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 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 Stephen D’Angelo.

Just six hours after New York Attorney General placed a temporary injunction, which would stop sites like Fanduel and DraftKings from doing business in New York, an appellate court saved them by issuing an emergency temporary stay that will allow New Yorkers to continue to use Fanduel and Draft Kings until further notice. This stay will last at least till the end of the year which is likely when a permanent decision will be made, “Eventually, both sides will go before a panel of four or five appellate judges” Randy Mastro said, from an outside council for DraftKings.

The State of New York is likely to win the case because of the wording of their law on gambling. Fantasy football gambling sites commonly use the defense that they don’t take wagers, they take entry fees. In many states, this allows them to continue to do business. But, New York is stating that their penal law does not refer to “wagering” or “betting.” Instead it states that a person, “risks something of value.”

Although New York has the upper hand, the laws in place are very vague. The statement regarding risking something of value had no relation to online fantasy sports gambling when created. It was worded this general because that would include gambling bookies in a gambling law. I personally do not believe that Fantasy sports gambling will be shut down in New York. The NBA, NHL, and MLB all own equity in Fanduel and the likelihood of the 600,000 New Yorkers who play daily fantasy to not be able to in the New Year is very slim.

Stephen is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, 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.

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 Melissa Nomani.

Lawsuits filed against Lumber Liquidators claim that homeowners who put certain laminate flooring into their home are being exposed to high levels of formaldehyde. This puts them at risk and also lowers the value of their property. As of this July, the number of lawsuits filed against the company has gone up from only a mere ten in June. Many lawsuits began being filed after a 60 Minutes episode that aired on March 1, 2015, exposing the high levels of formaldehyde in laminated flooring made in China. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and has been linked to cancer and respiratory problems. A study done by 60 Minutes showed that 30 out of 31 of the tested flooring samples (all of the sample were Lumber Liquidators products).

According to a study conducted by 60 Minutes, 30 of 31 flooring samples from Lumber Liquidators did not meet formaldehyde emissions standards. It is estimated that thousands of people have Lumber Liquidators flooring in their homes. Some lawsuits claim that homeowners have suffered from respiratory problems after installing the laminate flooring.

Another issue that has risen is that Lumber Liquidators is being accused of false advertising and selling products comprised of particles that come from endangered habitats and trees. The US Department of Justice is investigating the company for their alleged use of wood. The wood was illegally cut down from Russia–this directly violates the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act does not allow for the importation of products made from woods that are illegally logged.

Furthermore, this past May, Lumber Liquidators CEO, Robert Lynch, resigned. During this month the company also announced that it would be suspending the sale of flooring from China. The company offered homeowners free  indoor air quality screening, if they had purchased laminate flooring from China.

The number of lawsuits against Lumber Liquidators continues to grow.

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

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.