Posted by Amanda Marzigliano.

The well known Covid vaccine company Moderna sued one of its largest competitors, Pfizer, for patent infringement. Patent infringement is best defined as a “Violation of a patent owners rights with respect to some invention. Unless permitted by the patent owner, one commits patent infringement by making, using, offering to sell, or selling something that contains every element of a patented claim or its equivalent while the patent is in effect” (Cornell Law School). While many companies raced to develop vaccines in 2020, the company pledged not to enforce its patents. Yet in 2022, amended this pledge to begin enforcing its patents in higher-income regions.
Moderna received massive growth and popularity during the 2020 pandemic. But the company is more complex than just a Covid-19 vaccine – and has recently filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, a name that also saw its recognition grow during the pandemic. This was seen by surprise as the move came after Moderna agreed not to file patent suits while manufacturing and advertising Covid vaccines during the peak of the breakout. Peter Loftus, author of the book The Messenger: Moderna, the vaccine, and the Business Gamble That Changed the World, stated, “This lawsuit is no surprise to people who’ve followed the Covid-19 patent situation.” Several patent lawyers and Wall Street analysts speculated that Moderna could someday use its mRNA technology and mRNA in vaccines to sue Pfizer and possibly others, which predicted the lawsuit that was filed.
The best-case scenario would be Moderna proving that Pfizer copied bits of its IP to make its own vaccine because that would financially benefit them. Because they are both very competitive products that came out at the same time and advertise to do the same thing, it could become tricky to say who is in the wrong. But ultimately, Moderna could come away with a portion of Pfizer’s profit, which continues to sell billions of dollars’ worth of Covid-19 vaccines.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that both Moderna and Pfizer saw windfall profits as a result of their Covid vaccinations. Interestingly, while the Biden Administration is currently talking about a windfall tax on oil companies, I do not believe any discussion has come about regarding the record profits drug companies made on the Covid pandemic. Though one can certainly argue that in a capitalist society, such windfall profits can be expected in certain industries from time to time. With respect to the Moderna/Pfizer patent lawsuit, it will ultimately be decided by a judge. Moderna is claiming it is protecting its intellectual property whereas Pfizer is insisting it only utilized its own proprietary technology. Time will tell the outcome of this case.

Amanda is a business student at Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.
https://hbr.org/2022/09/moderna-v-pfizer-what-the-patent-infringement-suit-means-for-biotech

Posted by Kieran Durkin.

A Delaware Chancery Court judge ruled Thursday that Elon Musk has until Oct. 28 to close his acquisition of Twitter if he wants to avoid a trial, granting Musk a slight delay. He asked Twitter to end all litigation to close the deal, but they did not agree. He wanted them to change the original court date from 10/17 to 10/28 so he can secure the finances necessary, and Musk believes the trial will distract him from obtaining the finances he needs. After Twitter responded, lawyers said Musk’s team intended to close.

Twitter then claimed that Musk’s “proposal is an invitation to further mischief and delay.” Twitter had already sued Musk in July so he could stick to his purchase agreement signed in April. His text messages revealed he was ready to take this case to court. Twitter agreed to his offer in September, but they may walk away from the lawsuit since all the finances may not be situated in time. Morgan Stanley and Bank of America are among the banks that originally agreed to provide $12.5 billion in debt for Musk. Since then, the markets have tanked, particularly for risky tech assets.

Musk’s attorney thinks funding will be available by 10/28, so the deal should close. “The lawyers added that “counsel for the debt financing parties has advised that each of their clients is prepared to honor its obligations under the Bank Debt Commitment Letter on the terms and subject to satisfaction of the conditions set forth therein.” Each party should prepare to sort out finances on behalf of the terms of the Bank Debt Commitment Letter. Twitter agreed to close the transaction at $54.20 a share, and this is the first time they have spoken on the issue in a while.

Kieran is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/musk-seeks-to-stop-oct-17-trial-date-to-close-twitter-deal-on-original-terms.html

Posted by Mario Stampone.

The business law article that I have chosen to summarize and respond to is from The Wall Street Journal and is titled “CVS, Walgreens to Pay More Than $10 Billion to Settle Opioid Lawsuits.” The article explains that CVS Health Corporation and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. agreed to pay over $10 billion in a settlement. The settlement was needed to resolve lawsuits based on the opioid crisis, and the lawsuits were brought by states, cities, tribes, and other governments. According to the article, CVS and Walgreens, the two largest drugstore chains, “said they reached a framework to settle the collection of lawsuits brought by governments and Native American tribes blaming pharmacies for helping fuel the nation’s opioid epidemic” (Terlep). Under this deal, it has been said that “CVS would pay $4.9 billion to states and municipalities and $130 million to tribes over the next 10 years starting in 2023” (Terlep). In response to this settlement, CVS has stated that the settlement was not an admission of guilt. They have declared that they would continue to defend themselves against any litigation that was not resolved in the settlement.

