Posted by Matthew Gegenfurtner.

FTX co-founder and ex-engineering chief Nishad Singh pleaded guilty to six criminal fraud charges in Manhattan federal court. FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange that promotes the liquidity and transacting of coins and tokens. FTX allowed users to connect their wallets, place trades, exchange digital currencies, enter into derivative contracts, or buy and sell NFTs. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement- “They rocked our financial markets with a multibillion-dollar fraud. And they corrupted our politics with tens of millions of dollars in illegal straw campaign contributions. These crimes demand swift and certain justice and that is exactly what we are seeking in the Southern District of New York.” This statement shows that as mentioned the whole FTX idea was a fraud and corrupted the politics of campaign Contributions as it rocked and shaped the financial Markets.

As the markets of FTX collapsed the Former billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of befallen crypto exchange FTX, has been charged with four new criminal counts including allegations of illegal political donations and bank fraud. Nishad Singh was hired by Sam Bankman-Fried as they were friends before the business dating back to childhood. Nishad Singh was the newest person to enter the inner circle to admit participating in wrongdoing at the bankrupt crypto currency exchange which was the last straw and eventually Led to the bankruptcy.

After the bankruptcy happened and accusations were made Singh expressed remorse in the courtroom Tuesday, saying, “I am unbelievably sorry for my role in all of this.” Later that evening Singh was released on a $250,000 personal recognizance bond and ordered to surrender all travel documents. Not only was Singh involved in this scandal, but Former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison has pleaded guilty to several charges connected to the collapse of the hedge fund’s sister firm, FTX.

Matthew is mjoring in business at thee Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/former-ftx-exec-nishad-singh-pleads-guilty-fraud-charges

Posted by Hayden Keeperman.

The recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank has sent shockwaves through the tech and banking industry, highlighting the risks and uncertainties that come with investing in high-growth startups. The bank’s troubles began when it became overexposed to risky tech startups, leading to a surge in bad loans. As a result, regulators have stepped in to stabilize the situation and ensure that customers’ assets are protected.

The Silicon Valley Bank collapse serves as a reminder of the importance of diversification and risk management in financial institutions. The bank’s over-reliance on high-risk startups has proven to be a recipe for disaster, and it is a cautionary tale for investors and financial institutions alike. It is also a stark reminder of the importance of prudent financial management and regulation, particularly in the tech industry, which has traditionally been less regulated than other sectors.

The intervention of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC is a welcome development for customers of Silicon Valley Bank, as it should help to prevent a wider financial crisis. However, it also highlights the need for better oversight of financial institutions and a more comprehensive regulatory framework for the tech industry.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is also likely to have significant implications for the wider tech industry. Startups may find it harder to secure funding, as investors become more cautious in the wake of the bank’s collapse. This could lead to a slowdown in the pace of innovation and growth in the tech sector, which would have broader implications for the economy as a whole.

Despite the potential fallout from the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, it is also an opportunity for the industry to learn from its mistakes and build a more resilient and sustainable financial ecosystem. This could include better risk management practices, greater diversification, and more robust regulatory frameworks.

Ultimately, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is a sobering reminder of the risks and uncertainties inherent in the tech industry. While the fallout from the bank’s collapse is likely to be significant, it also presents an opportunity for the industry to reflect on its practices and build a more stable and sustainable financial ecosystem for the future.

Hayden is a finance and economics student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

Posted by Zaki Illyas.

In September 2020, Vanessa Bryant sued Los Angeles county officials in a federal civil case following the death of her husband, Kobe Bryant, and daughter, Gianna. Ms. Bryant reached a nearly $29 million settlement in the case. Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna were on their way to a basketball tournament in Orange County, California via helicopter ride. Tragically, the pilot “became disoriented in the clouds” and Kobe and Gianna along with 7 others, including the pilot, passed away as they crashed in the hills around Calabasas, California.
The legal issue at hand was the fact that first responders to the crash had taken pictures of the bodies of the victims. Not only were pictures taken, but they were shared with people, which built a really strong case against the county. According to the lawsuit “One sheriff’s deputy, Joey Cruz, showed the photos to patrons at a bar.” Another woman testified that a Fire Department member showed some of the photos at a gala event. Ms. Bryant testified saying “I felt like I wanted to run down the block and just scream,.. But I couldn’t escape. I can’t escape my body.”

