Posted by Gregory Scavelli.

Super storm Sandy had a devastating impact on the North-Eastern portion of the United States, areas like Long Island, New Jersey and Connecticut got trashed because of the regions un-preparedness in cases of the storm. To bring in a personal connection, the area that I am from on Long Island got it particularly bad, the Long Beach boardwalk that was a staple of the town since 1914 was completely broken down and destroyed and after that the town went into rebuilding mode. Now Long Beach is for the most part is better than the way it was before the storm. This was happening the other regions as well, the Jersey Shore was another area that got hit particularly badly. It’s been 4 years since the storm, but now that the re-building process is almost complete a lot of problems are steaming from it.

Since the storm New Jersey state prosecutors have filled criminal chargers to 161 cases for over 15 million dollars on account of fraud. More than one third of those cases have been fired this year. An example of an Ocean County motel pleaded guilty to falsely claiming that he had sheltered Sandy victims to get $81,000 in federal funds.

The problem facing many of these corporations is that many of them have no ethical business policies. For example raising the price of gas in the time of a crisis is very unethical because in most of these crisis situations people are low on money and making the pay extra for basic needs is unethical. Also, taking personal benefit in a crisis situation is also unethical, the example I earlier about the motel using falsified records to get reimbursed is just taking a situation in which people are suffering and using it for gain. Which is just a very un-ethical way of doing business.

Gregory is a sports management and marketing major with a minor in legal studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Cullen Dana.

Timothy Livingston, a business owner of Whole Lot of Nothing LLC, pleaded guilty to “hijacking customer’s email accounts to send unsolicited ‘spam’ messages.” He also admitted he and his fellow employee, who pleaded guilty along with another employee after Livingston did, created a “software that appropriated a corporate website belonging to a New York-based technology company in order to use its servers to send spam that appeared to be from the company.”

The man generated, according to his prosecutors, “$1.3 million and property” from his hacking scandal. Livingston entered “his plea in federal court in Newark, New Jersey to three counts” one being “conspiracy to commit fraud and related activity in connection with computers and access devices.”

Livingston agreed to give up $1.35 million as well as the property he gained from the scandal. He is scheduled to be “sentenced January 27, 2017.”

Cullen is a marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Azhanae Evely.

I am going to tell you about my first encounter with being inside of a court room.  I was given a ticket for “No parking in a handicap zone.”  Through this experience, I learned a lot about how to prepare for a court hearing and what it is like being in court.

I live in East Orange, New Jersey, and there is a requirement for the overnight parking.  In front of where I normally park are two handicap spots back to back.

I woke up one morning finding a parking ticket. The ticket stated, “Court Appearance Required: The undersigned further states that there are just and reasonable grounds to believe that you committed the above offense and will file this complaint in this court charging you with that offense.”

The very first thing to do if you get a ticket is read the ticket. I had never thought to turn the ticket over and read the print there. Had I not read the back of the ticket, I would have been missed these words:  “If you intend to plead not guilty, to the offense charged in this complaint and summons and have a trial, you must notify the court administrator . . . of your intentions at least 7 days prior to your scheduled court date. If you fail to notify the Court Administrator, it may be necessary for you to make 2 court appearances.” The original court date that was printed on the ticket was 3/3/16. However, when I called into the court’s administrator’s office 7 days prior to the court date, I learned that they had never set a court date. Had I not called, I would have gone on the date given to me just to have to come back because it was not scheduled.

The next thing I learned is how to fight a ticket. The first thing I did was take pictures of my car in the spot. I took multiple pictures from different angles. The weather also worked to my advantage because at the time it snowed a lot and the salt on the ground actually made a ring around where my car was which gave sufficient proof that I did not tamper with the car to make it look like I was never over the line.

I looked up the statutes on what is an offense to parking in a handicap zone. The New Jersey Handicapped Parking Law in (C.394:4-207.9) says, “Access to parking spaces, curb cuts, or other improvements designed to provide accessibility, shall be unobstructed.”  I found that having the information helped when going into court because it can aid you in determining whether to plead guilty or not guilty. I had decided that I wanted to plead not guilty.

