The Delaware Supreme Court has recently handed a major blow to corporate directors and officers who believe the attorneys employed in their legal department necessarily have to keep everything under wraps.  The Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund, a Walmart shareholder, filed suit against the directors and officers claiming they knew their employees may have been engaged in a sweeping bribery operation in Mexico.  But the company argued any communications made by its legal department is privileged and could not be disclosed for the purposes of the lawsuit.

The attorney-client privilege is a sacred one because it allows people to freely discuss their problems openly with their attorneys without fear that what they discuss can be used against them.  Courts, however, in extreme circumstances will allow a party to pierce the privilege and force an attorney to divulge these confidential communications.   Company officers have been abusing the privilege by using company attorneys to bounce-off ideas in order to concoct what may be tantamount to an illegal scheme and then shifting the responsibility to the legal department knowing that any communications have to be kept confidential.

Generally, the attorney-client privilege would have to apply in these situations, unless an employee is brave enough to be a whistle-blower.  But not everyone wants to step-up to the plate in these circumstances because, even though there are laws to protect them, whistleblowers fear the stigma that accompanies it.  Moreover, not all crimes are covered under the whistleblower laws, therefore, some nefarious conduct by corporations will go undetected.

Nevertheless, the Delaware Supreme Court articulated that the owners of the companies are really the shareholders; thus, the attorneys working in the legal department work for the shareholders. The court held the allegations made by plaintiffs Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust “‘implicate criminal conduct’” under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The court further held that since the pension fund was a stockholder, the information “‘should be produced by Walmart pursuant to [an] exception to the attorney-client privilege.’”  As a result of the decision, the pension fund can now use the information to decide whether there was any wrongdoing.

Posted by Sydney J. Kpundeh.

The famous over the counter drug Tylenol was at the center of a case that was brought before a Pennsylvania federal district court in early November. The case involved a lady who had taken Extra Strength Tylenol for many years to treat various conditions. In Mid-August of 2010, she underwent lumbar laminectomy surgery and afterwards she was instructed by her doctor to take Regular Strength Tylenol in conjunction with Lorcet, a prescription drug containing acetaminophen, but not to exceed 4 grams of acetaminophen in a 24-hour period. For approximately two weeks, she used the Regular Strength Tylenol, as instructed, until the bottle ran out, after which she began using Extra Strength Tylenol. At some point, she stopped taking the Lorcet due to its side effects. On August 29, she unfortunately was diagnosed with acute liver failure and died two days later.

After her passing, her sister filed a products liability lawsuit, “including claims for defective design and negligent failure to warn against McNeil, which manufactures the drug, and Johnson & Johnson, McNeil’s parent company.” Her sister insisted that the defendants knew that Tylenol could cause liver damage when taken at or just above the recommended dose. Also, she claimed defendants were liable for the her sister’s death because they had failed to warn her of the “risks of injury and/or death.” The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the sister had not offered sufficient evidence to support her failure to warn claim.

Under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine, there are two factors that must be shown to find the scope of a manufacturer’s legal duty. The first is that there is some potential danger and the second is that there is a possibility of a different design to avert that danger. In this case, sufficient evidence was presented to show that the manufacturers knew or should have known that Extra Strength Tylenol could cause liver damage. The facts also showed that the manufacturers were working to find a substitute. Finally, the evidence also showed that the plaintiff’s sister died of acetaminophen-induced liver failure after taking Extra Strength Tylenol as directed.

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

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by MaryAnn Spoto, brings to question whether or not Rutgers University violated the New Jersey open public meetings law, during one of their meetings held back in September of 2008. Francis McGovern Jr, a lawyer as well as audience member of this meeting, objected to the way these meetings were promoted and handled. McGovern noted that audience members waited over four hours while board members discussed issues behind closed doors. Once the board of governors finally reassembled, many audience members had grown tired of waiting and already left.

McGovern also noted that the Rutgers board of governors failed to mention topics discussed behind closed doors such as talk of Rutgers new football stadium. She stated, “This case is about governmental transparency,” and believes these long and tedious closed sessions dissuade public attendance. During her case, she asked that the court make it mandatory for Rutgers to hold public meetings first. She believed that by not bringing to light all issues discussed among Board of Governors, that Rutgers violated the law.

