Posted by Kimberly McNamara.

A former controller of the Hereditary Disease Foundation, a nonprofit group out of New York that encourages and contributes to studies and other research dealing with congenital diseases, has been indicted, this year, for embezzlement of over $1.8 million. The organizations former controller, Karen Alameddine, who was responsible for managing finances from 2005 through January 2014, began “‘to make what in reality were transfers to her personal bank account appear as if they were wire or bank transfers to grant recipients,” according to Manhattan Federal Prosecutors.

Alameddine, who also went by the name Karen Dean, made a fake business called “Abacus Accounting,” “Chez Cheval Ranch,” “Dean & Co,” and “Karen Dean Exports,” to try and cover her tracks. She was not so successful. On November 17 of this year, she was arrested in Boston, and the following day, made an appearance in federal court and is now awaiting a transfer to Manhattan, says The NY Times.

Suspicions were raised when a complaint was made after Alameddine left the nonprofit this past January, stating that an account holder never received their check from the group.

In a statement given by the organization, “this loss was confirmed through internal investigation and a forensic audit conducted by outside legal counsel retained immediately by the foundation. . . . Although the theft was substantial, only a small amount of grant monies committed before 2104 was compromised.”

Alameddine was charged with five counts of tax evasion and one count of wire fraud.

Kim is a business administration major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the summer of 2015, one of the world’s most known Japanese companies broke headlines as a top accounting scandal. Investigators found the company was overstating operating profits by at least 151.8 billion yen ($1.2 billion in U.S. dollars) between the years of 2008 and 2014. Their accounting problems primarily began from company employees understating costs on long-term projects, according to an investigation by a former top prosecutor in Japan.

The investigation also cited issues with improperly valued inventory also as the cause for the enormous overstatement of operating profits. Details of the scandal emerged when an independent investigative panel released a report describing, “Toshiba CEOs put intense pressure on subordinates to meet sales targets after the 2008 global recession.” The investigative report revealed that the CEOs did not directly instruct anyone to cook the books but rather placed immense pressure on subordinates and waited for the corporate culture to turn out the results they wanted. The investigative panel also pointed out that the weak corporate governance and a poorly functioning system of internal controls at every level of the Toshiba conglomerate didn’t mitigate or stop the inappropriate behaviors. Internal controls in the finance division, the corporate auditing division, the risk management division, and in the securities disclosure committee were not functioning properly. The accounting misconduct began under CEO Atsutoshi Nishida in 2008 due to the global financial crisis that immensely lowered Toshiba’s profitability. It continued unabated under the next CEO, Norio Sasaki, and eventually ended in scandal under Tanaka. Toshiba CEO Hisao Tanaka announced his resignation, in light of the scandal.

It has been four months since the scandal broke headlines and much new information has come to light. Since then, Toshiba has amended and restated those losses as to being more than $1.9 billion. As a consequence of the scandal, the Tokyo Stock Exchange has already designated Toshiba’s shares as “securities on alert” and fined the company $760,000 for “undermining the confidence of shareholders and investors.” In addition, Toshiba also faces the possibility of lawsuits from angry shareholders in Japan who have seen the company’s share price tumble.

Such action is already being taken in the United States, where an investor has filed a class-action lawsuit against Toshiba in June. The Rosen Law Firm representing the plaintiff has called for other Toshiba shareholders to join the suit. Despite the consequences Toshiba is facing, the one burning question has yet to be solved. Who did this? How did all this came about? How could their fraud be maintained for so long, and who should take direct responsibility?

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Tiffany Zapata.

Wells Fargo is the most recent bank to get caught in the act of predatory lending. The bank was accused in court filings of targeting minorities, such as black and Latino borrowers, for more costly home loans in comparison to whites. The acts took place in Cook County, Illinois, with a population of about 5 million. The case was filed in Chicago federal court.

The bank’s strategies encompassed home-loan origination, refinancing, and foreclosure. Their main concentration was equity stripping. Equity stripping is asset based lending which maximizes lender profit and makes it nearly impossible for the borrower to pay it off due to onerous loan terms. Before getting caught, the bank got away with 26,000 loans. The court order called for 300 million dollars in money damages.

