Posted by Joseph Locorriere. 

The fundamentals of business, something that America has practiced for decades and which was proven to be the correct way of managing a business, include running an ethical business, such as taking proper care and recognition of employees and customers as well as the surrounding environment. However, as America continues to stray farther from these values, businesses continue to find themselves in situations which is tantamount to malpractice. It is no longer as common to see businesses acting ethically as it was like years in the past, mainly due to short run profit maximization. Morgan Stanley, one of the top banks in the country has once again acted unethically towards customers. Like many instances, this business was focused on volume of sales and not ethics, also considered short-run profit maximization, due to the sole fact of making as much money as possible without concern of the public good.

Similar to the 2008 occurrence of selling faulty loans such as NINA loans (No Income, No Asset) or sub-prime mortgages that intentionally fooled the buyer into thinking they would afford their mortgage, Morgan Stanley sold Security Based Loans (SBLs) to customers, allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty. Brokers were incentivized by a $5,000 bonus for meeting loan quotas, which was intended for boosting the companies’ volume of sales. By incentivizing the employees with a bonus they disregarded customers overall satisfaction; instead they focused primarily on volume. Although Morgan Stanley boosted their profits by $24 million in new loan balances, they are being taken to a court of law for business malpractice. Morgan Stanley states that, “The securities-based loan accounts were opened only after discussing the product with each client and obtaining their affirmative consent” (Zacks.com). Although this may stand true, it still violated Morgan Stanley’s fiduciary duty to customers of informing them of their investment.

It is unfortunate to see businesses continue to perform unethically towards customers, as well as employees. Longevity, reputation and long-run profit maximization are no longer commonly displayed. Morgan Stanley in this case should have stayed with giving a bonus, but should have not forgotten about the fundamental values they hold as a broker, which is to inform clients on investments, whether it be positive or negative news. Sadly enough, this is another example of America’s current business strategy that fails to be aware of the public good.

Joseph is a finance student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Connor O’Reilly.

On October 15th California Governor Jerry Brown signed several employment related bills into effect. These bills have been crafted and designed to change laws regarding the state’s employers. “The newly-enacted laws address a range of topics, including criminal conviction history, salary history and sanctuary immigration policy.”

The governor’s first major law bans inquiries regarding salary history when applying for a new job. “California will now prohibit all employers from inquiring about or relying upon salary history information of an applicant as a factor in determining whether to offer employment or an applicant’s salary.” This law was created in order to deter pay inequalities in regards to gender, race and ethnicity. This bill adds a completely new section to the Labor Code which applies to employers on both a state and federal level.

Next, California just passed a “Ban the Box” law which prohibits pre-application questioning regarding criminal records. In an effort to thwart discrimination and promote equal opportunity employment, “California will now prohibit all employers with five or more employees from inquiring into or relying upon an applicant’s criminal conviction history until an applicant has received a conditional offer of employment.” Further, if an applicant has a criminal record, employers are required to conduct individualized assessments on the conviction history including severity of the offense, the time that has passed and the nature of position sought. Their decision must be calculated, explained to the applicant, and be in compliance with California’s Fair Pay Act.

Additionally, California now declares itself a Sanctuary State and will prohibit employers’ compliance with newly passed federal immigration laws. This controversial law makes it illegal for employers to voluntarily permit federal immigration agents from searching private workplaces without a warrant. There are also several other regulations regarding time requirements before searches and harder requirements to obtain Employment Eligibility Verification from already employed workers. The penalties are extremely harsh for disregarding these laws which range from $2,000 to $10,000.

Without a doubt, California is creating laws that give more power and rights to workers. By eliminating salary history in the application process, each applicant will be given a salary solely based on their skills. California’s “Ban the Box” laws also promote equality in hiring and negate discrimination towards people with criminal records. Yet the new law prohibiting businesses from complying with Federal laws is extremely concerning and shocking. This is clearly a backlash at President Trump and his harsh crackdown on illegal immigrants, yet it will prove to be very taxing on the business owners of California. Overall, I believe California is creating important laws to give rights back to the working class, but creating laws that go against federal law will cause issues down the road.

Connor is an business administration major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/recent-deluge-california-legislation-imposes-new-requirements-employers

Posted by Mariafernanda Ayin.