In East Orange, they have everyone that has tickets for parking sit in one room, which I found weird because everyone could hear you.  I can see why they do it; it is about having an open trial. The first thing that is done is the roll call. After a little while, the prosecutor comes into the court room and calls everyone up one-by-one by last name.

The first thing the prosecutor asked me was why I was there. After telling him what kind of ticket I got, he asked me why I committed the offense. This threw me off because we learned in business law class that you are innocent until proven guilty; yet, he was taking the stance as if I was already guilty of the crime.  So, I told him I wasn’t in the spot. This is where I showed him the pictures that I had taken.

The pictures indicated where the signs began as well as that there was no sign behind my car. I also showed him that there was a car in that handicap spot, which means I was not obstructing the spot. After they hear from you, they either tell you the best plan of action, or like in my case, just tell you to sit back down.

While in court they do ask you to turn off your devices, so my suggestion is to always have hard copies. The judge was the one to read everyone their rights and even talked about how they could appeal. He even mentioned the fact that the court can decide whether to go to trial depending on the severity of the case. When it was my turn, they asked me to state my name for the court records which I did. Then at that point the judge let me know because of the sufficient proof I provided his prosecutor, the ticket would be dismissed. It is almost like depending on what you show the prosecutor in the beginning affects the judge’s decision.

So, because I took the time to actually make sure I had images of that moment really helped me. It was better going in knowing as much as you can about the system, because you do not ever know what can really happen.

Azhanae is a business law student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Posted by Renaldo Nel.

Uber is considering leaving the state of New Jersey if a proposed bill passes. This proposed bill’s main objective is to implement tough regulations regarding commercial insurance.  There is currently an ongoing debate whether there is a gap in the insurance coverage of Uber drivers. Insurance industry experts and New Jersey law makers argue that Uber’s operations are not covered sufficiently. Currently Uber’s commercial coverage, which it buys for its drivers, kicks-in the moment the driver accepts a ride request. Lawmakers want to change this and require that the insurance is in place from the point which the driver logs onto the Uber Application. They argue that there is commercial benefit whilst the driver is waiting for someone to request a ride.

Furthermore, lawmakers assert that the personal insurance cover of the driver often does not cover any incident that occurs if the driver is logged-on to the application. They argue that it is vital that the driver is insured between the time that he logs-on and the time he or she gets a ride request. Uber disagrees.

Uber states that more often than not, personal insurance will pay for any incident that occurs between the time the driver logs-on and waits for a ride. Uber furthermore states that they have insurance in place in the event that the personal coverage of the driver does not pay. If this is true, one would not know at this stage. Uber does however claim that “rides on the platform, beginning to end, from when the driver turns on the app to when they drop a person off is insured. Any claim to the contrary is incorrect” (Mohrer). Christine O’Brien, president of the Insurance Council of New Jersey, states that “It is clear under New Jersey law that people who engage as an UberX driver are not covered by their private passenger auto policy. That is a very clear conclusion.”

I believe the problem here is to find out what the actual truth is. We need to determine whether these drivers are sufficiently covered or not. If not, then extra commercial insurance would most definitely be needed. If Uber claims that they provide insurance for the time frame in controversy, then they should provide proof of this insurance.

I understand that law makers are only trying to protect the common citizen, however, I also understand Uber’s argument that the proposed law is burdensome. Uber claims that the level of coverage proposed is higher than that of what is expected from taxi operators. Furthermore, Uber states that four states, including Washington D.C., have passed transport network regulation, and that these regulations are not nearly as burdensome as those proposed in New Jersey.

Uber is many people’s livelihood, and I understand their frustration as it can easily be seen as a vendetta against Uber drivers. New Jersey lawmakers should take into consideration what other states have done and see how they can accommodate both parties.

Renaldo is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Alexa Christie.

