear soft whispers and noises, but loud noises like explosions where not heard. In the end that is not what happened.

Multiple soldiers experienced a decrease in their hearing and started having problems, leading to this lawsuit. “The earplug litigation represents the largest mass tort in U.S. history. There have been more than 300,000 claims in which veterans accuse 3M and Aearo Technologies, a company acquired by 3M in 2008, of producing faulty earplugs that failed to protect their hearing from noise damage when they received them from the U.S. military.” (fox business) As explained in this quote from the article, you can clearly see the severity of this case. The company which the suit is against, 3M, is ordered to pay 50 million dollars to Army Veterans. Along with 9.1 million to the to the U.S government to resolve the allegations.

 3M though, continued to try and get out of the allegations and the money owed. Stating that if the earplugs were worn properly, the lasting injuries would not have occurred. It was found that the earplugs would imperceptibly become loose in a person’s ear. After all of the allegations 3M shares dropped over 11%, compared to the S&P 500’s 17% rise. Overall, I think the final say was correct. There was no warning on the earplugs saying they may cause hearing loss. With the result of the people losing their hearing, 3M is well within the realm of being sued and got the fair treatment for their faulty product.

Colin is a sports management major with a legal studies in business minor at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Products Liability 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/3m-settles-military-earplugs-case-hearing-loss-complaintsLinks to an external site.

Posted by Jihad N. Hasan.

Many of us are aware of Nike’s strategic manufacturing practices and their innovative tactics to save money. The reality is that it costs Nike $3 to make a pair of shoes. The truth is that hundreds of Uyghur women were being forced to make these Nike shoes. They could not return home and they also would be risking their lives if they ever chose to speak up. Today, it is stated that these conditions are no longer existent. Given the fact that information given to auditors can be fabricated and that Nike continues to separate themselves from this situation, provides me with the assumption that they have something to hide.

Quite honestly, I believe that these processes are shameful. It seems as if these corporations are only looking for money. Many individuals possess little to no sympathy for another’s predicament as long as they are putting money in their pockets. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

Jihad is a business law student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Ryan Gibbons.

DeepMind’s Mustafa Suleyman left the company in August of 2019. With little to no reason, the co-founder decided to walk away from his company. DeepMind is an artificial intelligence company which was founded in 2010. In 2014, it was acquired by Google. People assumed Suleyman would return to the company a short while after his departure, but that has not been the case. Suleyman took a job with Google, being in AI policy role. However, the switch may not be as out of the blue as people thought.

A report from the Wall Street Journal cited that Suleyman had his management duties and responsibilities taken away due to bullying his staff. To add on, Google and DeepMind confirmed these claims, also stating that a legal team was hired to investigate the situation. When asked to speak on the matter, Suleyman did not have anything to say. However, he did speak to the Wall Street Journal stating, “response to questions from The Wall Street Journal he said he “accepted feedback that, as a co-founder at DeepMind, I drove people too hard and at times my management style was not constructive.””

This story relates back to ethics in the workplace. When a company first starts out, they want to create an ethical code of conduct. The company should create a conduct to show what is expected at the workplace ethically, and communicate it to the employees. Employees should also be made aware of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which allows employees to confidentially go to court if the company is committing illegal or unethical acts. While it was great that DeepMind was able to figure out what Suleyman was doing, perhaps the situation could have been avoided all together if they took time to go over ethics at the workplace with their staff.

Ryan is a political science major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.