Best Buy is considered one of the biggest electronic selling corporations, but not even the biggest companies can avoid problems. Best Buy has been selling products like TVs, computers, and appliances such as washing machines that have had recalls.  These recalls have been one of the biggest headlines in the past couple of months in the electronics industry.

Federal Law states that it is illegal to sell and distribute products to consumers that have been publicly recalled. Best Buy, allegedly knowing that they were selling recalled products, told the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission that they had created measures to stop the risk of selling recalled products, however they continue to do so. Therefore, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission decided to penalize Best Buy because the company was not able to effectively create procedures to be able to identify, separate, and avoid selling recall products. In addition, Best Buy failed to block the product code which caused them to get erroneous information that indicated that the recall product was not in inventory.

Best Buy is being blamed for selling over 16 different products and a total of 600 recall items from September 2010 through October 2015—400 of the items being Canon cameras. Some of the items sold had a risk of skin irritation, and even catching on fire, which could have caused enormous harm to the customers. Best Buy is a company that has shown a clear lack of ethics by knowingly selling and distributing recall products just to make a profit, not caring about the well-being of their customers. This unethical act caused Best Buy to settle and pay $3.8 million of civil penalty in thirty days and in addition the company needed to create a compliance program to show that they are strictly following the laws and regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Act.

After the settlement was made, Best Buy sent a spokesperson to publicly address the situation, making an announcement after the settlement, “we regret that any products within the scope of a recall were not removed entirely from our shelves and online channels. While the number of items accidentally sold was small, even one was too many. We have taken steps, in cooperation with the CPSC, to help prevent these issues from recurring.” (Kieler).

This whole dilemma that Best Buy has been through has put them in the eye of the public, and could of possibly affected their sales. However, they still remain one of the biggest companies in the electronic business, and most likely will surpass this situation.

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

Posted by Carlos R. Rodriguez.

The article “Ex-U.S. Tax Court Judge, Husband Indicted in Tax Case” written by The Associated Press mainly discusses the topic of how a former U.S. Tax Court Judge, Diane Kroupa and her husband, Robert Fackler have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax evasion, making and subscribing false tax returns and obstruction of an IRS audit, U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger announced. The charges were brought in Minnesota and allege that the couple conspired to evade at least 400,000 dollars in federal taxes. In a statement, U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger stated that “Tax laws apply to everyone, and those of us appointed to federal positions must hold ourselves to an even higher standard.”

Diane Kroupa was served as a tax court judge by then-president George W. Bush in 2003 and retired in 2014. The charges brought on her and her husband allege that between 2004 and 2010, the couple understated their taxable income by about $1 million and they owe at least $400,000 in taxes. Also, federal prosecutors accuse Kroupa and Fackler of fraudulently deducting at least $500,000 of personal expenses they listed as expenses at Fackler’s consulting firm, and another $450,000 in purported business costs for which clients had reimbursed Fackler, the Star Tribune reported. Kroupa also failed to report about $44,520 that she received from the sale of land in 2010 in South Dakota instead of claiming it as an unrelated inheritance which was stated in the court documents.

In my opinion, as a Tax Court judge, Diane Kroupa should be held to a higher standard of ethics. Also, any tax cases for which she was present should be investigated because Diane’s judgment is clearly out of line if she is found guilty for these charges. Given her comprehensive understanding of tax laws, it should be obvious to her that reporting personal expenses as business expenses is a way to defraud the IRS and it was done intentionally in order to evade taxes. Going forward, a solution to an issue of this nature should be that government officials should be checked for things like tax evasion more often because if their moral judgment is incorrect, their decisions can be detrimental to the country as a whole.

Carlos is a graduate accounting student with a certificate in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Charles Batikha.

Ransomware is similar to a Trojan horse. Imagine receiving an email from a non-familiar email address. The email claims to be the IRS claiming you are being sued for tax evasion and instructed to click on a link to a website. You are skeptical, but what is the worst thing that could happen if you click on the link. Malware was the virus used when ransomware was first introduced, but more recently website URL and deceptive pop-ups are being utilized. Home computers are not the only victims, business and even government systems have been breached as well.