In Frankfort, Kentucky, Attorney General Andy Beshear sues Volkswagen claiming the automaker’s diesel emissions cheating scheme violated the state’s consumer protection law. There were 3,800 vehicles registered in Kentucky with this defect. The lawsuit was filed in a state court. “”We have a very strong law that is meant to prevent companies like this … from making an outright lie that they then use to sell what’s a pretty expensive product,” Beshear said at a state Capitol news conference.” Beshear thinks that Volkswagen should be held accountable for this scheme of false advertisement. Last year, 600,000 cars were sold in the United States with software that was designed to cheat on required emissions tests.

Volkswagen was trying to advertise that their customers, who wanted a “green” car were getting one, when in fact they were not. A Volkswagen spokeswomen announced that the company, Volkswagen, was working with federal environmental regulators to resolve this problem. Texas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and West Virginia were also filing separate lawsuits against Volkswagen. The company has received more than $20 billion in fines from state and federal regulators. In September, Volkswagen admitted to using illegal software installed in their “clean diesel” engines.

Alexa is a business administration major with a concentration in management at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Sydney Kpundeh.

A disgruntled New Jersey father has brought products liability design defect and failure-to-warn claims against The New Jersey Port Authority Transit Corporation to recover for injuries arising out of a take-home asbestos exposure. The case’s premise surrounds the father’s daughter, who started to exhibit signs of mesothelioma, which he claims were a result of secondary exposure to friable asbestos fibers through direct contact with her father and while washing his asbestos-laden work clothing. The father is an employee of the Port as a train operator, yard operator, and supervisor. His job duties included the repair and maintenance of asbestos-contaminated air brake systems on the Port’s multiple unit locomotives. When his daughter’s symptoms started worsening, he filed a product liability design defect and failure-to-warn case against the Port and various manufacturers of locomotives and locomotive brake shoes. He claimed that his daughter’s injuries could have been caused by her exposure to asbestos dust created when he replaced the brakes on cars he worked on after hours.

When the case was put before the court, all parties moved for summary judgment. The Port’s argument was that federal legislation and court precedent preempted state tort claims related to locomotives. The automobile defendants argued that there was no evidence that the father’s contacts with automotive brake dust were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate to establish causation.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the injuries were preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) under the doctrine of field preemption. The court ruled in such direction because they examined a number of previous decisions that had been considered in the scope of the LIA’s preemptive effect and found that the only way to ensure uniformity is that they must rule the same way.

The failure-to-warn claims that the father filed against the various manufacturers and sellers of asbestos-containing automobile brakes were dismissed summarily because there was insufficient evidence of medical causation linking their products to second-hand exposure. “[T]he evidence showed that the father replaced brakes shoes contaminated with asbestos on four occasions over a period of eight years.”

When he was asked about these times, he could not recall the names of the manufacturers of the replaced brake shoes nor could he recount the number of times he installed new brakes manufactured by the named defendants. Therefore, “it was clear that even if the father was exposed to one of each of the automotive defendants’ products over the eight-year period in question, this exposure was so limited that it failed to meet the frequency, regularity, and proximity test that is required for this type of case.” Hence, this is why the case was dismissed.

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

Posted by Daphine Llosa.

The current legal issue relates to conspiracy and breach. A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more parties to commit a crime to do something unlawful or harmful. A breach is an act of breaking or failing to observe a law or agreement. On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Crystal Banuelos pleaded guilty of a conspiracy to attain personal information and commit cards theft from Michaels Companies Incorporated’s customers. Michaels is an arts and crafts, custom framing, home décor and seasonal products store. Prior to this case, there was another prosecution where Eduard Arakelyan (age of 24) and Arman Vardanyan (age of 26) were charged for being involved in a breach. This breach was discovered in 2011 where devices were installed on point-of-sale terminals so they may obtain Michaels’ customers’ personal information as well as bank account numbers. Both individuals pleaded guilty three years ago for stealing from 952 debit cards; they were sentenced for five years of prison.