Understandably, Ms. Bryant was disheartened by this. The lawyers representing her claimed that “She lives in fear that she or her children will one day confront horrific images of their loved ones online.” Los Angeles County still refuses to admit wrongdoing in the settlement. Lawyers for the county claimed “This is a photograph case but there are no photographs” since no one in the courtroom explicitly viewed the images. However, the jury disagreed with the county for two reasons: 1.) They found that the failure to train the agencies of first responders about the right to privacy is a constitutional violation. 2.) They found that the sheriff departments’ actions of taking and sharing pictures of human remains is a violation of Ms. Bryant’s constitutional rights. While a settlement was still reached, the emotional distress that this issue caused Ms. Bryant is not negated and this was definitely a traumatic event to deal with for the Bryant family.

I grew up a Lakers fan, largely because of Kobe. He was the reason I got into, and came to love the sport of basketball. When I heard about his tragic passing I was distraught; I did not think it was real. So naturally, learning about the actions of these first responders made me sick and it is undoubtedly a breach of the Bryant family’s privacy and mental health. While Ms. Bryant was able to settle for nearly $29 million, it cannot excuse the emotional trauma that the family had to deal with.

Zaki Illyas is a student at Seton Hall University majoring in Finance (Class of 2025).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vanessa-bryant-reaches-nearly-29-million-settlement-over-kobe-bryant-crash-photos-1ea9af76

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/us/vanessa-bryant-verdict-crash-photos.html#:~:text=Ms.,plaintiff%20was%20awarded%20%2415%20million.

Posted by Ethan Choi.

On February 21, 2023, Gonzalez v. Google was heard in the United States Supreme Court, a case that can fundamentally change the internet forever. This case considers Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which acts as a shield that “protects [companies] from being held liable for third party content posted on its service” (Feiner). However, Gonzalez argues that YouTube’s algorithm which recommends content to users falls outside the protection of Section 230. This case is very similar to Twitter v. Taamneh, where the Supreme Court will “consider whether Twitter can be held liable for aiding and abetting under the Anti-Terrorism Act” (Feiner).

The petitioner’s counsel, Eric Schnapper, defined parts of YouTube’s website such as video thumbnails and featured sections of YouTube’s home page as “a joint creation between YouTube and the third party which posted the video” (Feiner). This concerns the plaintiff as his child was killed in a 2015 ISIS terrorist attack in France. After this, ISIS “claimed responsibility” for the attack “by issuing a written statement and posting a YouTube video” (Wu). YouTube could have removed this video from the platform as it was clearly associated with the terrorist group, however Gonzalez holds Google “secondarily liable for Nohemi’s death because Google ‘aided and abetted an act of international terrorism’ through YouTube” by failing to remove the video (Wu). Google also uses recommendation algorithms to push videos to users, and the plaintiff claims that “YouTube’s recommendations actually constitute the company’s own speech” (Feiner). This would remove the protection of Section 230 from companies since the recommendation of third-party content would then be considered identical to announcements made by the company itself.

By determining whether online media platforms are liable for posted user content, Gonzalez v. Google has the potential to cause fundamental change across the internet. If Google is held liable for the damages caused by third-party content on its platform, then all modern media would likely shut down or significantly restrict user activity to protect themselves from future lawsuits based on what users post online. This widespread consequence of such a decision brings hesitancy to Supreme Court Justices on making such a significant decision. Since Section 230 has been applied consistently since its implementation, Justice Kavanaugh “pointed to the amici briefs that warned overhauling [Section 230’s] interpretation would have massive economic consequences for many businesses, as well as their workers, consumers, and investors” (Feiner). Gonzalez v. Google brings concern to how companies should monitor the content posted on their platforms, and could fundamentally change how online media operates in the future.

Ethan is a Quantitative Economics and Econometrics major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2026.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/supreme-court-justices-in-google-case-hesitate-to-upend-section-230.html

Additional Sources:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-1333

Gonzalez v. Google LLC

Posted by Gregory Deyesu.