Tom Goyda, a spokesman for the San Francisco-based Wells Fargo stated: “It’s disappointing they chose to pursue a lawsuit against Wells Fargo rather than collaborate together to help borrowers and home owners in the county,’’ Goyda said. “We stand behind our record as a fair and responsible lender.”

Wells Fargo is also currently involved in a lawsuit with the federal government due to its mortgage lending. This is not the first time courts have seen these sorts of acts from banks. Miami and Los Angeles filed similar suits alleging banks were “red-lining” minorities to block loans and for not informing investors on the status of the mortgages that were sold.

Wells Fargo ended up wining the lawsuit brought by the City of Miami in July. The City claimed Wells Fargo sold predatory mortgages in neighborhoods immersed with minorities before the “housing bubble burst.” The judge decided the City was not qualified to file these claims under the Fair Housing Act. The decision is being appealed.

Tiffany is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State Univsersity, Class of 2016.

Snow shoveling always has been a means for young people to learn how to run a business. They learn how to advertise, interact with customers, work for a competitive wage, and learn something about service to the community. All businesses are at the service of others; and, snow shoveling, like delivering newspapers, or running a lemonade stand, give young people a way of learning responsibility.

Governor Christie just signed into law (before a major snowstorm) making it legal for residents to offer snow shoveling services without first applying for a permit. Last year, Bound Brook, New Jersey police stopped two entrepreneurial teens for going door-to-door and offering to shovel snow for a small fee. The police told the boys they were not allowed to solicit businesses without a permit. In Bound Brook, the license costs $450. The case made national headlines.

Republican State Sen. Mike Doherty sponsored the “‘right-to-shovel’” bill, stating it “was incredible that some towns wanted teens to pay expensive licensing fees just to clear snow off driveways.”

“The bill removes only licensing requirements for snow shoveling services, and only applies to solicitations made within 24 hours before a predicted snow storm. Towns with laws prohibiting door-to-door solicitation will be able to enforce those laws in all other circumstances.”

Posted by Steven Otto.

The San Francisco rating company, Yelp, is not found liable for negative reviews posted on its site. This is because it relies on ratings posted by users, not the company itself. A federal appeals court on Monday, September 12, dismissed a libel lawsuit filed against Yelp by Douglas Kimzey, the owner of a Washington state locksmith company. The 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, under federal law, Yelp is not liable for content it gets from its users. The features of Yelp are based on users’ input and it is not content created by the company, whose site helps guide people to anything from restaurants to plumbers and much more.

The court said that Douglas Kimzey’s business received a negative review on Yelp in 2011. Kimzey claimed that the negative review was actually meant for another business, and claimed that Yelp transferred the review to his business on purpose in an attempt to extort him. He claims that Yelp was trying to force him into paying to advertise with Yelp. The appeals court said that his allegations were not substantial and that there were no facts at all supporting Yelp fabricating content under a third party’s identity. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel decision, said “We fail to see how Yelp’s rating system, which is based on rating inputs from third parties and which reduces this information into a single, aggregate metric, is anything other than user-generated data.”

The appeals court previously ruled under the 1996 Communications Decency Act that “websites that provide what are known as ‘neutral tools’ to post material online cannot be held liable for libelous material posted by third parties.” Kimzey’s claim that Yelp should be held liable for distributing reviews to search engines was dismissed by this act. The appeals court stated that distributing the content does not make Yelp the creator or developer of the content.

Aaron Schur, Yelp’s senior director of litigation, said the appeals court “rightly confirmed Yelp’s ability to provide a forum for millions of consumers to share their experiences with local businesses.” Kimzey said he lost 95% of his business after getting one star on Yelp and said, “If you have a one-star rating, people won’t go near it (the business). They don’t care if you’ve been in business for one week or 25 years.” Obviously upset over what had occurred to him and the ruling, Kimzey, serving as his own attorney, plans to appeal to a larger court panel.

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

Posted by Natalie Kenny.