Crystal Banuelos, the 28 year old California woman, had participated in a conspiracy to acquire 94,000 credit and debit card numbers. It took Banuelos around four months to admit to her charges and plead guilty in the federal court in Camden, New Jersey. CNBC mentioned that the prosecutors found that the individuals involved in the conspiracy had replaced close to 90 of the point-of-sale terminals in 80 different Michaels stores in “19 states with counterfeit devices that were equipped with wireless technology.” They used these counterfeit devices to acquire customers’ personal identification number information as well as any additional information that they may have found useful for their theft. Crystal Banuelos, along with others, had managed to create an exact imitation of these debit cards using the stolen information they gathered when they applied the counterfeit devices. They were able to obtain and collect more than $420,000 by withdrawing from automated teller machines. Two of the defendants, Angel Angulo and Crystal Banuelos, had 179 of these imitated cards in New Jersey. Some of the banks that were affected include: Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo & Co, etc. It has been announced that Crystal Banuelo’s sentence is scheduled to be on February 23, 2016.

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

Posted by Mario Damasceno.

In mid-February of 2015, federal prosecutors investigated United Airlines and its close relation with then chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, David Samson. The investigation arose shortly after Samson’s resignation, resulting from emails released that showed aids to Governor Chris Christie had intentionally organized lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. This is particularly significant because during his time in office, Samson would spend his weekends in Aiken, SC, which was located 50 miles from the Columbia, South Carolina airport, however, United never initially offered that route from its New Jersey hub.

The New Jersey paper known as the Record reported, “Federal aviation records show that during the 19 months United offered the non-stop service, the 50-seat planes that flew the route were, on average, only about half full,” and “was reportedly money-losing,” (The Economist). This, in turn, lead to the route being named, “The Chairman’s Flight.” The route itself “left United Airlines’ Newark hub each Thursday night bound for Columbia, S.C. On Monday mornings, United Express flew back to Newark,” (Bloomberg Business). Furthermore, federal prosecutors argued that, not by coincidence, “United cancelled the flight on April 1st, 2014—just three days after Mr. Samson resigned from the Port Authority” (The Economist).

The entire situation is worth looking into, and in fact, the Port Authority along with United Airlines have been issued subpoenas examining the communication between David Samson and the airline. Mary Schiavo, a former federal prosecutor and Department of Transportation inspector general stated, “If United realized they were offering this flight to curry favor with a public official, then United’s in the soup—it’s a bribe,” (Bloomberg).

Mario is a management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Bachman, Justin. “Did United Put a Whole Route in the Sky for One Very Important Passenger?” Bloomberg Business. N.p., 25 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. .

Gulliver. “The Chairman’s Flight.” The Economist. N.p., 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. .

“United Airlines: The Chairman’s Flight.” Reinventing the Company 12 Sept. 2015: n. pag. Web. 27 Oct. 2015. .

In a recent NJ.com article, expert lawyers in DUI laws revealed how they attack drunk driving charges.  Normally, defense lawyers rely on plea bargaining when a client is charged with a crime. Plea bargaining involves an agreement between a prosecutor and defendant where the defendant will plead to a lesser charge in return for dismissal of other charges or to the original charge in lieu of a lighter sentence. Sometimes it may involve a quid pro quo to the prosecutor for information leading to other crimes. But New Jersey does not allow plea bargaining in DUI cases. As a result, defense lawyers have no choice except to work to dismiss the DUI case entirely or prove the evidence results in a downgrade to a lesser charge.

According to the article, oftentimes, defense lawyers will find a technicality. For example, lawyers will challenge a blood draw (which now under both state and federal law must be preceded by a warrant) by demanding an explanation as to how it was performed. The results can be suppressed if the draw was not done by a physician or nurse, or the area was cleaned with alcohol instead of iodine. Some of the sample must be made available to the defense to conduct their own independent tests; failure to do so may result in suppression.