This article is a transcription of a podcast by the WSJ giving an update on the lawsuit that Google LLC is facing. This case has made its way to the Supreme Court and Google now has the responsibility of defending Section 230. According to John McKinnon, a Tech Policy Reporter of the WSJ, Section 230 “is regarded as a pillar of the online economy” (McKinnon). Section 230 gives internet platforms immunity for all kinds of lawsuits over the content hosted on their platforms. This includes any harm caused by posts, images, and videos. This court case is important because of the implications it could have to other Internet companies. The main question comes down to whether tech companies still need this kind of protection in this day and age.

Section 230 was passed back in 1996, “the dawn of the internet age” (McKinnon). The original lawsuit was brought against google by the family of a student who was killed in the 2015 Terror attacks in Paris. The lawsuit alleges that Youtube, a subsidiary of Google LLC, promoted videos posted by ISIS. Google LLC has continued to state that they are protected by Section 230 and lower courts have agreed. Yet the issue remains that Google promoted this content, not that ISIS posted it. The ‘recommendation’ algorithm is one of the most valuable pieces of software for so many internet companies. This is one of the reasons why this case is so important and why many others have sided with the plaintiffs or with the defendants.

The Supreme Court has not set a date for when they will be ruling on this issue, but all evidence points towards a decision coming out by the time their term ends. Putting the Supreme Court’s decision aside, I believe that whatever the decision is, it will be setting a precedent for other internet companies, while keeping large amount of censorship on the Internet. The Internet is known for it’s free speech and access to information, but making these companies liable for any and all harm that may be caused from posts on their website, these companies are going to be a lot more stringent on who and what they allow on their platform. Ultimately, I believe that recommendation algorithms need to be corrected so that hate speech is not promoted, while at the same time, gross censorship would be unfair.

Gregory is a student at Seton Hall University.

Article Name: Supreme Court to Hear Internet Shield Law Case

Link: https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/google-news-update/supreme-court-to-hear-internet-shield-law-case/f8711c58-5d22-4829-b897-d73326848878

Posted by Jacob Hummel. 

Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, has made headlines again recently. This time for a legal dispute over a 2018 compensation package that would award Musk potentially upwards of $55 billion in Tesla stock. A Tesla stockholder, Richard J. Tornetta, is taking legal action in Delaware Court to invalidate the package. His lawyers argue that the compensation should be voided because it was “dictated by Musk and a product of sham negotiations with the directors who were not independent of him” (Chase). They also argue that the shareholders approved it based on misleading and incomplete information.

The Defense argued that the deal was fairly negotiated by parties whose members were independent and denied Musk’s involvement. At the time of the negotiation, Musk was not a controlling shareholder, because he owned less than a third of the company, limiting the influence he would’ve had on the executives crafting the package. In addition, they argued that it also passed through a shareholder vote, which wasn’t even necessary under Delaware law. Musk himself, in an earlier November trial, denied that he had any involvement with the board or its compensation committee, and stated that he did not dictate the terms of the compensation package.

Defense attorney Evan Chesler argued the package benefited not just Musk, but all shareholders, who in the time of the package’s existence have seen Tesla’s value climb from around $50 billion to over $600 billion. Finally, the defense also claimed that the shareholders were informed of the potential compensation Musk could receive before they voted on the package. This was supposed to be the cases’ final day in court. However, after the hearing on February 21, the court ordered another round of briefing on various legal issues.

Jacob is a freshman at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, majoring in Finance.

Works Cited:
Musk’s Tesla pay package is now worth more than $30 billion – Yahoo Finance. Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo!, 12 Feb. 2023,
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/musks-tesla-pay-package-under-001827198.html.

Poted by Peter Smutelovic.

The most talked about topic in past few days is the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. Bank run just happened with Silicon Valley Bank. Bank runs happen because Bank does not actually have all your money. All banks do the same thing they take money from depositors and loan some of that money or buy some other assets to make profit. The problem is when all people want their money back at the same time. This result in a bank run. So why all people wanted all their money from Silicon Valley bank out.

The problem was with bond, because Silicon Valley used the deposited money to buy loans to gain interest on the money. However, as interest rates increased the value of the purchased bonds decreased in price, became less valuable. Problem occurred when they had to sell the bonds back since customers wanted to take out money. So, Silicon Valley bank had to sell the bonds at a huge loss. Because they needed money for all the people wanting to withdraw money. When people heard that bank might not have enough money, all the people wanted to take out their money to make sure that they do not lose them if the bank collapses which led to bank run. This led to federal regulators announce a plan that would give Silicon Valley Bank depositors an access to their money.

