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

Posted by Dan Udvari.

On December 3, 2015 Donald L. Blankenship – the CEO of Massey Energy, Co. – was convicted of a single misdemeanor for conducting a conspiracy to violate safety rules in his coal mines just before the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster that occurred on April 5, 2010.

Massey Energy was the fourth largest publicly traded coal extractor by revenue ($2.69 billion) in the United States. It was founded in 1920 by the Massey family and operated in Richmond, Virginia. The company consisted of approximately 5800 employees right before Alpha Natural Resources acquired the company for 7.1 billion dollars. Interestingly, 99% of the shareholders voted in favor of the acquisition, which shows how poorly the company was governed by management. Don Blankenship took control over the company in 1992 and created a culture that favored profits over safety. In total, the coal extractor giant had around 369 citations and orders, which totaled a staggering 10.8 million dollars.

On April 5, 2015 a massive explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in Montcoal, West Virginia occurred that killed 29 people. This tragedy was the worst since the 1970 Hyden disaster. Massey Energy operated the Upper Big Branch Mine and later turned out that they operated the mine in a manner that was against several rules set up by the MSHA. The investigation later determined that the ventilation system in the mine did not work properly and failed to get rid of the toxic gases that caused the explosion. Massey intentionally neglected all the safety rules and citations issued by the MSHA for the purpose of increasing profits. However, this case goes deeper than one thinks. According to reports, Massey Energy is very influential on political figures and officials in West Virginia. Using this power, they were able to bribe and manipulate MSHA regulators so they look the other way when inspecting the mines.

In November 2014, Don Blankenship, was indicted by a federal jury on four criminal counts including conspiracy to violate safety laws, securities fraud, defrauding the federal government, and making false statements to the SEC. Even though he was charged with these, he was only found guilty of one on December 3, 2015. Had he been convicted of all four, he could have been sent to prison for approximately thirty years. Now, he is only serving one year in jail.

I do not believe that Blankenship should only serve one year in jail. It seems unfair to those who had lost their lives because of profits. It baffles me that people as greedy as him get away with conspiracy and murder charges. It seems that money can literally buy your freedom in the United States. All you need is a good lawyer or lawyers.

Dan is a graduate accounting student with a certificate in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Jose L. Diaz.

Imagine having a potential life-ending disease or illness that you depend on medication for to survive. Money is tight, and most of your savings goes towards purchasing the medication in order to survive. Suddenly, just overnight, the price of this drug not only increases, but it increases by 5000%. While it sounds absolutely absurd, this actually happened when Turing Pharmaceuticals, a startup company being run by a former hedge fund manager, increased the price of their drug called Daraprim, from $13.50 a tablet to $750 a tablet overnight. That is not $750 a prescription–it is $750 per tablet. This brought the annual cost of treatment for some patients to over a hundred thousand dollars.

Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, claims that the drug is so rarely used that the price increase would not have a significant effect on the health system. He claims that the money earned from the price increase would go towards developing better treatments for toxoplasmosis, the disease that is treated by Daraprim. However, the price increase will make it almost impossible for private insurers like Medicare and patients in hospitals to attain. The fact that the drug is so expensive and hard to attain now, it makes it harder for other companies to make samples of the drug and replicate it. Overall, the drug is the leading treatment for the life-threatening parasitic infection toxoplasmosis. The increase in price seems to be an only profit-driven choice.

Jose is finance and accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.

Posted by Katie Kim.

On Thursday, Martin Shkreli, a 32 year-old pharmaceutical executive, was arrested by the federal authorities on securities and wire-fraud charges stemming from an alleged Ponzi scheme he ran as a hedge-fund manager. What the young executive was doing was taking out loans from investors to start a new pharmaceutical company and using that money to pay off his debt from his hedge-fund. Martin Shkreli committed “fraud in nearly every aspect of hedge-fund investments and in connection with his stewardship of a public company,” said the director of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Andrew J. Ceresney.