Although many may argue that McGovern had reason behind her case, the Supreme Court still ruled that Rutgers University was in compliance with the law. The court did not believe that Rutgers conducted their meetings in a way that discouraged public attendance. The court also stated that Rutgers Board of Governors did not violate the open public meetings law.

However, the court did agree that lawmakers should in fact look into tightening the law. Discussion of tightening this law would allow citizens the opportunity to challenge public organizations trying to get around the law. All in all, Rutgers University was pleased with the court’s decision.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Dan Lytle.

David Ganek, the former owner of a hedge fund in Greenwich, Connecticut, had lost his business in 2013, three months after an FBI investigation took place for alleged insider trading. Two years later, in 2015, Ganek attempted to sue the FBI for $400 million, citing “lost income and lost business reputation.” The reason Ganek went through with the lawsuit is because he did not believe it was fair to investigate his office when he was not involved with insider trading. However, the Second Circuit panel disagreed, saying, “there was at least a fair probability to think that his office was a place where evidence of an insider trading scheme would be found.” While some evidence was found to hold against Ganek, he was not ultimately charged for anything. Ganek still does not believe this was right to do, since it cost him his business. He said of the situation, “’this is a dangerous day for private citizens and a great day for ambitious, attention-seeking prosecutors who are now being rewarded with total immunity even when they lie and leak.’” Just recently, it was announced that Ganek had lost this case against the FBI.

In my opinion, the FBI was acting both legally and morally in searching the office of David Ganek for insider trading evidence. From a legal perspective, the FBI searched the office because they had reason to believe there was evidence present in order to uncover a larger insider trading scheme. Furthermore, morally, the FBI acted correctly, as their search aimed to crack down on insider trading. While I do believe that it is not right that FBI agents can be rewarded with immunity when investigating businesses, this is an exception, as the investigation of this “hedge fun and others sent shockwaves through Wall Street’ and led to the indictment of investment bankers and traders.” Therefore, while Ganek was not necessarily guilty of insider trading, the FBI was able to use information found throughout the raid of his hedge fund that led to the arrests of others, which is a crucial factor as to why Ganek lost this lawsuit.

Speaking legally, the FBI was protected under Amendment IV of the Constitution, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, in this case, the FBI had probable cause to search Ganek’s hedge fund, as they believed that Ganek’s hedge fund was involved with an insider trading scheme. While the Fourth Amendment states that nobody can be unreasonably searched, it also mentions that “upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, persons or things [can] be seized.” In short, while Ganek did not agree with the ruling because he believed the FBI was granted “immunity” for searching his office and causing his hedge fund to fall apart, the reality is that the FBI acted legally according to Amendment IV.

Dan is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Sources:

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/53ca32d894c44c5ea64185ab462b6e72

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Posted by Aliyah Ponton.

A former executive, Andrew Caspersen, at a New York investment bank admitted swindling investors of more than $38 Million. As a result, he was sentenced to four years in prison. During court he told the U.S. District Judge, Jed Rakoff, “I chose gambling over everything.” The Judge cited his gambling as a reason for leniency. Andrew Caspersen is 40 years old and is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School. He also defrauded his job, PJT Partners Inc., of over $8 Million.

Caspersen is the son of the late Finn M.W. Caspersen, who was a philanthropist and former chief executive of Beneficial Corp. “I destroyed my family’s name,” said Caspersen. In the court room it was packed with family and friends as well as members of organization he has joined. Many of his friends and families argued for leniency to the judge. Rakoff imposed Caspersen’s prison term by giving him way less then the 15 years that was entitled for by the sentencing guidelines and also less than the 7 ½ years recommended by the Probation Department.

Caspersen stole from his friends, family, and from investors. He took advantage of his Wall Street pedigree and even stole from charities. “Using his Wall Street pedigree, Andrew Caspersen deceived and defrauded investors – including his own family and friends and a charity – out of tens of millions of dollars,” said the U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. When faced by the judge Caspersen said that he was dedicated to continuing treatment for his gambling addiction but Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Magdu said Caspersen failed to follow through with his gambling addiction treatment. She also added that Caspersen quit therapy after only seven sessions. In the end, after going to court and fighting for leniency, Caspersen was sentenced to 4 years in prison.