Moreover, the article explains that Walgreens has offered to pay up to $4.79 billion over the next 15 years to states. They agreed to pay around $155 million to tribes. Walgreens is also expecting to pay about $753.5 million in attorney fees over six more years. Just as CVS did, Walgreens explained that the settlement was not an admission of guilt. Just because the settlements were agreed upon by CVS and Walgreens does not mean everything is over. The states, local governments, and tribes must still agree to participate. Their attorneys are encouraging them to join the settlement. If the settlement is agreed upon by both parties, the article says that “cities and counties have said they would use the money to bolster social services focused on the harms of opioid addiction as well as for funds for first responders” (Terlep). The money will not be directly distributed to families or individuals. CVS Chief Executive Karen Lynch has said that she supports the settlement, and she believes that states would join because attorney generals were part of the negotiations. Furthermore, the article goes on to say that the opioid crisis has taken over half a million lives and triggered over 3,000 lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits say that pharmacies did not do enough to stop the opioid crisis. Drugstores say they followed all regulations.

Back in August, a federal judge in Ohio “ordered CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart Inc. to pay $650 million over 15 years to two Ohio counties after a jury found the companies liable for contributing to the opioid epidemic” (Terlep). This case was closely watched, and it was the first decision in opioid lawsuits targeting pharmacies. CVS and Walgreens have paid various other settlements in the past few months, as CVS paid $484 million to the state of Florida for opioid-related claims. Additionally, the article highlights other lawsuits from pharmaceutical companies. Another example is Johnson and Johnson agreeing to a $5 billion settlement. J&J also said the lawsuit was not an admission of guilt. Moreover, CVS explained that spreading out the payments in the settlement will help the company reinvest in itself as it pays the settlement. CVS has been trying to expand itself from being only a pharmaceutical chain. They also want to be a medical provider.

All in all, I found this article to be very interesting. We have all heard of the opioid crisis, and we know the grave effects that it brought to so many citizens in America. I feel that it is good that some justice is being handed out, as the pharmaceutical companies that are partially responsible for the opioid crisis must now pay their fair share. Something that caught my attention from this article is that CVS and Walgreens, as well as other companies that have paid lawsuits in the past, such as Johnson and Johnson, all claimed that their settlements were “not an admission of guilt.” In my opinion, this is very disrespectful to say. The opioid crisis ruined the lives of so many people, and I feel that it is sickening that these big companies would just try to save their reputation by saying the settlements were not an admission of guilt. It makes it feel like these companies only settled to protect their reputation and move past the lawsuits, which is probably exactly what happened. Overall, I feel that this article has helped to reinforce my beliefs that these big companies do not care about doing right by the people. They just want to make a profit and protect their reputation so they can continue to make money. To conclude, I enjoyed reading, summarizing and analyzing this article, and I am glad that the pharmaceutical companies that were responsible for aiding the opioid crisis are facing some justice.

Mario is a finance and sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Works Cited

Press, Phil Velasquez/Chicago Tribune/TNS/Zuma. “CVS, Walgreens to Pay More than $10 Billion to Settle Opioid Lawsuits.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 2 Nov. 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/cvs-to-pay-5-billion-to-settle-opioid-lawsuits-11667358371.

Article Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/cvs-to-pay-5-billion-to-settle-opioid-lawsuits-11667358371

Posted by Natalie Hamblin.

America has been faced with an opioid crisis, leading to death, addictions, and overdoses. Three major retailers; CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart have all concluded on a settlement rounding out to $13.8 billion regarding their involvement with the opioid crisis. The three retailers have been dealing with lawsuits from state and local governments for years, accumulating over three thousand since 2017. CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens will have years to pay off this settlement.
If the retailers do settle on this, this would be the highest recorded opioid settlement with a retail pharmacy company. Most of the lawsuits accused the companies of downplaying the risks of opioids and not carefully watching for signs of patients trafficking their prescriptions. The three retailers in this settlement are the largest retail pharmacies in the United States. There have been settlements with smaller retailers, such as Johnson and Johnson, with smaller amounts of lawsuits and money settlements.
These retail pharmacies are at fault because they distributed the opioids without sharing knowledge of the side effects and strong addiction factors. Starting in the 1990s, pharmacies were promoting opioids as a safe and healthy way to treat one’s pain. Failing to mention that although it might help the pain, one can easily get addicted to the substance. During the COVID-19 pandemic, opioid dependence rapidly grew as an issue, increasing the overdoses caused by opioids. The opioid crisis is also a pressing issue in the economy. Since 2020 (Covid-19 pandemic) the opioid crisis has cost the economy $1.5 trillion within just two years. The hope is that this settlement will increase the retail pharmacies’ involvement in stopping the opioid crisis.