Blood results corroborated by field sobriety tests is stronger evidence of DUI; however, in cases involving injuries to a driver, field tests are foreclosed, leaving only the blood tests. If challenged, again, the case can be dismissed. Issues can arise from the accident scene itself, which can also result in a dismissal. As stated, warrants are necessary in order to perform a blood draw. According to William Proetta of Edison, a defense lawyer that was interviewed, “[I]f a person doesn’t consent or is unconscious, you need to call in a telephonic warrant. If emergency workers are asking the driver questions, without having Mirandized him, an attorney would argue those statements can’t be used against him.” Telephonic warrants are faster to obtain and are encouraged by the courts.

Breath tests using an Alcotest have a different set of procedures–all of which can be challenged in a suppression motion. Repair and calibration records may be subpoenaed, and failure by the State to do so may result in a dismissal. Officers conducting the test must get two successful readings and change the mouth pieces between each reading. The person must be observed for 20 uninterrupted minutes and cannot regurgitate or vomit, as this will produce a false reading. No cell phones or electronic devices can be present in the room.

Lawyers say there are many other ways to challenge the results. They recommend that people pulled over for a DUI not refuse the test, because refusal is a separate charge. The challenge becomes a little trickier in that they have to show the officer read the driver “the wrong statement” when asking if they will take the test. Also, the driver has to clearly say “No.” not once, but twice, to be considered refusal and ambiguous answers, such as, “‘I don’t know.’” or “‘I want a lawyer.’” are not enough.

Defense lawyers will employ experts, often former police officers who are trained in the Alcotest, to testify as to what the officers should have done. Also, discovery challenges are commonplace. If the prosecutor fails to produce discovery within 30 days, that can result in a dismissal. Dashcam video must produced as well; but that can be a double-edged sword. It can be used to impeach an officer’s testimony, or in the alternative, prove that the defendant in fact could not stand or was slurring his or her words.

A DUI can be proven by an officer’s observations as well, without the aid of other evidence. According to Ernesto Cerimele, a DUI defense lawyer in Newark,

If the officer’s report says the driver reeked of alcohol and admitted to drinking several beers, that still counts . . . . Even if the blood or Alcotest evidence is thrown out, if the officer’s observations of the driver and the ‘totality of the circumstances’ point to a driver being intoxicated, he can still be found guilty. The harder cases to defend against are frequently those where the officer fully documents everything he heard and observed in his police report.

Finally, the case can be dismissed if a trial is delayed beyond 60 days, pursuant to New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts’ guidelines. Based on hardship, inequity and the right under the Sixth Amendment to a speedy trial, a defense lawyer can move for dismissal if the prosecution does not have his or her case ready in time. In one case cited by the article, a prosecutor was given an extra 30 days to produce discovery and failed. That resulted in an immediate dismissal by the judge.

Posted by Daniel Lamas.

In October 2013, Shaneen Allen was arrested for carrying a registered gun across the New Jersey border. Allen, who is a Pennsylvania native, was going on a routine visit to New Jersey when she was pulled over. As she opened her glove compartment, the officer noticed the concealed weapon. Allen was questioned and arrested.

Allen’s punishment could have included up to three years in prison, but thankfully her attorney got her out of serious jail time. Allen was in hot water for almost two years. Recently, Governor Chris Christie issued a pardon to Allen and was praised by many gun rights groups. As an American, I feel that the Second Amendment is very important, not only to people as individuals, but mainly to show what this country was built upon.

Personally, I do not feel that Allen did anything wrong as she was a legal, registered carrier and had no bad intentions. Governor Christie did the right thing and helped defend a very important amendment that supports what our Founding Fathers would have wanted. Not many people would have been quick to pardon somebody in Allen’s situation, but luckily for her, Governor Christie had her back. People like Allen who are legal carriers are what keeps the country the way the Founding Fathers intended it to be. If more gun owners were registered like Allen, crime would be monitored easier and street violence would come to an ease.

Daniel is a business management and merchandising major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Kristen Czerepusko.