Shkreli was already notorious for price-gouging during his time at Turning Pharmaceuticals. His idea was to acquire decades old drugs and raise the price of it to $750 from $13.50 per pill. The current charges are not related to Shkreli’s work as chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals.

The federal authorities say that Shkreli was running three schemes that had connections to one another, he defrauded investors and used stock and cash from an unrelated pharmaceutical company to cover up the money he lost. The Brooklyn US attorney filed a seven-count criminal indictment and the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a related civil complaint on alleged securities fraud against Shkreli. Federal officials painted Mr. Shkreli’s business dealings as “a securities fraud trifecta of lies, deceit and greed.”

Shkreli was released on a $5 million bail, secured by a bank account and his father and brother. The authorities also arrested Evan L. Greebel who served as an outside counsel to Retrophin, the company Shkreli previously worked for. Shkreli treated Retrophin like his “personal piggy bank” where he used $11 million to pay back shareholders of MSMB funds.

Katie is an accounting/finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Giancarlo Barrera.

Goldman Sachs was infamously named “The Wolf of Wall Street.”   Goldman created, convinced, and sold mortgage investments that had been designed to fail in the first place.corruption at its finest.  It was corruption at its finest.  Goldman even went as far as betting against the same derivatives it was promoting and selling to their own clientele.  Goldman accepted that it misled investors the wrong way, but did not admit to any scheming or wrongdoing.

In July 2010, Goldman paid an enormous SEC fine of 550 milion dollars.  It was one fine after another.  Then in April 2012, Goldman paid a fine of 22 million dollars for allowing insider trading of non-public information to Goldman’s clients and traders since 2007.  On the link, the story goes into further detail of how much fraud and dishonesty was played under the table and behind the backs of its own clients, who the company was supposed to help invest their money in the first place.

Business is business.

Giancarlo is an economics and finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Research proposal posted by Brian Kane.

In the digital age, the rights and laws regarding privacy are being contested now more than ever. Today personal privacy, both digital and physical, is being discussed. One of the earliest examples of privacy laws in the United States is the 4^th amendment. Under this amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution). This and other laws, including the Federal Wiretap Law of 1968, are designed to protect the individual against unlawful searches of personal property by an unfair government. The individual right to privacy is held sacred in this country.

However, the laws of privacy protection are not absolute. Communications and interactions in general areas, such as online chatrooms, and digital communication used for work. Surveillance monitoring by employers has been contested by employees in courts in multiple cases. In City of Ontario, California v. Quon, for example, a search was justified because there were “reasonable grounds” and done “for a non-investigatory work-related purpose” (Ontario v. Quon).

Some argue that the privacy laws are for the best interests of individuals. Individuals and consumers are protected when the monitoring parties have clearly defined limits and barriers. When the government requires search warrants and the corporations are required to obtain consent, the best interests of those being monitored are kept in mind. The constant surveillance by powerful entities removes the right for individuals to act freely and live their own lifestyle. Gratuitous monitoring dehumanizes the employee and implies guilt without any evidence.

Privacy law is not completely virtuous, however. Like all laws, some may seek to exploit privacy law and use it to shield unproductive, immoral, and unethical behavior. When employees use corporate email accounts for personal business, they often claim a right to privacy when investigation begins. Many act recklessly online in this digital age, assuming that the right to privacy is absolute and unbreakable. There are instances where there is legitimate reasons to investigate an individual. When there is probable cause, public good supersedes individual privacy.

The issue of privacy and surveillance laws raises many ethical questions. The rights of individuals and the definition of individualism is put into question when anyone is monitored by a third party. There is concern for the maintenance of human dignity, as some see these searches dehumanizing and distressing on private lives. Pope Leo XIII spoke out against increased surveillance, saying that it intruded and lead to control over individuals. In Catholicism, the holy sacrament of confession revolves around the private recounting of sins and transgressions. When discussing privacy, the matter common good is raised. Aquinas believes that law is created for the common good, “made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated” (2 Bix).