Natalie is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Link: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/cvs-walmart-walgreens-agree-pay-13-8-b-settlement-report

Posted by Ben Hutz.

One of Denmark’s Largest banks, Danske Bank, is under investigation for money laundering. The US and Danish authorities started their investigation in 2018 and it has been dragged on for years as they are trying to reach a settlement by the end of this year, 2022 . The reason behind this is they have been convicted of laundering money in Russia and other former Soviet states. They were able to do this because they have a branch in Estonia where most of the laundering happened.
The US treasury department is saying, “more than $230 billion flowed from Russia and other former Soviet states through its tiny branch in Estonia between 2007 and 2015. ” Most of the transactions were done mostly with US dollars and euros, but a large part of the money was illicit money. This not only hurts the bank of Danske, but Denmark’s reputation as a whole, as they were known to be the most transparent and least corrupt banks in the world.
This isn’t the first time that a big bank hasn’t been under fire as the HSBC holding, a UK bank, was linked to money laundering in Mexico in 2012. They got fined 1.9 billion dollars and other banks who have been found for similar money laundering accusations being fined up to 8.9 billions dollars. Danske Bank is estimated to be fined $2.1 billion. The public clearly thought that this was a light fine as when the news came out the bank’s shares rallied up 12% in that day alone. I agree with the public as they were able to launder money for years and it was over 230 billion dollars, which is over 100 times the amount of their fine.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/danske-bank-expects-2-1-billion-settlement-of-money-laundering-probe-11666885571

Ben is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Posted by Jiaqi Liu.

In recent years, the popular social media app, Tik Tok, has gained a strong foothold in the digital sphere. From cute puppy videos doing tricks, to pranks and trendy dance challenges, Tik Tok has become a platform where one can learn about almost anything and everything, including how to steal a car.
Groups of people around the United States, who have dubbed themselves the “Kia Boys,” have made viral videos that show how easy it is to carjack Kia and Hyundai vehicles with a USB cable and a screwdriver. According to an article by Rebecca Bellan, a writer at TechCrunch, ever since the “Kia Challenge became a trend, police in several cities have reported some serious car theft stats.” In fact, there was a 767% increase in Kia and Hyundai thefts. As a result, a national class action lawsuit against Kia and Hyundai was filed in federal court in Orange County, California on September 21.
The lawsuit alleges that “Kias built between 2011 and 2021 and Hyundais built from 2015 to 2021 that were equipped with traditional key engines, rather than keyless fobs, were ‘deliberately’ built without engine immobilizers.” These inexpensive and common devices are meant to prevent cars from being hot-wired and stolen. The shocking factor is that every carmaker over the last 20 years has this device installed. Hyundai and Kia declined to comment during the announcement of the lawsuit. Additionally, TechCrunch mentions supply chain issues stemming from the Tik Tok challenge.
A Forbes article, Kia, Hyundai Offer Owners Security Kits, Locks After Targeted Car Thefts, includes an updated statement from Hyundai Motor America. Hyundai notes that “Unfortunately, our vehicles have been targeted in a coordinated effort on social media.” Kia also acknowledged that “no car can be made completely theft-proof,” but the company is concerned about rising thefts in certain areas.
As a solution, since October 8, Hyundai started selling a Compustar Firstech glass-break sensor security, which costs customers an additional $170 for the kit and installation fees. Nevertheless, both Kia and Hyundai said in an updated statement that the companies are looking to update their software to prevent theft, according to the previous Forbes article.
On a personal note, the main issue is, how ethical are Kia and Hyundai’s action in protecting their consumers? I mean, for the average middle class person, a car might not be expensive. But think of the single parents working double shifts, the teenagers who were finally able to buy their first car, or people who need a car to be able to work. For those people, getting their car stolen, not receiving support from the company, and then having to pay additional fees like $170 is almost ridiculous! Additionally, since only older versions of Hyundai and Kia cars were deliberately built without engine immobilizers, demographics who cannot afford newer versions are placed at a higher risk. Also, not to mention that Hyundai and Kia did not do their “due diligence” or, perhaps simply did not want to install the necessary devices to protect their consumers. Lastly, aside from monetary damages that can exceed $10,000, potential physical and psychological effects could arise from the shock of a theft.