Amazon just received a major success in a lawsuit against them. Amazon was being sued over a book sold on their website. This book was based on New England Patriots star, Rob Gronkowski. Greg McKenna, a middle-aged man, took up the pen-name Lacey Noonan and wrote a book called A Gronking to Remember. This book gained a lot of media attention and was even featured on the show Jimmy Kimmel Live. On the cover of the book, there is a photo of a couple. McKenna used this photo on the cover but did not legally obtain the rights to use the photo.

The couple shown in the photo sued Amazon for selling the book with the illegally obtained photo of the couple. The question of the lawsuit was whether or not third-parties like Amazon should be responsible for what their users distribute using their platform. After hearing the case, an Ohio district court judge said that Amazon is not responsible for what its users distribute using their website. The judge cited the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This rule goes the same for Amazon and Barnes & Noble when selling books.

I think that the decision made in this case to side with Amazon was the right decision to be made. Amazon and other book sellers should not have to check every single thing that is sold to make sure that there are not copyright issues. The person who should be getting sued in this particular case should have been Greg McKenna–the one who used the picture without permission. It was wrong of him to use this photo without permission but it should not be Amazon’s responsibility to make sure that whoever is selling products through their platform is doing everything they are supposed to be doing.

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

Posted by Dylan Beland.

One of the most talked about issues in business law news is the Wells Fargo scandal. The story behind this scandal is that the Department of Justice and many attorneys are investigating the possibility that Wells Fargo has millions of fake accounts opened at their banks. The result of the investigation was Wells Fargo had to pay a 185 million dollar fine.  Wells Fargo had to let go over 5,300 workers for fraudulent sales tactics.

From this, the concern and worry in the banking industry instigated a lot of questions about the fake accounts being opened. Employees were pushed to reach near-impossible sales targets, which in turn led to the creation of fake accounts. Mike Mayo, a banking analysist at CSLA, said the investigation “reflects pent-up frustration by the public over the lack of accountability at big banks post financial crisis.”

The people that could see some blame for this are the investors of the banks. One of Wells Fargo’s biggest investors has not spoken, since the situation has arisen. Warren Buffett is Wells Fargo’s biggest investor and he owns Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.

On September 20, Wells Fargo is meeting with the Senate and is having John Stumpf, CEO, represent and testify at the hearing. He apologized for the fake accounts but also said he does not plan on resigning from being CEO of Wells Fargo.

Dylan is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the Congress has the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]”  The Founders wisely thought that the Legislature is in a better position than the President to carry out the will of the people.  Congressional debate can test the arguments for and against intervention in global problems.  Every two years members of the House are kept in check by the voters, who ought to dictate what American foreign policy should be.

James Madison, commonly referred to as “Father of the Constitution,” once said:

Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.  War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.  In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.  The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both.  No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Under the War Powers Resolution, the President can deploy U.S. forces anywhere outside the U.S. for 180 days, provided Congress is informed in writing within 48 hours.  The executive does not need Congress to declare war for the 180 days, however, that time period cannot be extended without congressional authorization.  The President has the authority to introduce American forces into hostilities only when there is:

(1) a declaration of war

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The Supreme Court has never reviewed the War Powers Resolution to see if it passes constitutional muster.  Although Congress will say that it has “the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer . . . [,]” the Court, however, has ruled in other cases that one branch of government cannot give power away to another.

Posted by Deena Khalil.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2014, there was a court hearing about big-time banks being sued for manipulating a financial benchmark, Libor, by “U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation.” Libor is short for the London Interbank Offered Rate, and it’s used to set the rates on things worth trillions of dollars such as loans, credit cards, and some complex derivatives. The benchmark is calculated each business day by averaging out interest rates in which banks estimate they could borrow from each other. But these banks have to be within the London trading operations in order to be part of the benchmark. Some of the banks that are being accused are JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Bank of America.

Plaintiffs include U.S. municipalities and financial funds who argue they suffered financial damages by receiving lower interest rates on transactions as a result of the suspected manipulation. They allege that evidence gathered by investigators in the U.S., Europe and around the globe shows bank traders involved in the rate-setting process rigged the outcomes to boost their trading profits.