“Looking at the liquidity crisis that loomed over the weekend, employers were really between a rock and a hard place,” Caminiti said. “They might not have had access to their funds, but they may have still been exposed to significant damages and penalties, as well as the potential for personal liability” for company executives. The penalties for unpaid or late wages vary widely but can be dramatic. Massachusetts and New jersey businesses can owe damages worth triple the number of wages. California imposes smaller civil penalties for unpaid or late wages, but lawsuits brought under the state’s Private Attorney General Act add to the legal risks for employers there. California regulators signaled in an email to Littler Mendelson P.C. attorneys they wouldn’t pursue late payments related to the Silicon Valley Bank failure as “willful” violations, and that the state agency would aim to resolve related PAGA(The Labor Code Private Attorney General Act-authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations) claims outside of litigation. “Especially in light of the significant uncertainty, these are prudent steps to mitigate the impacts on companies that are operating in good faith and their employees,” Lisa Powell, general counsel for the California. This approach will focus on companies impacted by the closure, and it is important to emphasize that this is not an invitation for companies that have access to funds to make payroll to delay those payments.
Federal wage and hour law doesn’t outline an explicit timeline for when payment is due, but various courts and the US Department of Labor have interpreted a missed paycheck as a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. An employer also can face liquidated damages for an FLSA violation, unless it can prove it “acted in good faith” or had “a reasonable belief that it was complying with the FLSA.

According to Noah A. Finkel, an employment attorney with Seyfarth Shaw LLP in Chicago, states differ in how they define a late paycheck, with some demanding payment a particular number of days after a pay period ends and others not establishing a deadline. In a scenario where bank savings momentarily become unavailable, employers would have a good case for saying that authorities should be kind, maybe by levying less fines, Finkel said. He replied, “It would seem that a breach would not be purposeful in this circumstance. A different situation would arise if an employer asked employees to labor even though they knew they wouldn’t be paid, according to Finkel. In that case, employers likely would have to furlough employees until funds became available again or else face potentially steep penalties for wage violations.
“Problems with this plan occurs when employers can’t be sure whether a late wage payment would be shown leniency because of factors beyond the company’s control, “Caminiti said, adding that the standard for a “willful” violation doesn’t require malice. So to try to help the bank, by giving them some allowance is not a great solution since most of the people live from paycheck to paycheck and they need the money now.

Peter is an economics major class at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/bank-failures-raise-specter-of-late-payroll-employer-penalties

Posted by Gabriella Davila.

A current news article I read was, “New Illinois law mandates paid leave ‘for any reason.” Illinois will become one of three states that will mandate time off. Illinois will require workers who work certain hours to get time off no matter what the situation is. This law was passed in two other states as well. All states get paid time off but only due to health-related reasons. This law will require businesses to approve time off no matter the situation if they work certain hours required by law. Illinois will require businesses to acquire one hour of paid time off per 40 hours worked. Employees can use these hours up to 90 days (about 3 months) of working.

This law is specifically designed for the lower income people because they cannot miss a day of work. This is designed so they do not have to worry about taking a day off. They are planning to make the state work with families and tourists. They are trying to make a good post-pandemic plan for all the people of Illinois. The pandemic really messed up a lot of families. Many families struggled and got sick and those who are lower class struggled. The goal is to make a plan to help everyone.

This quote caught my eye after going through the pandemic. “Whether it’s to deal with the illness of a family member, or take a step back for your mental health, enshrining paid leave rights is a step forward for our state.” I believe this is a good step forward in the post-pandemic era. Everyone deserves days off for their mental health or family health. Everyone’s mental health should be more important than money.

Gabriella is a business student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-illinois-law-mandates-paid-leave-any-reason

Posted by Allison Woodlard.

In recent years, the live event ticketing industry has been surrounded by lawsuits as companies are engaging in harmful and anticompetitive behavior. This is further discussed in the Bloomberg Law article titled “ANALYSIS: Ticketmaster, TSwift, and Antitrust’s Role in Markets” written by legal analysis Eleanor Tyler. Live Nation Entertainment Inc. is composed of two companies: an events promoter and venue operator known as Live Nation, and the ticket sales giant known as Ticketmaster. In late November 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into Ticketmaster and filed an antitrust lawsuit against them in response to the company’s handling of the sale for Taylor Swift’s upcoming tour. Ticketmaster said that an unexpectedly high number of customers overloaded its system during the pre-approved fan sale, and as a result of this, their promised general public sale that was to follow was cancelled.