Kia, Hyundai sued after viral TikTok causes rise in thefts

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/kia-hyundai-car-thefts-security-kit/

Jiaqi is a public relations major, Seton Hall University, Class of 2023.

Kia, Hyundai sued after viral TikTok causes rise in thefts

Posted by Kevin Donovan.

In recent legal news, LinkedIn scored a long-awaited victory when the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that website user agreements that forbid data scraping are enforceable in a breach of contract claim.
In 2017, hiQ Labs, a data analytics company, was issued a cease-and-desist order from LinkedIn accusing the company of illegally web scraping and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Web scraping is a common practice of obtaining information about potential clients and is often done by robots. Companies that perform data gathering argue that web scraping is vital to the success of their businesses.
In turn, hiQ Labs obtained an injunction against LinkedIn, claiming that data scraping of public sections of people’s profiles does not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The U.S. District Court sided with hiQ Labs. The Court stated that this type of activity does not constitute unauthorized use since the data was obtained from public portions of the website. This decision was affirmed on appeal in 2019 by the Ninth Circuit.
In 2020, LinkedIn asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its original decision. Their argument was that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could only be violated when the access was unauthorized.
In 2022, since they were not successful in claiming that hiQ Labs violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, LinkedIn used a different strategy. They argued that they should be given a summary judgement on a breach of contract claim since hiQ Labs agreed to the terms of their user agreement before accessing their website. The Court agreed with LinkedIn stating that hiQ Labs breached LinkedIn’s user agreement.
The recent hiQ decision is in line with other decisions from the Ninth Circuit, such as Facebook’s suit against BrandTotal. In this case, the Court upheld Facebook’s breach of contract claim. Facebook argued that BrandTotal failed to inform them that they were collecting user’s personal data, thus violating their terms of service.
According to the article, LinkedIn’s victory “is good news for a number of businesses because it offers a pathway for fighting scraping and other user violations.” But the article warns that this means businesses must be vigilant in enforcing their user agreements when they become aware that a violation has occurred. In other words, companies must consistently enforce their terms of use. Despite LinkedIn’s recent victory, there remain many unanswered questions about the legality of data gathering.

Kevin is a business administration major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Article used:
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-court-rules-favor-linkedin-s-breach-contract-claim-after-six-years-cfaa-data

Posted by Trevor Russomanno.

An Uproar Over Movies

Over the past few years, streaming service have become a prime source of entertainment for people around the world. There is so much competition in this market as each service is trying to gain more subscribers than their opponents are able to. Because of this, many people have opted to avoid going in person to movie theaters to watch new films. In an effort to regain this public outing that was liked by so many at one point in time, the company MoviePass was developed. Simply said, their service allowed users to pay a base fee of $10 per month and would be able to enjoy one movie in theaters per day for an entire month. When created in 2017, this idea seemed to be brilliant, however, things would change very quickly.

In an article posted by Denny Jacob on The Wall Street Journal, the downfall of this company is explained. When the company was created, the CEO’s J. Mitchell Lowe and Theodore Farnsworth expected it to succeed exponentially. Because of this, they devised a plan to increase the company’s stock in an effort to gain more shareholders. This, however, did not occur as the price they were charging users, became unable to sustain. This story did not stop here, though, as the two former CEOs were brought to court as charged in a securities fraud case.

In 2019, the company officially closed after multiple efforts to keep its name afloat. At this point, both men were indicted with charges regarding the idea that “…[they] knew the monthly offer wasn’t sustainable and promoted it to drive up the Helios stock price” (Jacob). Additionally, they had been charged with making false claims regarding the data analytics they would receive. This would have been another source of income for the company to cover the unsustainable overhaul they attempted to achieve. To conclude, this case can be viewed as something quite significant as many companies may do something similar to drive up their stock prices. Ultimately, though, it ends it poor outcomes for those in charge as they are faced with multiple charges and lose the short-term success of their company.

Trevor is majoring in marketing and IT management at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-moviepass-executives-are-charged-in-securities-fraud-case-11667602204

Posted by Janki Desai.