Privacy and Surveillance Law is a widely contested issue in the catholic faith and general ethics. It has its advantages and disadvantages, as any other issue in law, but it will continue to be contested as new innovations shape the information age.

Works Cited

Bix, Brian H. “Secrecy and the Nature of Law.” October 2013. University of Pennsylvania School, Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law. Web. 3/3/2016. Avaliable: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2418-bixsecrecy-and-the-nature-of-law-full

City of Ontario v. Quon. 560 U.S. 746. Accessed 3/3/2016.

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.

Research proposal posted by Elizabeth Donald.

Part One: Topic Explanation

Liberty of contract was originally introduced into U.S. constitutional jurisprudence through the case of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). In this case, Joseph F. Lochner challenged a provision of the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895 that prohibited bakers from working more than ten hours per day and 60 hours per week. The Supreme Court held that this regulation failed to pass constitutional muster in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the Court found “liberty of contract,” that is, the freedom of individuals and groups to enter into contracts, to be a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Other Supreme Court decisions continued to build on this idea during what is now referred to as “The Lochner Era” of cases. This includes Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), invalidating a minimum wage law and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 286 U.S. 510 (1925), deeming unconstitutional a regulation that led to the closing of many private Catholic schools.

Part Two: Pros and Cons

The Lochner decision was considered one of the most controversial cases of its time after being handed down in 1905. Progressive jurists, politicians, and scholars alike denounced Lochner, whether for attempting to constitutionalize laissez-faire economics or for exceeding judicial authority.[1] They believed that the conservative-leaning Lochner majority reached far beyond the scope of its powers. This is because although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly list “liberty of contract” as a fundamental right, the court still found it to be so under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause which states, “[N]or shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XVI, § 1. In finding a liberty of contract within the Constitution, Progressives saw the majority as an advocate of big business that attempted to adopt policy by means of judicial decision. These Progressive jurists instead encouraged a deference to the legislature on all matters, economic and personal. Since the early 20^th century, Progressive ideology has shifted, but still views liberty of contract in a negative light.

Flashing forward to today, jurists across the political spectrum remain highly critical of Lochner. Constitutional theorist Bruce Ackerman places Lochner in his “anticanon” of cases. Unlike early 20^th century Progressives, today’s Progressive jurists typically believe in using strict scrutiny to analyze laws regarding personal rights. Yet, they now isolate personal liberties from economic liberties, which are still considered unwarranting of constitutional protection.[2] Twenty-first century conservatives, likewise, do not tend to favor liberty of contract. Conservative jurists today often advocate for a deference to the legislature on both personal and economic issues. Thus, the conservative viewpoint has also significantly shifted from the Lochner Era right-wing belief that natural rights precede positive law and that liberty of contract is one of those inherent natural rights. This leaves little room for hope for the few present-day proponents of liberty of contract. However, the idea of contractual freedom as a fundamental right might not be as bad as many make it seem. In fact, liberty of contract is really a derivative of the natural law.

The natural law, according to St. Pope John Paul II, is a law that resides within the “depths of the conscience.” It is written on the hearts of all men, according to which God will be the judge. Legal theorists have found certain rights to be inherent within this natural law. The Constitution itself was founded on the idea of natural rights. James Madison, a drafter of the Constitution, believed that man “embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage…”[3] This idea was the bedrock of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which was eventually applied to the states through the Fourteenth. Therefore, the Court majority in Lochner simply viewed liberty of contract as one of these natural rights under due process. This reading of the Due Process Clause achieves much greater validation than suggested by Lochner’s opponents. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, which gave way to the Fourteenth Amendment, listed liberty of contract first in the rights accorded to man. In this act, the 39^th Congress wrote that, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties …” This act served the purpose of enforcing the natural rights of man. Therefore, the Lochner majority’s belief in liberty of contract as a fundamental right was not unwarranted.