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

Source:

http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/feb61e4e2ac8475b9110b70ba45e9928

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/executive-ny-bank-years-prison-38m-fraud-43313982

Posted by Gabriella Campen.

Unfortunately, in this day and age being well-known in Wall Street circles also happens to be synonymous with being well known by the SEC. The SEC has recently charged hedge fund manager Leon Cooperman, 73, of insider trading by using his easy access to executives to gather information, which he used to buy securities from a company called Atlas Pipeline Partners.  Cooperman’s information led him to buy more securities in the firm, right before the stock’s value soared over 30% due to the company’s $682 million dollar sale of a natural gas processing facility.

After the suspicious buy, the SEC filed a federal lawsuit in Philadelphia, and accused Cooperman of abusing his access to executive information, “By doing so, he allegedly undermined the public confidence in the securities markets and took advantage of other investors who did not have this information,” said SEC Enforcement director Andrew Ceresney.  Along with barring Cooperman from any positions as a director or officer in the future, the SEC is seeking restitution of profits as well as money penalties from Cooperman and his firm, Omega Advisors.

However, Cooperman’s attorneys, Ted Wells and Dan Kramer have released a statement claiming that these allegations are “entirely baseless” and that “Mr. Cooperman acted appropriately at all times and did nothing wrong. We intend to vigorously defend against the charges and will not allow the SEC to tarnish the legacy Mr. Cooperman has built over the course of a legendary career spanning five decades.”  Cooperman is firing back and defending his career and reputation, to which the SEC is saying that they “will continue to pursue relentlessly those who engage in insider trading, regardless of their status or resources.”  This comes as a lesson that no matter who you are or how much power you have on Wall Street, you are still not exempt from following the law.

Gabriella is a marketing and finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Carter McIntosh.

Valeant is a very large pharmaceutical company that focused on creating a “drug giant that was focused on distribution.” Valeant “was” one of the hottest stocks on Wall Street; this stock was booming; the stock soared all the way to $260 in just months. Wall Street analysts and Hedge Funds loved Valeant and everyone wanted to own it. Valeant has been in the news lately, and it is not good news but rather some very bad news. Allegations now follow Valeant and whether or not they have true success or that there true success can be attributed to “price gouging: a secret network of specialty pharmacies; and fraud.” With these allegations surfacing, Valeant stock has “plummeted 60% in the last three months.”

Valeant has been under scrutiny for a while now, dating all the way back to August 14th, 2015. In August, Valeant was being scrutinized because they raised the price of their drugs. On October 5th, 2015, a study by a Deutsche Bank analyst finds that it is not just two drugs that they raised the prices. The report concludes that Valeant has jacked up prices on 54 other meds this year alone, by an average of 66%.” In response to this issue, Valeant CEO Pearson said during an earnings call on October 19th, 2015, that “Valeant will ease up on its strategy of buying up drugs that are mispriced and hiking the prices.”

On October 20th, 2015 “A report by Citron Research, run by activist short seller Andrew Left reveals more information about Philidor and it’s network of phantom captive pharmacies.” Left accused Valeant of committing accounting fraud; furthermore, Left compared “Valeant to companies like Enron.” Two days later on October 22nd, 2015, Valeant “called Left’s reports erroneous. The company says it hasn’t used Philidor to book false sales. It says Philidor is a separate company, but that Philidor’s financial statements are included in Valeant’s financial statements.” With this allegation surfacing Valeant shares have plummeted 30% in just three days.

As more and more information surfaced about Valeant’s relationship with Philidor, on October 30th, 2015, “Valeant says it is cutting ties to Philidor, and that the pharmacy will shut down immediately. Allegations have emerged that Philidor may have changed prescriptions to push Valeant’s high-priced drugs on patients, rather than the generics.” Bill Ackman, the largest shareholder in Valeant held a “four – hour conference call to defend Valeant,” as he believes in Valeant’s business strategy and that the company would not commit accounting fraud and price gouging. Unfortunately, this course of action did not help Valiant. In fact, after the Bill Ackman conference call, Valeant shares fell another 10%.

Carter is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Samar Baeshen.