Amazon is one of the biggest suppliers in the world for many people, including internationally. With the help of Amazon, consumers can easily buy better-priced products, or so we think. Amazon was recently faced with a one-million-dollar lawsuit in the United Kingdom against their “feature offer” button, leading to customers paying more for products instead of less. This meant that their better value deals were being hidden, so the pricier options were shown instead and are being filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal in October.

The case explains that sellers on Amazon are constantly being ripped off through the Buy Box section. The article states that Amazon uses a “secretive and self-favouring algorithm to ensure that the Buy Box nearly always features goods sold directly by Amazon itself or third-party retailers who pay hefty storage and delivery fees to Amazon.” Buy Box is a section on Amazon that leads customers to choose “Buy Now” or “Add to Basket.” According to the specialist law firm conducting the litigation, Hausfeld, the damages from this will be around one billion dollars if it succeeds.

There have been too many instances where more prominent companies have taken advantage of smaller companies and their consumers. One of the partners of Hausfeld, Lesley Hannah, explains that the design of the Buy Box does the opposite of what Amazon advertises and instead makes it harder for customers to purchase cheaper products. On the other hand, an Amazon spokesperson stated that “without merit and we’re confident that will become clear through the legal process,” expressing that Amazon is very big on supporting the 85,000 businesses in the UK. Amazon stands up and explains that their company has always been about selling with low prices and fast delivery.

The Competition and Markets Authority inserted a probe into the United Kingdom Amazon company, fearing that it “may be anti-competitive and could result in a worse deal for customers.” These types of lawsuits are scarce in the United Kingdom as they “opt-out,” meaning it falls on every individual unless opted out. The change in the new law in the UK was one of the main reasons the “opt-out” method was used in different lawsuits against Meta and Google. Amazon will continue to fight this case as many people convert to the “opt-out” process.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/20/amazon-faces-class-action-lawsuit-in-the-uk-over-antitrust-claims.html?&qsearchterm=business%20lawsuit

Janki is majoring in finance and marketing at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2025.

Posted by Jessica Wasik.

Two of the three articles linked explore the case of Jenny Mitchell, who after years of using L’Oreal hair relaxers and hair straighteners, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer which was “directly and proximately caused by her regular and prolonged exposure to phthalates and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in defendants’ hair care products” (Krawitz).

Personal injury lawyers from Stark & Stark took on her case and stated the young 30-year-old’s feelings of having the chance to be a mother stripped away from her due to false advertisement of the products. Unfortunately, this is not the only lawsuit that L’Oreal is facing for “litigation focused on false advertising, consumer protection violations, and deceptive statements made in marketing and ESG reports,” as reports from March 2022 state many of the company’s mascaras were found with PFAS in them (Gardella).

L’Oreal being amongst the biggest cosmetics companies, owning not only their L’Oreal products, but also many companies such as Khiels, Lancome, Yves Saint Laurent, Ralph Lauren, Maison Margiela, Garnier, and many others, has presented itself an issue a multitude of times. From using harmful chemicals to testing on animals and refusing to make statements on these issues, L’Oreal is successfully able to slide these issues under the rug. Although it should be, in lack of better words, common sense, that a company out of decency and care for their customers warns them about their use of harmful chemicals and their side effects, it is often not practiced by big companies such as L’Oreal. Due to this misinformation, or lack of information, many consumers have found ways to explore these side effects themselves – by either researching the formulas of their favorite products, or by trusting phone applications such as Yuka which allow a person to scan the barcodes of products for a description of the chemicals and a rating of how “clean” these products are based on their formulas. Although both techniques have flaws – both from people researching and not understanding the different chemical names and chemical compositions certain chemicals may have, and Yuka not accurately defining the concentrations of the ingredients – they are steps in the right direction.

Although L’Oreal should be held accountable and pay for the damages of Mitchell’s treatments, are there legal advancements that will be made (or can be made) to prevent big companies from mass producing harmful products, or is it not regulated enough? The PFAS discussed earlier were not researched earlier due to not being on the ingredient list. This disqualifies the argument that the consumer is held responsible for researching the ingredients of their cosmetics, considering even a trained researcher would have trouble inferring the presence of PFAS unless otherwise looking for them.

Jessica is a chemistry major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2024.

L’Oreal Hair Straightening Products Linked with Uterine Cancer (natlawreview.com)

Woman Sues L’Oreal Over Claim Hair Straightener Spurred Uterine Cancer (usnews.com)

L’Oreal PFAS Lawsuit ESG Marketing (natlawreview.com)