Upon clicking on the link your browser becomes frozen, unable to use your computer a message pops onto the screen informing you of the encryption of your computer. This renders it useless and a fee is charged for the encryption key, which will cost anywhere from $200 to $5000. This is the newest “variant” called Crypto-Wall or Crypto-Wall 2.0. Interestingly enough, the scammers instruct victims to purchase bitcoins to be used for payment. Bitcoins have become much more popular among criminals because of the concealment of their identity.

Ransomware has also begun to hit smartphones, locking them as well. I personally have fallen victim to this type of ransomware. A message popped up stating that I must contact Apple to unfreeze my phone, but every time I closed the pop-up the notification would come up again not allowing me to use my internet. I called the phone number on the message, and I noticed that the phone line was a Google number, which made me a little suspicious. Immediately after someone answered the phone, they gave me a scripted explanation of how my system was locked and I need to give them my credit card number for a fee for them to unlock my phone. Fortunately enough, I did not pay the fee and hung up on the pleading receptionist.

A way I have found to refresh your phone from ransomware is to clear your website data in the setting of your phone. This has given me the use of my internet after being hit with ransomware. Updated anti-virus software on your computer is another preventative tactic. Using a pop-up blocker and not fumbling with unsolicited emails are other great tips as well.

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

Online fraud is alive and well. About 4,550 people have been scammed by foreigners posing as IRS personnel and telling them they are about to be sued for unpaid taxes. The Treasury Inspector General, J. Russell George indicated they are working on bringing to justice the perpetrators of “‘the largest of its kind’” scam, yet taxpayers are urged to remain on “‘high alert.’”

According to George, a scammer will call an unsuspecting individual, claiming to be from the IRS. The “scammer tells the person that they have unpaid taxes and threatens him or her with a criminal violation, immediate arrest, deportation or loss of a business or driver’s license unless they settle the fees via a debit card or a wire transfer.” People have a hard time telling whether the call is legitimate because the scammers either use a robocall machine that leaves a message stating it is the IRS and they are being sued, or callers giving the last four digits of the victim’s social security number, or fake emails appearing to come from the IRS.

One of the ringleaders officials caught, Sahil Patel, is serving a 14 year sentence in federal prison for organizing call centers based in India, as part of the U.S. side of the scam.

Posted by Issam Abualnadi.

Tax is a sum of money levied on incomes, property, sales, etc., by a government for its support or for specific services. (The American Heritage Dictionary). According to the IRS website, the origin of the income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913; however, history, it actually goes back even further. During the Civil, War Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. The tax was repealed ten years later. In 1894, however, Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.

The 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, removed this objection by allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals without regard to the population of each State. (IRS Website). The sole purpose of income tax is based economics and social goals.( Income Tax Fundamentals 1-2). While the government tries to maximize its revenue, at the same time, Congress tries to make the tax law suitable and fair for each individual. Therefore, the tax law not only divides the taxpayers into categories upon their income, but also it allows them to minimize their taxes due by structuring their tax return in different methods. Unfortunately, not every citizen is law-abiding in this respect, and accordingly, some taxpayers break the tax law. In the foregoing, I will discuss the differences between tax avoidance, tax fraud, and tax evasion.    Avoidance of tax is not a criminal offense. According to the IRS, taxpayers have the right to reduce, avoid, or minimize their taxes by legitimate means. One who avoids tax does not conceal or misrepresent, but shapes and preplans events to reduce or eliminate tax liability within the parameters of the law. Take for example, Warren Buffett. Buffett wrote in The New York Times in 2011 “ Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent” ( The New York Times). But how Buffett can do that?

Buffett and many other super rich people use different tax rules to avoid paying taxes, like the “cash-rich split-off.” This code mechanism is used when Company (A) puts cash or other “investment assets” plus a business into a subsidiary that it then swaps tax-free to Company (B) in return for B’s holding of A’s stock. In 2010 Graham Holdings and Berkshire (Warren Buffett’s corporation), saved a total of about $675 million in federal and state income taxes by going the “cash-rich split-off” route. Graham Holdings is trading cash, Berkshire stock that it owns, and a TV station for most of Berkshire’s 23 percent stake in Graham Holdings. Tax avoidance matches the well-known saying, “Work smarter not harder.” Also, it is worth mentioning that massive tax avoidance draws attention to the notion of the efficiency of the tax codes, and the need to produce new rules or restrictions prevent such legal tax evasion. (The New York Times).