According to an October 21, 2015 news article in The New York Times, “Criminals Should Get Same Leniency as Corporations,” there are many critics arguing that corporations trying to make a big effort to defend their misconducted executives ought to be treated like common criminals. In addition, Emmet G. Sullivan, a federal judge, thought that criminals should be treated like big companies. Due to Obama administration’s method which gives companies the opportunity to not have a criminal record, Judge Sullivan believes that individual criminals should enjoy the same chances. In fact, the Department of Justice officials concur with Judge Sullivan’s opinion, which criticizes the American criminal justice system, and encourage Congress to lower the adjudication standards. Meanwhile, the Justice Department issued a new memo recently and released new approaches to prosecute individual employees after years of accusations about Wall Street criminals.

According to Judge Sullivan, the court is frustrated that the postponed prosecution agreements are not being utilized to give the same chances to individual criminals without causing any negative effects on the criminal conviction. Moreover, there are lack of the postponed prosecution agreements, according to the Justice Department, for both corporations and individuals. However, comparing the number of cases against individuals and companies, cases against individual criminals are enormously more than companies.

In general, the target of the Judge Sullivan’s argument is to reduce the long Sentence for prisoners who did not commit violent crimes.

Samar is a graduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University. 

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has come under fire recently with the release of secret tapes supposedly of regulators planning to “go soft” on Goldman Sachs.  Carmen Segarra, a former employee who was assigned to Goldman, claims in a lawsuit that she was under pressure by her superiors to overlook certain findings she made concerning the company.  The Fed eventually fired her allegedly because she refused to comply and change the findings.

In the recordings, one supervisor tells Segarra that basically consumer laws do not apply to certain institutions.  Michael Lewis, best-selling author of “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt,” said after listening to the tapes that, “The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived.”

Segarra’s lawsuit was dismissed for failing to connect her firing with the alleged Goldman disclosures.  The suit is pending appeal.  Nevertheless, the tapes may prompt a Congressional investigation into the matter.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, stated, “When regulators care more about protecting big banks from accountability than they do about protecting the American people from risky and illegal behavior on Wall Street, it threatens our whole economy.”  She further stated, “Congress must hold oversight hearings on the disturbing issues raised by today’s whistleblower report when it returns in November.”

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.

Posted by Briana Brandao.

This article, written by Jenna Pizzi, on March 02, 2015, argues whether or not a union of New Jersey business groups should be mandated to provide paid sick leave to its employees in Trenton. As of now, seven New Jersey municipalities possess a local paid sick leave law. A lawsuit was filed in state court on behalf of these New Jersey business groups on Monday, March 2nd. They claimed that the new law was unconstitutional. As stated by the business groups, “The ordinance allows the city to reach outside its given powers by forcing requirements on employers.” They also asked that the law be banned from taking effect within the upcoming week.

The reasoning behind this possible injunction is that business groups feel the new law tries to reach outside the boundaries of Trenton. As stated per the lawsuit, “The law as written seeks to reach outside the city boundaries to impose the law on business owners that are not located in Trenton but have employees that work here.” The business group’s attorney, Christopher Gibson, also argued, “Trenton’s mandatory paid sick leave ordinance is vague, ambiguous and . . . impossible to interpret, administer or implement.”

Although New Jersey business groups make valid points, the new ordinance faces great controversy as a vast number of voters approved it earlier on in November of 2014. Trenton spokesman, Michael Walker, even went on to say, “Trenton voters demanded that the ordinance become law and the city is preparing to enforce it.” If Trenton’s paid sick leave ordinance were to take effect, it would mean that for every thirty hours worked, a worker would be eligible to earn one hour of sick time. For New Jersey businesses with ten employees or more, it would result in a maximum of five sick days per year. For New Jersey businesses with less than ten employees, it would result in up to three paid sick days per year.

The increase in paid sick days would allow employees the opportunity to take care of themselves as well as any immediate family members who may need care. However, it is important to note, if employers offer better benefit packages, they are not required to award more paid sick time to their employees.

Briana is a business administration major with a concentration in management and fashion studies at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Patrick Cleaver.