Part Three: Questions of Ethics

Liberty of contract is intertwined with ethics because the very idea of ethics rests on the natural law. St. Thomas Aquinas said that the natural law “constitutes the principles of practical rationality,” which are the rules by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable.[4] It is from this ethical theory that fundamental rights were developed. Not only that, but contractual freedom is essential to business ethics as well. The significance of liberty of contract comes through in the employment-at-will rule which gives employers unfettered power to “dismiss their employees at will for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong.” However, because the employment-at-will theory is supported by laissez-faire economics, it too is often criticized by Progressive jurists who oppose free markets. Yet, even though early 20^th century Progressive jurists denounced the Lochner decision for its association with laissez-faire ideals, this does not invalidate the fact that liberty of contract can be viewed as a fundamental right within the natural law. Further, just because liberty of contract is an economic liberty does not mean it cannot be a fundamental liberty. Since provisions of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 demonstrate that both the Founding Fathers and the 39^th Congress understood liberty of contract as deriving from the natural law, it is valid to not only consider this liberty as fundamental, but also ethical.

Works cited:

[1] David E. Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner (2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Colleen Sheehan, James Madison and Our First Duty, THE CENTER FOR VISION AND VALUES (Sep. 23, 2014), http://www.visionandvalues.org/2014/09/james-madison-and-our-first-duty-by-dr-colleen-sheehan/.

[4] Aquinas, ST I-II. Q94.

Posted by Da’Naysia Aarons.

In an article called, “Lawsuits and Consumer Reporters Fight Home Warranty Companies,” Heidi Turner discusses how home warranty companies are being sued by consumers. An investigative reporter was asked to look into a company called Sensible Home Warranty who was allegedly selling consumers a warranty policy. However, when one consumer asked for a new microwave, Sensible Home warranty refused to pay out her claim. While investigating the company, a reporter name Michelle Mortensen found that Sensible Home Warranty has more than 1,950 complaints. In the article it states, “An investigation into the company was undertaken by the Nevada Division of Insurance but in the meantime, the company reportedly went out of business.”

Due to the fact that the company was mistreating their consumers and taking advantage of their money, the company was fined $5,000 dollars for not complying with the state’s Service Warranty Act. In the article it further states, “The business failed to pay legitimate claims made on home warranty contracts sold in the State of Utah, or to pay them in a timely manner, and the business failed to respond to inquiries of the commissioner.”

Since many other home warranty companies have been taking advantage of other consumers, lawsuits have been filed against them.

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

Posted by Keith Cleary.

A lawsuit has erupted between Exxon Mobile and the state of New Jersey, particularly two industrial sites in New Jersey, Union and Hudson counties, according to the New York Times (Sullivan). The lawsuit, “which has been filed in 2004 and litigated by four administrations, is a $8.9 billion dollar lawsuit.” (Sullivan). The lawsuit is about the contamination that Exxon left on the marshes and forestland, and New Jersey is willing to pay $250 million dollars to clean up the 1,500 acres of petroleum contaminated fields. The $250 million dollars that Exxon offered to pay is not nearly enough to pay the amount it would actually take to clean the fields.

The amount that Exxon offered to clean up the fields, “infuriated environmentalists and a state lawmaker, after experts determined that it would cost billions to clean up the properties in northern New Jersey.” (Sullivan). In particular, the areas that the lawsuit covers are the facilities of the Bayonne and the Bayway sites, where surprisingly, the use of chemical production and petroleum refining goes back to a hundred years. Those years of spills also contributed to the contamination of the lands. “A report compiled for the state by Stratus Consulting of Colorado determined that it would take $2.5 billion to clean the site up, and an additional $6.4 billion to restore enough wetland and forestland.” (Sullivan).