Tax fraud is another way some taxpayers use to minimize their tax liability. According to the IRS website, tax fraud “is deception by misrepresentation of material facts, or silence when good faith requires expression, which results in material damage to one who relies on it and has the right to rely on it. Simply stated, it is obtaining something of value from someone else through deceit.” (IRS Section 25.1.1.2). According to IRS’s definition of tax fraud, not all the mistakes in preparing a tax return are considered a fraud, and in order to consider a case as a fraud, two elements should be presented:

1. An additional tax due and owing as the result of a deliberate intent to evade tax; or

2. The willful and material submission of false statements or false documents in connection with an application and/or return. (IRS Section 25.1.1.1). Generally the expression “Tax Fraud” used for civil and criminal cases.

The third area is tax evasion. Tax evasion, “Involves some affirmative act to evade or defeat a tax, or payment of tax. Examples of affirmative acts are deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, attempts to color or obscure events, or make things seem other than they are” (IRS Section 25.1.1.2.4). “It is typically used in the criminal context, and it is a subset of the tax fraud.”

Tax fraud and tax evasion are very close in their meaning; both are illegal way to reduce the tax liability. The IRS indicates tax fraud by two major indicators. The first indicator is when the taxpayer knowingly understates their tax liability often leaving evidence in the form of identifying earmarks. The second indicator is that serve as a sign or symptom, or signify that actions may have been done for the purpose of deceit, concealment or to make things seem other than what they are. Usually the IRS cannot prove that to court, because taxpayer can easily claim a good faith misunderstanding of the law or good faith belief that one is not violating the law negating willfulness. Therefore, the IRS chooses to prosecute the taxpayer civilly for underpaying taxes. In such cases, the IRS can impose a tax fraud penalty, which is 75% of the tax owed plus the interest on this penalty. On the other hand, tax evasion is a subset of tax fraud. In tax evasion cases, the very difficult burden for the IRS is to prove the willfulness, which means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. (IRS, Section 25.1.1.1) To prove fraud, they must show the court that the taxpayer did the act deliberately for the purpose of deceit. Examples include omissions of specific items where similar items are included; concealment of bank accounts or other assets. (ISR Section 25.1.1.3). So if the IRS can prove that, then it is a tax evasion case. In tax evasion cases, the penalty range is up to five years in jail plus a big fine and plus the costs of prosecution for each separate tax crime.

In conclusion, the tax law was created to enable the government to support the economical and social activities in the American society. The lawmaker enacted some tax codes to help eligible taxpayers reduce their tax liability under exact conditions, but some still try to deceive the government by using illegal means.

Issam is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Works Cited

“Sixteenth Amendment.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008. The Gale Group 17 Nov. 2014. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixteenth+Amendment

tax.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. 2003. Houghton Mifflin Company 23 Nov. 2014 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tax

“Brief History of IRS.” Brief History of IRS. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. .

Whittenburg, Gerald E., and Ray Whittington. “The Individual Income Tax Return.” Income Tax Fundamentals. 2014 ed. St. Paul: Cengage Learning, 2014. 1-2. Print.

“Internal Revenue Manual – 25.1.1 Overview/Definitions.” Internal Revenue Manual – 25.1.1 Overview/Definitions. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. .

BUFFETT, WARREN. “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich.” The New York Times 14 Aug. 2011. Web.

Members of organized crime, drug dealers, and terrorists transact their “business” in cash to hide their tracks. As part of a scheme to launder money (make it look it was earned legitimately), criminals will deposit their ill-earned cash in bank accounts. In response, Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act, requiring banks to assist the government in catching money launderers.

Under the Act, banks are required to report any cash transaction or combination of cash transactions in excess of $10,000 to the IRS.  Knowing this, criminals resort to structuring. Structuring is the deliberate parcelling of a large cash deposit into a series of smaller transactions in order to avoid detection by regulators. When bank officials suspect structuring is occurring, they are required to file a suspicious activity report, or SAR, and notify regulators of what they believe is happening.

In Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994), the Supreme Court found that government had to prove that defendant acted with knowledge that structuring is unlawful. As a result, Congress removed the “willfulness” requirement making it easier for the government tor prosecute structuring cases. The IRS, however, has been seizing assets of legitimate businesses and individuals without any proof or any charges filed. Small business and individuals can be a target. In one case, the IRS seized $66,000 from an Army sergeant’s college savings account, even though the sergeant was told by the bank teller to make smaller deposits in order to avoid taxes. Removing the “willfulness” requirement makes structuring a strict liability crime.

In a written statement, Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, said, “After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year . . . IRS-CI will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with ‘legal source’ structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level.”

Business law students study the corporate entity and learn from the beginning that since corporations are legal persons they can be charged with crimes.  Corporations cannot be imprisoned, because they have no physical body, but they certainly can face monetary penalties. Such was the recent fate of Credit Suisse.

Credit Suisse pled guilty to one count of “intentionally and knowingly” helping many U.S. clients prepare “false” tax returns.  For decades, Credit Suisse bankers fabricated “sham entities” to help hide the identities of U.S. clients who did not claim the Swiss accounts on their tax returns. They also failed to maintain records related to those accounts, destroyed documents sought by the U.S. government, and helped U.S. clients draw money from those accounts in ways that would not raise a red flag to the IRS. Out of the $2.6 billion, $1.8 went to the Treasury Department, $100 million to the Federal Reserve, and $715 million to the New York State Department of Financial Service.

The monetary penalty is the only punishment levied on the bank, as government officials feared anything further, such as ceasing operations, would have had a detrimental effect on the global economy. Moreover, top bank officials who were involved in the scheme will keep their jobs, even though there were calls for them to resign by their own statesmen.

Reportedly, the Department of Justice is looking to bringing charges against France-based BNP Paribas for similar offenses. But without some officer or director accountability, there will be no deterrence.

Posted by Gerald Wrona.

Interesting. That is one word to describe the NY Times report on the pre-trial proceedings of the Libyan Investment Authority’s (LIA) suit against Goldman Sachs (Anderson). Acting as broker-dealer to the sovereign wealth fund, Goldman established a relationship with the fund’s managers in 2007. A year later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was visiting Moammar Gadhafi in Libya’s capital to devise a “trade and investment agreement . . . which will allow the improvement of the climate for investment.” (Labbott). Shortly after that promising convention between the two political heads, Goldman and the Authority finalized the agreement and the bank sold derivative products totaling $1 billion to the LIA. Then the housing market “opened its mouth” and out came the demon of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Understandably, the LIA felt exploited. They bit the bullet. Their lawyers came to the London High Court armed with notions that those managing the sovereign wealth fund were ineffectual in understanding the investments presented to them by Goldman. To add insult to insult, they further asserted that the fund administrators were altered in their judgment by Goldman representatives’ leadership role in incidents allegedly involving the recreational consumption of alcohol and visits paid to what may have been brothels, or some other manufacturer of night entertainment, though a witness statement does not specify. Considering that it would never have been in Goldman’s interest to spend more time carousing then working on the deal with the authority, it is highly unlikely that the time spent in leisure outweighed the hours dedicated to the investigation of the necessary facts of the deal.

Though it is worth noting that Goldman has already been ousted for luring investors into crummy deals and then betting against those deals to increase revenue. This is how Goldman actually made money off the subprime mortgage crisis (Cohan).

Will evidence be disclosed that suggests Goldman dealt with the LIA in a similar way? It’s impossible to know. I believe the judge will find that the heart of the matter is whether Goldman conducted due diligence in their dealing with the LIA. For that reason, Robert Miles, one of the attorney’s representing Goldman, would do well to look to the Securities Act of 1933 for support. It states: “If a Broker Dealer conducts reasonable due diligence on a security and passes the information on to the buyer before a transaction, the Broker cannot be held liable for non-disclosure of information that was not found during the investigation.”  Securities Act of 1933, SEC §§ 38-1-28 (SEC 1933).

The trial is expected to start next year.

Gerald is a Business Administration and MIT major at Montclair State University, class of 2017.

Posted by Deena Khalil.

There are two sides of every story. According to Kelly Wallace who works for CNN, “It’s a case of she said versus they said.”