Every law is made to help the public, to protect the safety of the driver, and deliver a reliable car. The car industry knows they make mistakes and are responsible for fixing the damages for free when such mistakes occur and cars get recalled. However, does a used owner know that he/she is able to get his/her car fixed for free once it had been recalled? Most people do not know that a dealer will fix the car for free after it has been recalled, so the damages are never fixed. The car, marked as dangerous, is instead sold at auctions and then sold again without ever being properly taken care off. While this may end up with nobody getting hurt, doing leaves a huge risk at the buyer’s expense.

Delia Robles was one of the unfortunate people who had been taken advantage of by this system and it ended up costing her much more than she bargained for, getting killed by a defective airbag. Ms. Robles was driving a 2001 Honda Civic on her day off from work when she hit a pickup truck. An accident that would normally end with her walking away unscathed turned into her death bed. The car she was driving has been sold five times over a fourteen-year span and was most recently bought by her son who had no idea that the car was not safe. The information which had not been released to him is that the car was never fixed after it had been recalled for problems with its airbags.

The car was equipped with Takata airbags which “have been linked to 15 deaths.” The airbags were not safe due to being made out of product that wore out over time. That meant that the airbag was a time bomb waiting to explode and Ms. Robles is the one who triggered it. When hitting the truck the Honda had released its airbags which burst and sent metal pieces flying at and killing Ms. Robles.

The issue at hand is that there are no safeguards which prevent deaths like these from occurring. The previous owner is not reliable for not fixing the car like a dealership would be had this happened to a new car. That owner is also not responsible for informing the new owner of the risks they are taking by buying the car. The auction simply sells the car “as is” and does not say whether or not the car is safe to buy.

While there are no federal laws protecting the consumer of accidents in used cars, there are state laws which are implemented in order to keep people safe. According to the New York State law, a seller is not allowed to conceal a material defect because that is a fraudulent action. Also, the New York State auctions are not allowed to sell vehicles “as is” unless they are government agencies. This is a step forward towards the right (safe) way, but does not fix the problem because the Department of Finance takes advantage of it. This department still allows clear negligence by huge companies which can lead to more incidents like the one Ms. Robles experienced. CarMax is a great example of this problem. “CarMax, one of the country’s largest used-car dealers, advertise that their vehicles pass rigorous safety tests – even if the cars have unrepaired problems for which recalls have been issued.” These companies are basically misleading the customers, making people believe that their cars are safe when in reality they could be death traps.

No malice can be proven in the case of Ms. Robles since it has had so many past owners and neither her son, nor the owner before him were aware of the recall on the Honda. Unfortunately, Ms. Robles was a victim of a broken system and now the 50 year old will never get to see her three grandchildren grow up.

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

Posted by Kimberly Culcay.

In the article, “What Types of Legal Cases Require a Forensic Accountant,” Henry Rinder describes what a forensic accountant really is and the need for such a professional. The article discusses that there is a difference between a traditional accountant and a forensic accountant. A forensic accountant combines accounting knowledge and legal expertise to help their clients, from individuals to small and large businesses. The forensic accountant is a person that exhibits a curiosity that allows him or her to figure out if a company is hiding something. Some of the legal cases that require forensic accounting are criminal investigations, fraud, shareholder disputes, and divorce. For example, it is common in divorce cases for one party to hide assets to prevent splitting up everything they have.

In criminal investigations forensic accountants help find key elements to help law enforcement officers investigate crimes. Forensic accountants have some duties when being involved in criminal investigations, such as analyzing personal and business documents, tracing and recovering hidden assets, and tracking and reconstructing transactions and wire transfers. From the information provided above, it is easy to see that the need for forensic accountants in the field is growing rapidly. Fraud is something a traditional accountant may stumble upon in their career, but a forensic accountant is a person whose job is to detect it. As stated in the article, some of the duties forensic accountants have when helping with fraud investigations are detecting employee theft and fraud, investigating embezzlement, looking for inconsistencies in financial filings, assessing financial losses, and assisting with insurance claims and restitution orders or agreements.