Many people are questioning why the state decided to settle for such a low amount of money. Debbie Mans, head of NY/NJ Baykeeper, said, “I think it’s criminal to settle so low.” (Sullivan). Settling an almost $9 billion dollar lawsuit with $250 million is by far criminal. It is like paying $500 dollars for a $250,000 Ferrari. However, along with making the state accountable for the cleanup of the area, they were trying to “reimburse taxpayers for the years of lost use—the same way a victim of a car accident can seek lost employment wages from the responsible driver.” (Sullivan). So, not only are they trying to make up for the damages but also lost time.

There was also speculation about donations made from Exxon to the Republican Governor’s Association while Christie was chairman of the organization. “The Exxon Mobile Corporation contributed more the $500,00 to the association in 2014 during Christie’s tenure, and $200,00 in 2013.” (Sullivan). Even though all of these contributions were made, apparently none of it had anything to do with Christie being chairman. With the small settlement, it was called into question what it would be used for. Prior to this, Christie’s administration used $130 million of a $190 million settlement with a Passaic River polluter to the state’s general fund.

Keith is a business law student at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Milan Rana.

Finally, SEC’s one of the biggest insider trading case reached a settlement on May 18, 2017. This case is no different than other wall street insider trading cases. However, the important thing to note here is unlike other hedge fund managers, Mr. Cooperman did not plead guilty to the charges against him. In an interview with CNBC he said, he would have won the case had it gone forward. Fortunately, he learned from his lawyers that settling the case would cost him far less than dragging it a long way, even though he knew he would have won regardless. Upon reading the details of the case, we realize that the defense seemed to be weak and hard to prove. Yet, it is surprising that how court let him go with a penalty of couple million dollars. On September 21, 2016, the SEC charged hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman and his firm Omega Advisors with insider trading based on the nonpublic information received and used by Mr. Cooperman.  The SEC alleged that in 2010 Mr. Cooperman generated significantly large profits by trading securities of APL (Atlas Pipeline Partners L.P.) based on the information that he received from the APL senior executives. The Venue for this case was carefully selected as the violations of the securities occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

After spending 23 and a half years at Goldman Sachs, with last 1 and a half year serving as a Chief Investment Officer, he decided to move on and start his own hedge fund company. He had learned and practiced many client building and maintaining tactics while working at Goldman Sachs. One of the powerful strategies of Cooperman was to accumulate large positions in the publicly traded companies and develop close relations with the company executives. By December 2009, Cooperman held over 9 percent shares APL, valued at approximately $46 Million. As a result of this, he developed such close relationships with company executives that led him access to various information that other smaller shareholders had no access to. On July 7, 2010, Cooperman learned from one of the APL executives that APL was negotiating the sale of Elk City(One of the APL’S largest pipeline plant) for approximately $650 million. He knew that if the deal goes through, APL stock prices would rise significantly.

According to the SEC report filed with the court, Cooperman promised the executive to keep the information secret and would not use it to trade the securities. However, he did not abide by the promise and that same day he started buying APL securities. He bought every security he could – Stocks, Bonds, Call Options. The report also states that until July 7, 2010, there was not a single day on which Cooperman’s Offshore Account, Hedge Fund Accounts, Managed Accounts and Family Accounts traded in APL securities. However, between July 7 – July 28, 2010, Cooperman and his accounts had purchased 343,600 Stocks, 4,500,000 Bonds and 6,781 Call options of APL. On July 27, 2010, Cooperman spoke to one of the executives again and confirmed the sale for $680 Million. Mr. Cooperman allegedly collectively generated $4.09 Million by trading in APL securities. The report also states that in breach of a duty of trust or confidence, Cooperman and Omega knowingly or recklessly traded APL securities on the basis, and while in possession of material nonpublic information related to APL’ s Elk City sale that Cooperman obtained from APL Executive.