Rachael Cunnings, a young girl from New Jersey, accused her parents of throwing her out of their house when she turned eighteen. They refused to pay for her private school tuition, and so she sued them for expected future expenses, such as transportation, bills, college tuition, and living expenses.   The teen’s parents argue “that she was not kicked out of the house. Instead, they say she left on her own back in October because she didn’t want to abide by their rules.” There were many claims against each side, such as Rachael’s parents not liking her boyfriend, missing curfews, getting suspended, and apparently the teen’s parents were abusive.

The judge in the New Jersey Superior Court denied Cunnings request for high school tuition and living expenses. “The judge sounded skeptical of some of the claims in the lawsuit, saying it could lead to teens ‘thumbing their noses’ at their parents, leaving home and then asking for financial support.” There was another hearing that took place the following month about other issues in the case including her college expenses. Before the hearing, Rachael dropped the case; she was accepted by Western New England University with a $56,000 scholarship. In the end, the teen did not end up empty handed.

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

Posted by Ashley Scales.

On February 22, 2018, Palantir was ordered to open their books to an investor who was seeking U.S. fraud probe.  The judge ruled, “Data analytics and security company Palantir Technologies Inc. must open its books to early investor Marc Abramowitz.”  Abramowitz wants to investigate possible fraud and misconduct at the esteemed private U.S. Company.  He sued the firm after a 2015 falling out with the company’s chief executive officer, Alexander Karp.  The lawsuit claims that Palantir prevented Abramowitz as well as many others from selling their stock in the privately owned company, while allowing sales by Karp and Chairman Peter Thiel.

Judge Joseph Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery said that Abramowitz showed “a proper purpose of investigating potential wrongdoing and a credible basis to justify further investigation.”

Through the KT4 Partners LLC fund he manages, Abramowitz invested an initial $100,000 in Palantir in 2003.  According to Judge Slights’ 50-page opinion, Abramowitz’s investment is now estimated to be worth about $60 million.

Abramowitz and Karp had a close relationship until their falling out in 2015.  Karp “verbally abused” Abramowitz and accused him of taking intellectual property from the company.  Soon after their falling out, Abramowitz tried to sell his stock in Palantir, but he claimed that the company blocked the deal by making an offer of newly issued stock to the potential buyer.  According to Slights, Abramowitz began pursuing information from Palantir while he considered suing the company for blocking the sale of his stock.  In September 2016, in response to the potential claim against the company, Palantir sued Abramowitz for supposedly stealing trade secrets.  In a comment, Palanti said that they plan to continue to pursue their case against Abramowitz.

Abramowitz brought his case to Delaware in March 2017.  Palantir claimed that Abramowitz “should be denied information because he was likely to use it to build his lawsuit over the blocked sale”.  Judge Slights ruled, “Abramowitz could investigate Palantir’s lack of annual meetings, corporate amendments that limited KT4’s rights and the company’s sales of stock”.  However, Abramowitz would not be allowed to investigation Palantir’s value or Karp’s compensation.

Ashley is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

IKEA, the popular low-cost furniture manufacturer, recalled 27 million “Malm” dressers.   Three children were recently killed as a result of the defect in design.

The company was on notice of the tendency of the furniture to be top-heavy, but did nothing to address the issue until the death of a 22-month-old child earlier this year.  In addition to the recall, the company offered to send crews to people’s homes to tether the dresser to the wall.

“On average, one child dies every two weeks from falling TVs or furniture. At least six deaths have been connected to Ikea’s Malm dresser.”

Posted by Jessica Page.

In 2008 and 2009, there was a huge salmonella outbreak traced to peanut butter produced by the Peanut Corporation of America. Nine people died from this incident and 700 were reported ill. The $30 million company was shut down and liquidated after the incident and the CEO, Stewart Parnell, was indicted and prosecuted. In late September, he was sentenced 28 years in prison.

What’s intriguing about this article is the comparison to the GM faulty ignition case. In this particular incident, the defect caused 124 deaths and over 200 injuries. GM has recently settled for $900 million and a three year prosecution agreement. The major difference between the two cases though – indictment of employees. Preet Bharara, one of the best federal prosecutors in Manhattan, explained, “it is unusually difficult to prosecute auto industry executives” and because of the national auto safety laws, there is a call for punishing the corporation as a whole, rather than any one individual.