Fraud falls under the investigative side of a forensic accounting because in a sense the accountant is acting as a detective. The other side of a forensic accountant is they can testify as an expert in court. Personally, I never expected for a forensic accountant to be involved in divorce cases, however if makes sense that a forensic accountant will usually assist in dividing assets and other valuables owned by one or both spouses during the marriage. Asset tracing is a key way for a forensic accountant to detect if someone has tried to conceal assets. Amongst others, some of the duties forensic accountants have helping with divorce cases are evaluating a spouse’s personal and business statements, tracing assets, debts, income, determining the value of concealed assets, ensuring equitable distribution and helping with divorce negotiations. Overall, the forensic accountant is there to help a spouse so that he or she has an opportunity for a fair and equitable distribution of the assets.

I think that with the evidence presented in this article it is evident that there is a need for forensic accountants in legal cases when it relates to finances. Forensic accounting is interesting to me because I always wanted to be a detective, but I knew that the job market was not going to consistent.  Therefore, it is exciting to find out that forensic accountants can serve the public in this way.

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

Reference: Rinder, Henry. “What Types of Legal Cases Require a Forensic Accountant.” Smolin Lupin. 7 Oct. 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2015. .

Posted by Tommy Donofrio.

Every motor vehicle must display a license plate signifying that it has been properly registered with the appropriate state or local government. Symbols, colors, or slogans representing the cultural heritage of each state are typically included in the license plate design of each state or jurisdiction. Upon registration, a unique alphanumeric identifying number is assigned to the user. Sometimes, individuals, businesses or organizations remit additional fees to be able to display custom or personalized license plates. These plates, which may help raise awareness and funds for specific causes or groups, must adhere to particular guidelines. That is, perhaps, until now. Recently, the Supreme Court was called on to decide if the “decision to exclude the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) from the specialty license plate program violated the organization’s free speech rights under the First Amendment.”

Not surprisingly, this is the first time the Supreme Court is called on to clarify the law surrounding specialty license plates. The Supreme Court will determine if a message on a specialty plate is considered to be a form of “private” or “government” speech. If it is private, then the First Amendment protects the message. For the Sons of Confederate Veterans, this means that they have the right to display the confederate battle flag to “honor the reputation of soldiers who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War” even though the state of Texas finds this message racist and offensive. Conversely, if the Supreme Courts determines that specialty plates are a form of government speech, as Texas officials claim, then the state “is allowed to select the message that it is willing to publicly support.” The Sons of Confederate Veterans will not be able to freely express their message.

Although it may seem a trivial issue, it has far reaching ramifications. The Supreme Court’s decision is important because it will influence every state and local jurisdiction going forward. According to Richard W. Garnett of Notre Dame Law School, the ruling will effect “all of the many, many ways that government property and funds facilitate expression and communication.” If the court sides with the state, both individuals and businesses may be hindered from raising awareness and revenue through the use of personalized plates in the future. A decision is expected by early summer.

Tommy is a business administration major with a concentration in management at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Katie Kim.

In the technology industry, two leading companies may be heading to the Supreme Court over the design of smartphones. There is no confirmation of whether or not the case will be accepted, but the Supreme Court has not taken a design patent in over a century.

A few weeks ago, Samsung agreed to pay Apple $548 million in damages over a design patent but did not agree to it as part of a settlement. Apple took Samsung to court on the grounds that Samsung intentionally and knowingly copied Apple’s iPhone designs. Apple prides themselves on their innovation and when the threat of copycats infringe on their innovations it takes away from their profits. Apple submitted evidence that showed the evolution of the Samsung product increasingly resembled the Apple iPhone

At trial, Apple convinced the jury that some of the designs Samsung used on their smartphones, like the rounded rectangular corners and touch screen made of smaller icons, were taken from and patented by Apple.

On the other hand, Samsung argued that the law under design patents was misapplied. The law is meant to protect “ornamental” features that are not part of the products intended function. Samsung lawyers feel that this should have been made clear to the jury.

On Monday, Samsung filled an appeal to the Supreme Court. The company argues that the legal framework behind designed patents is flawed and out dated for the modern digital world. “The law was written for a time long before the smartphone was invented,” said Mark A. Lemley, a law professor and director of the Stanford University program in law, science and technology. If Samsung is left to stand with a sweeping rule against it then it will “lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies.”

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

Posted by Joe Zichelli.