Recently, General Motors has been facing some lawsuits stemming from defective ignition switches in millions of their vehicles. This defect has led to over 100 deaths and 200 injuries. General Motors has decided to block those who are suing for personal injury and those making punitive damage claims. The defective car models were recalled in 2014 and were further proven to have been equipped with faulty ignition switches. With this defect, the switch can disable safety features including air bags which are vital to safety when operating a vehicle.

To make matters worse, not only did General Motors know they had a defective product, they acknowledged the fact that they mislead regulators about the defect altogether. To cope with this, General Motors invoked upon a “bankruptcy shield” to limit legal exposure on account of their defective switch. Today, there are over 1,385 individuals with death or injury claims who didn’t receive anything from General Motors. The company still faces hundreds of cases that have yet to be settled.

Punitive damages are something that should never be limited when dealing with defective products. There should never be a cap on the amount of money somebody should be allowed to receive from the careless act of a company manufacturing and selling a defective product. What makes it even worse is the fact that General Motors knew their products were defective and did not care enough to try and prevent further injuries. They acted very unethically and inhumanely with how they handled their cases by using a so-called “bankruptcy shield.” If punitive damages were ever to have a limit, companies would not care to try and make their products better but would instead continue to make harmful products. It is not yet clear how much will be awarded to the individuals who have had serious damages or to the loved ones to those who lost their lives but I hope justice is served to all who deserve it in this case.

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

Posted by Kesha Patel.

In 2012, four employees of tech giant Apple filed a lawsuit against their employer in San Diego. Apple allegedly failed to give their employees proper meal and rest breaks in addition to not paying them in a timely manner. In 2013, the case became a class action lawsuit that included about 21,000 employees who had worked at Apple between 2007 and 2012.

California law states that any employee that works for five hours or more must get a thirty-minute meal break; any employee that works for four hours is required to get a 10 minute rest break.

Jeffrey Hogue, an attorney representing the class action said the $2 million verdict had came but Apple could owe more. Although Apple made scheduling changes in 2012, the aura of secrecy keeps its employees from discussing the company’s working conditions.

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

Posted by August Pimentel.

President Donald Trump recently had a libel case against him dismissed in the Supreme Court of New York on the basis that his tweets were spreading opinion rather than fact, and therefore could not be held accountable for libel.

The conflict began in February 2016, when Cheryl Jacobus, a Republican strategist who had previously been recruited by the Trump campaign, went on CNN attempting to expose a political action committee which allegedly was partly funding the campaign. Trump responded to the broadcast via his personal Twitter account, saying “Really dumb @CheriJacobus. Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!” Jacobus sued the then presidential candidate and his then campaign manager Corey Lewandowski for defamation, pursuing damages of $4M. Jacobus stated that after the tweet, she received no more offers to speak and no employment opportunities.

Barbara Ross of the New York Daily News covered this case with an article in October 2016 on the suit, and another released in January 2017 when the case was dismissed.

“Jacobus had appeared 141 times on CNN to discuss the presidential race before the dust up,” said Ross. “But only once on another station after his tweets.”

The hearings in front of Justice Barbara Jaffe of New York revealed that the Trump campaign had indeed recruited Jacobus for a job and discussed terms of the employment, but rejected her after receiving a request for $20,000 per month in salary. Jacobus’ attorney, Jay Butterman, claimed Jacobus’ entire career was destroyed by those tweets, and the Trump campaign lied about her “begging for a job” and “[acting] hostile.” Trump’s attorney, Lawrence Rosen, claimed Butterman and his client to be engaging in “hyperbole” stating: “To a large extent, Twitter is the wild wild West. People say the darnedest things. Everyone understands that when tweets are made, you take it with a grain of salt.”

Justice Jaffe ruled in favor of President-elect Trump and Lewandowski just ten days before inauguration day. In her decision, Justice Jaffe stated that “professional misconduct, incompetence or a lack of integrity may not be reasonably inferred from being turned down from a job.” The judge also commented on the nature of tweets themselves, similar to Rosen’s argument in the case.