According to the article titled “The SEC’s Biggest Insider Trading Case Is Heating Up” in Fortune magazine, stated that in his one of the television appearance Cooperman uttered the words, “These charges are total without merit.” This case has largely impacted his reputation as a hedge fund manager. Two years ago, his firm Omega had $10.4 Billion in assets, which slid to $3.4 Billion now. Moreover, he had also decided that if the case would drag long enough, he would consider closing the business. After all it’s all about the hard-earned respect and reputation he has earned being in this industry.

A Forbes article titled “Hedge Fund Billionaire Leon Cooperman Settles With SEC On Insider Trading Charges.” States that SEC had offered Cooperman the opportunity to settle the case agreeing to five-year industry ban. He instead chose to contest the charges in order to keep his reputation intact. Months after when the case was set for trial, the court approved the settlement of $4.9 Million in fines and penalties and agree to have an independent compliance monitor at his funds. The SEC has also provided the phone conversation of Mr. Cooperman and Executives in their report. Also looking at the transactions that Mr. Cooperman and his firms made, it clearly shows that he has received some kind of tip that he suddenly started buying APL securities. Yet, it is very hard to believe that he got off the hook without pleading guilty, with a smaller fine than expected, and still in business. 

Milan is a graduate student in the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Bibliography

Celarier, Michelle. “The SEC’s Biggest Insider Trading Case Is Heating Up.” Fortune Finance. Fortune, 18 Jan. 2017. Web.

Gara, Antoine. “Hedge Fund Billionaire Leon Cooperman Settles With SEC On Insider Trading Charges.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 19 May 2017. Web.

SEC VS LEON G. COOPERMAN. No. 2:16-cv-05043-JS. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 20 Mar. 2017. Web.

Posted by Ovais Ahmed.

An article posted on bloomberg.com talks about an appeal made by ex-Goldman Sachs trader Deeb Salem to get an extra $5 million he thinks he deserves in bonus money. He has already received $8.25 million and still wants to get more money out of his former company. I don’t understand why the trader can’t settle with the money he has already made, which is more than the average American would probably ever make. To me, it spells out nothing but greed. Salem states he helped Goldman Sachs earn $7 billion in profit and was sought after by many investment professionals in his industry. The article states:

In September, Justice Eileen Bransten denied Salem’s request to set aside a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority panel decision to dismiss his claim, and granted Goldman Sachs’s request to seal portions of the dispute with the former trader. Salem told a state appeals court in Manhattan today that the judge erred in her decision, according to a filing. Salem claimed he helped the bank earn more than $7 billion, and told the arbitration panel Feb. 25 that he was one of the most sought-after investment professionals in the mortgage industry. The panel, described by Salem’s lawyer as a ‘kangaroo court,’ didn’t let Salem call some of Goldman Sachs (GS)’ top trading executives as witnesses, resulting in a miscarriage of justice, according to his original petition.

Goldman Sachs claimed they gave Salem the opportunity to give his evidence, and followed through fully with the law in denying his award claim. Therefore, Salem has appealed the decision is continues his fight for the extra $5 million he believes he deserves due to his efforts at Goldman Sachs.

Ovais is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2015.

Posted by Giancarlo Barrera.

Goldman Sachs was infamously named “The Wolf of Wall Street.”   Goldman created, convinced, and sold mortgage investments that had been designed to fail in the first place.corruption at its finest.  It was corruption at its finest.  Goldman even went as far as betting against the same derivatives it was promoting and selling to their own clientele.  Goldman accepted that it misled investors the wrong way, but did not admit to any scheming or wrongdoing.

In July 2010, Goldman paid an enormous SEC fine of 550 milion dollars.  It was one fine after another.  Then in April 2012, Goldman paid a fine of 22 million dollars for allowing insider trading of non-public information to Goldman’s clients and traders since 2007.  On the link, the story goes into further detail of how much fraud and dishonesty was played under the table and behind the backs of its own clients, who the company was supposed to help invest their money in the first place.

Business is business.

Giancarlo is an economics and finance major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.