In addition to the situation with Taylor Swift’s tour, Ticketmaster has been in hot water because of their violation of antitrust regulations. The lawsuit centers around their use of exclusivity contracts with venues and promoters to prevent competitors from gaining a foothold in the market. This has led to higher ticket prices for consumers and limited choices for both fans and artists. In addition to this, it is alleged that Live Nation has used its control over concert venues to force other ticketing companies out of the market. This article further explores the broader issue of antitrust enforcement in the live event industry, particularly as it relates to the growing power of dominant players like Ticketmaster and Live Nation. It argues that antitrust laws are necessary to promote competition and protect consumers in this industry, but that enforcement efforts may be hindered by factors such as industry consolidation and the difficulty of defining relevant markets. It states, “the latest case pending in the California federal court, attacks head-on Ticketmaster’s claim that lawsuits must be arbitrated. It alleges that Ticketmaster has a new arbitration provision shunting claims to an arbitrator that is so procedurally and substantively unfair that the arbitration provision itself is unconscionable. In addition to that claim, the plaintiff alleges (as prior cases have) that Ticketmaster is leveraging its market power in the primary sales market to gain dominance in the secondary sales market” (Tyler, 2022).

In addition to this, Ticketmaster’s abuse of market power is also proven by their failure to crack down on ticket scalping. As the largest primary ticket seller in the US, they do not care if a true fan does not get the face-value ticket since they make much more money from the fees generated by scalpers and the reselling actions. The article states, “according to the latest SEC filings of Ticketmaster’s parent corporation, giant tour promoter and venue owner Live Nation Entertainment Inc., Ticketmaster’s resale business generated over $1.1 billion in gross transaction volume in the third quarter of 2022 alone, more than doubling its resale volume in Q3 2019” (Tyler, 2022). A face-value ticket sale to a fan only generates one fee for Ticketmaster, but a sale to a re-seller generates at least two, so the company has not expressed any plan to be stricter about it.

On a broader outlook, the potential success of the antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster and Live Nation could have far-reaching implications for the live event industry, potentially leading to increased competition, lower ticket prices, and more choice for consumers and artists. The author of the article emphasizes the importance of antitrust enforcement in promoting fair and open markets, particularly in industries that are dominated by a small number of players.

Allison is a sports management and marketing student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Tyler, Eleanor. “Analysis: Ticketmaster, TSWIFT, and Antitrust’s Role in Markets.” Bloomberg Law, 23 Nov. 2022, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysis-ticketmaster-tswift-and-antitrusts-role-in-markets.

Posted by Luigi Del Mauro

Richard Alexander Murdaugh was a prominent lawyer in South Carolina in a family law office. He was married to his wife Maggie and shared two sons Buster and Paul. His family served 87 years in elected positions in South Carolina.

On June 7 2021, Alex Murdaugh was charged with the deaths of his wife Maggie and his son Paul. At 10:07 PM, Alex Murdaugh calls 911 and says he has found the lifeless bodies of his wife Maggie and his son Paul. Afterwards, it was also determined that Murdaugh hired a man to kill him in assisted suicide so that Murdaugh’s son Buster could collect a 10-million-dollar life insurance. Murdaugh has over 100 different counts against him that he can be charged with.

On January 23, 2023 Alex Murdaugh trial on homicide charges began with jury selection. Alex Murdaugh, a seasoned lawyer, takes on his defense with his team of lawyers. The prosecution submitted evidence at trial proving Alex Murdaugh was present when his wife and son were shot just before they were killed. Murdaugh’s defense strategy was admitting to having a severe opioid addiction and was spending over 50k a week on drugs which could have been a motive for the murders for drug money. On March 2, 2023 Alex Murdaugh was found guilty of double homicide by a jury of his peers and was sentenced to two maximum life sentences. The jury consisting of eight women and four men found Alex Murdaugh guilty after deliberating for only three hours.

Alex Murdaugh to this day still denies the charges of the murders of Maggie and Paul and is appealing his conviction.

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/alex-murdaugh-indicted-murder-charges-summary-timeline-rcna38026