“His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as ‘loser’ or ‘total loser’ or ‘totally biased loser,’ ‘dummy’ or ‘dope’ or ‘dumb,’ ‘zero/no credibility,’ ‘crazy’ or ‘wacko’ and ‘disaster,’ all deflecting serious consideration.”

Butterman and Jacobus plan to appeal the ruling, claiming it a “sad day for free speech.” Reflecting on this case, there may have been some small falsity in President Trump’s tweet in that his campaign did not turn Jacobus away twice. This was not enough, however, to make Trump guilty of libel. That tweet over a year ago, made by the then prominent presidential candidate, can be interpreted as vague. However, if it is true that Jacobus has lost speaking opportunities for which she would have gotten paid because of a crude tweet, it shows that those companies and media outlets did not take Trump’s tweets “with a grain of salt.” The president has recently boasted about the ability of his tweets to obstruct others, citing that no NFL team has signed Colin Kaepernick because they are afraid to get “a nasty tweet from Donald Trump.” Unfortunately for Jacobus’ case, this appears to be an ethical issue rather than a legal one.

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

Sources:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/manhattan-judge-tosses-libel-lawsuit-donald-trump-article-1.2942831

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cheryl-jacobus-trump-destroyed-career-4m-suit-article-1.2818683

Posted by Kyle Chapman.

Hillary Clinton was accused of using a personal email account out of her home for her official email communication while she was Secretary of State. She used her family’s private email server, instead of using the official State Department email account maintained on federal government servers. Government officials argue that the use of a private server, private messaging system software, and deleting almost 32,000 emails has violated State Department procedures and federal laws of recordkeeping requirements. Some of these emails are deemed to be “Top Secret” and confidential information. In my opinion, this is a violation of federal law.

After a CNN interview, a new opportunity has shown some light for Hillary. Hillary stated, “Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation.” To clarify, the legal requirement to immediately preserve emails from a nongovernment email account was not put into law until two years after she stepped down as Secretary of State. She claims that she has done nothing wrong because there was no law enforced when she committed the act. Hillary stated that other Secretaries of State did the same thing, but there are no records of other secretaries setting up a private email server for all of their government communications. In addition, while Hillary was Secretary of State, she sent a cable containing her signature warning employees to avoid handling official business from a personal email account.

Therefore, Hillary was well informed of her actions. Even though there was not a specific law enforcing to preserve emails from nongovernment accounts, Clinton knew what she was doing. In that case, I find Hillary guilty for her actions.

This whole controversy started when officials were unable to locate emails in the investigation of the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. It looks like as if she was covering her tracks by deleting those emails on her private server. Not only did this interfere with the investigation, but a hacker attempted to hack into her email server.

Mishandling top secret government information is a federal crime. In conclusion, I find Hillary guilty for the use of mishandling government information by using her own private email server.

Kyle is a management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

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 Brandon Bartkiewicz.

It has been almost two years since the Wells Fargo scandal broke into the headlines. It is not out of the ordinary to see a bank involved in shady activities; just look at the recession. However, in 2016, Wells Fargo committed a truly unforgivable crime, identity theft and fraud on a massive scale. To refresh, Wells Fargo had “… secretly opened millions of deposit and credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by customers, and that ultimately harmed those who had entrusted their financial affairs with the bank”. The goal of this was to create an illusion of more “sales” (accounts being opened). They did this by transferring money between accounts without permission of the accountholder. These activities were highly encouraged by an incentive system in place that would reward employees for opening accounts. Everyone was in on this; bank managers pressured their employees, and the executive board of Wells Fargo knew this was going on and did not stop it. By August 2017, the investigation found that as many as 3.5 million unauthorized accounts existed in Wells Fargo’s records.