The entrepreneurial spirit that was once a driving force in America is under attack due to egregious government overreach and licensing requirements that are putting hard-working and dynamic Americans out of work – even in some cases costing them their livelihood as well as thousands of dollars in fines. Occupational licensing – the need to secure a government permission slip to perform a specific job – is an oppressive force on small businesses and the backs of countless Americans trying to make an honest living. This unconstitutional overreach must be corrected and the government must once again recognize economic liberties as a substantive right and one that cannot changed.

Occupational licensing is a problem that is morally disturbing and a direct impediment to the success of various businesses throughout the United States. Occupational licensing can be summed up as “permission slips” from the government allowing one to work, as defined by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm concerned with defending civil rights from government infringement.[1]   In addition to this simply making it harder to succeed, more often than not, poorer people as well as minorities and immigrants are more adversely impacted as a result of these licensing requirements because they are the ones who are unable to pay for the required education or even the license in order to comply with the laws promulgated by various states. Since they cannot afford the license or education requirements, they are subjected to a fine, imposing another financial burden – and yet another road bump on the path to success.

The number of industries that require licensing is absurd and only growing. These industries include but are not limited to, florists, casket builders, hair braiders, barbers, and eyebrow threaders. In analyzing something like hair braiding or eyebrow threading, many times people emigrate from other countries and work doing the aforementioned tasks as a way to earn an honest living. Quite often the state in which they work requires them to obtain a cosmetology license, even though while attending beauty school the type of braiding or eyebrow threading is not taught. This is a process that can cost thousands of dollars and consume hundreds, if not thousands, of hours. There are countless examples of professions that require licenses as an arbitrary means to protect an industry; the funeral business and florists are two that are frequently impacted as well. [2]

One of the most upsetting cases of occupational licensing happened recently in the bustling city of Memphis, Tennessee. On January 18th, 2017, Elias Zarate was cutting hair in his barber shop when “the barber police” entered and found that the license he had on display was not authentic. Although Zarate believed the license was authentic, the barber police shut his operation down and began legal proceedings against him, simply because he did not possess a piece of paper to cut hair. Eric Boehm, who published the story in an online article, describes the situation that landed Zarate in the barber shop, writing:

Zarate had dropped out of high school. He’d made it to the 12th grade, but he had a failing GPA and spent most of the school day sleeping through classes because he was exhausted from working a series of after-school and weekend jobs. His mother had died when he was just 10 and his father had left the family soon after, leaving Elias and his two younger siblings in the care of relatives. [3]

Because Elias did not complete high school or obtain a GED, under an amended law in 2017, he would be unable to attempt to get a barbering license because he did not complete high school. As frustrating as this is to lovers of liberty and entrepreneurs, Elias was equally frustrated, noting that “I don’t feel like anything in my entire schooling from grade school through senior year had anything to do with my barbering skills”[4]. The truth of the matter is neither Elias nor any other student in any public high school learned the skills necessary to be barber. For Tennessee to require a high school degree in order to obtain a “certificate of registration as a master barber” is an example of the government prohibiting someone from earning an honest living. It is wrong, unjust, and must be changed.

In addition to being inundated with fear from the barber police, Elias was not afforded any legal representation in his hearing before the administrative law judge and was left to fend for himself – much like he was left to do when his mother passed away and his father abandoned the family, – except this time it was to defend his right to earn a living. In addition to the fines, Elias could face a Class A misdemeanor, which could impose a penalty of up to 11 months and 29 days in jail – all for working without a government permission slip.

The Declaration of Independence reminds us of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are rights that cannot be infringed upon – and this is exactly what is happening to Elias. His rights to ensure his own happiness and to secure his own liberty, as well as his right to earn an honest living and provide for his family, are being grossly trampled upon by an overreaching government that has no business or constitutional authority to do so. It is time for a change to licensing requirements and it is imperative for states to get out of the way of small business owners and entrepreneurs. Until these changes are enacted, thousands of people like Elias will face the burden of a government that is anti-business and in favor of arbitrary “protections” that effectively monopolize industries. This is not the American way…
Joe is a political science/pre-law major at the College of Arts and Sciences, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/19/barber-cops-bust-high-school-dropouts

[1] http://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensing/

[2] http://ij.org/report/license-to-work/

[3] http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/19/barber-cops-bust-high-school-dropouts

[4] Ibid.