The banks accused are trying to get these cases to be dismissed There are U.S banks that have been struck with billions of dollars in penalties due to Libor manipulation. For example, JPMorgan was fined $78 million by European authorities! Some banks have settled cases, but defendant banks in the present case are seeking to dismiss due to “the lack of personal jurisdiction.” Attorneys “argued the recent Supreme Court rulings established that corporations are ‘at home’ only in their respective countries and in most cases are subject only to lawsuits filed there, not in U.S. courts.” They claim that the Libor manipulation activity occurred outside the U.S.

Deena is a business finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Da’Naysia Aarons.

In an article called “Forced Arbitration,” Gordon Gibb, describes how citizens in the United States are taken advantage of by popular rich companies, such as, Time Warner Cable, T-Mobile, Wells Fargo and several others. Many consumers who buy products from these companies do not realize that they are facing forced arbitration.

Companies forced arbitration through a contractual clause that waives any rights to purse a dispute through courts. For example, a consumer decides to purchase a phone from T-Mobile. Before the consumer can buy the product he or she has to sign a document. In many cases, the force arbitration clause occurs in fine print at the bottom of the page, so many consumers are not aware of what they are signing. If the consumer does not sign the contract, they are not able to purchase their item. However, if the consumer signs the contract they receive their item.

If the consumer decides that he or she wants to sue the company, because something went wrong with the product, that consumer will never get their day in court because he or she signed the contract giving over that right. In the article, an appellate attorney, Deepak Gupta, states, “[Forced arbitration] is really an exit clause from the civil justice system and people aren’t aware that they’re even entering into these contracts.”

Force arbitration has become a popular issue in the United States. Several people are now starting to challenge its use. It is not right on how the government and companies are taking advantage of these consumers.

Da’Naysia is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the month of March of 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged three executives: Chairman Steven Davis, Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine, and Chief Financial Officer Joel Sanders of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the international law firm, with facilitating a $150 million fraudulent bond offerings. The SEC alleged that the three charged turned to accounting fraud when the firm needed money during the economic recession and steep costs from a recent merger.  They were afraid that their declining revenues might cause the bank lenders to cut off access to the firm’s credit lines. Thus, leading Dewey & LeBoeuf’s financial professionals came up with ways to artificially inflate income and distort financial performance.

The fraud didn’t stop there. Dewey & LeBoeuf then resorted to the bond markets to raise significant amounts of cash through a private offering that seized on fake financial numbers. Dewey & LeBoeuf since have officially went out of business, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged criminal charges against Davis, DiCarmine, and Sanders. According to the SEC’s complaint, the roots of the fraud dated back to late 2008 when senior financial officers began to come up with fake revenues by manipulating various entries in Dewey & LeBoeuf’s internal accounting system. The firm’s profitability was inflated by approximately $36 million (15%) at the end of the 2008 financial results. “The improper accounting also reversed millions of dollars of uncollectible disbursements, mischaracterized millions of dollars of credit card debt owed by the firm as bogus disbursements owed by clients, and inaccurately accounted for significant lease obligations held by the firm”(SEC Press Release).

Fast forward to the present, a New York judge declared a mistrial Monday bringing an end to the trial for the biggest law firm failure in U.S. history! The decision comes on the 22nd day of deliberations by a 12-member jury, which acquitted the ex-law firm leaders on several dozen counts of falsifying business records. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict on grand larceny and remained deadlocked on more than 90 counts charges facing Steven Davis, Joel Sanders, and Stephen DiCarmine. The three could have faced up to 25 years in prison if convicted of grand larceny, the most serious of the roughly 50 counts each brought against them. The defendants also faced related civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a private lawsuit brought by former Dewey investors who say, “They were duped into buying debt in a 2010 bond offering.” Both of those proceedings had been on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Some highlights of the trial are: prosecutors had likened Mr. Davis to a drug kingpin, overseeing a criminal enterprise. Also, the defense side thought prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to prove their case, thus choosing not to call any witnesses. Instead, the lawyers relied on the cross-examination of government witnesses to try to distance their clients from the actions taking place in the accounting department. At times, such questioning also prompted praise for the defendants from those on the stand. Where does this lead us now? How the Department of Justice completely lost the case or can a retrial give a favorable outcome in the future? It’s too early to tell, but what I do know is that the long deliberations and mistrial will raise questions about whether the case was too complex.

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.