The main conviction in the salmonella case is the fact that Parnell committed fraud by “knowingly introducing tainted peanut butter paste into interstate commerce.” The fact of the matter is though, there were GM executives who knew about the faulty ignition but failed to report it within the five-day span. The company itself was fined as a corporation for this matter, but there was not specific indictment of GM executives. The real issue at hand is how much harder it is to prosecute auto executives when it comes to cases of product liability. There is currently a bill that many senators are working to pass that would make this process easier and hold executives accountable, if they were knowledgeable of the faulty auto product or provided false statements to consumers, as GM did. This could change future product liability cases within the auto industry and as Senator Blumenthal stated, “one sentence like Parnell’s [within the automotive industry] would change auto safety dramatically and enduringly.”

Jessica is a finance and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Michael de Andrade.

A threat to European nations, Facebook is being seen as a social media giant who are stripping Europeans from their freedom. Facebook is being accused of “collecting digital information about people who are not its users,” by the Belgian Court’s. Many of the “Continent’s data watchdogs,” including the European Court of Justice, have been giving Facebook and other American technology companies a difficult time for the way they “gain access to, manage and use people’s digital information” because to these European “watchdogs,” Facebook is violating Europe’s strict data protection rules that preserves individual’s privacy to the same power as the “fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression.

The hearing was held in Brussels, Belgium on Monday, November 9th, where Facebook was denied the ability to “collect and store online information from people in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network” stating that Facebook did not have “individuals’ consent to gather the information.” With this decision, the Belgian Court took further action by stating that if Facebook fails to comply with the court’s decision, they’ll receive a “daily fine worth up to $270,000.” Facebook didn’t settle and in response they stated that they have used “cookies for more than five years without facing privacy complaints,” and that they are going to appeal the decision to the Belgian Court of Appeal. As the wait continues, Facebook is being further investigated by five European privacy regulators, which are from Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, to see whether or not the “company’s new privacy conditions run afoul of their countries’ domestic data protection rules.”

In the end, Facebook is trying to combat these accusations by stating that only the Irish data protection authority has jurisdiction over its new privacy conditions because Facebook’s international headquarters are in Dublin. The position grew vastly in the last month after the European Court of Justice “gave national authorities greater powers over how companies like Facebook and Google store online data.” Facebook will continue to fight for what they believe are their rights, despite the judges’ ruling that the United States do not offer sufficient protection for Europeans if their data was misused by companies or by government agencies. The issue is still recently new and there are many situations yet to be settled.

Michael is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Posted by Wing Sze Yu.

In this article, Facebook intends to appeal a data privacy ruling in Belgium. This privacy ruling forces social media to stop collecting digital information from people who are not its users. There is a tough line about how American technology companies, such as Facebook, gain access to, manage and use people’s information on their website even for the European Court of Justice, as well as the European Union’s highest court. In Monday’s ruling, a court in Brussels states that Facebook has no right to collect person information in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network.

Prior to the data privacy rule, Facebook had collect data from people’s online activities, both Facebook users and non Facebook users through digital cookies. Facebook responds that it had been using digital cookies to collect information without facing complaints, so it would appeal the ruling. Yet, Facebook promised to stop collecting online information from people in Belgium who do not have a social media account.

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

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  Abercrombie allegedly denied a muslim woman a job at a Tulsa, Oklahoma store during an interview.  She was wearing a headscarf, which Abercrombie determined violated its “look policy.”  The “look policy” at the time was classic East Coast collegiate style.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Abercrombie ruling the muslim woman never indicated she needed a religious accommodation as required under federal law.  The EEOC argued Abercrombie was on notice that an accommodation was warranted because the woman was wearing the headscarf at the interview.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a business operating with less than 15 employees (religious institutions exempted) must provide an accommodation for an employee’s religious observances, unless doing so is an undue burden for the company.  Examples of undue burdens could include, but are not limited to, costing the company more than ordinary administrative costs; workplace efficiency diminished in other areas of the business; infringing upon another employee’s job rights or benefits; impairing workplace safety; adding burdens on co-workers by forcing them to carry on the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work; or conflicts with another law or regulation.

The High Court will decide the case next year.