The news of this wide scale fraud fueled a settlement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Los Angeles legal officials, totaling $185 million in penalties. Along with this, Wells Fargo would give “… $80 million in refunds — $64 million in cash and $16 million in account adjustments — to more than 570,000 auto loan customers who were charged for auto insurance without their knowledge.” As it should be, the bank is now in financial trouble as it tries to cover all of the direct and indirect costs relating to the scandal. However, the Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve is not done disciplining the bank. Due to their “widespread customer abuses and compliance breakdowns,” the bank is now restricted from growing any more than its total asset size in 2017.  Along with this, the bank will remove some of the senior ranking executives in the company.  This is done to ensure that Wells Fargo will have sound business practices before it can grow again.

Personally, I believe that punishments handed down by the Federal Reserve were suitable for Wells Fargo. It provides a clear message to all banks that business malpractice is unacceptable and will be punished by harsh penalties. No bank should be able to get away with using client money and creating unauthorized accounts for personal gain. I wish the American legal system were stricter with companies so it would deviate them from doing illegal acts like this in the first place. What I did not like about this case was the fact that there are still plenty of people who have been long time officials of the company and are still employed by Wells Fargo. If you keep many of the same old pieces in place at a company, something like this is bound to happen again.

Brandon is a finance major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/02/02/fed-limits-wells-fargos-growth-citing-consumer-abuses/302973002/

In a Fortune interview, Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, indicated he may replace Fed chief, Janet Yellen, although it appears he likes it when interest rates are low. Speaking from a business standpoint, he would be correct. On the other hand, he acknowledges that low rates are not good for savings accounts, “The problem with low interest rates is that it’s unfair that people who’ve saved every penny, paid off mortgages, and everything they were supposed to do and they were going to retire with their beautiful nest egg and now they’re getting one-eighth of 1%,” says Trump. “I think that’s unfair to those people.”

Trump is in favor of taking power away from the Fed and have more Congressional oversight.

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 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 Patrick Osadebe 

Do you think the lawyers in America get paid as much as they deserve? How much do you think a lawyer makes in a year? According to a survey conducted in 2014 by the Association of Law Placement, the highest starting salary of one of the largest firm in the US with about 700 plus employee is $160,000. This number may seem to be high based on our present economy situations but the results are accurate.

From the survey, only 27% of firms actually responded and one third actually start their employees with $160,000. According to James Leiplod who is the current NALP executive director, he stated that “it is fair to say that law firm starting salaries are flat.” In contrast to that statement, the starting salaries was much higher before the economic recession and the figure is basically a reflection of changes in large firm market.

Different firms may have different starting salaries based on size and experience but according to the survey, the median starting salary is about $125,000, which has been unchanged since 2012.

Patrick is a business administration major with a concentration in finance at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

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 Shakil Rahman.

For a car to be eligible for sale, it has to pass various tests which are placed in order to make sure that the cars for safe for use by the customers. Certain improvements are made to cars to also make sure that during an accident, there are some protections for the customer inside the car. GM motors ignition switch for the some small cars in the late 1990s and early 2000s were defective and it would shut of the engine during driving and this also prevented from the airbags from deploying during a crash. While GM executives and engineers became aware of the defective ignition switch, they did not attempt to fix the problem as it was assessed to be too costly. But by 2012, it was discovered that the defective switch also prevented the air bags from deploying. GM did not disclose the safety hazard to its customers, which led to over 120 deaths and multiple injuries. In 2014, GM started recalling cars with faulty ignition switch in order to fix it, and after the recall, multiple customers filed lawsuits against GM for the injuries caused due to the defective ignition switch. Lawsuits were filed against GM for false advertising due to not disclosing the defect to customer before buying the product. GM came to a settlement with the customers and agreed to pay $575 Million as compensation and also paid $900 million pay to US.

There are various points of interest in the case that are related to corporate responsibility, advertisements and negligence. The lawsuits that were filed against General Motors were for false advertising, and for injuries caused from malfunctioning products created by General Motors. General Motors car’s ignition switch was faulty and therefore sometimes it would shut down the engine while driving and since the engine shut down, the air bags would not deploy during an accident. So the defective ignition switch would cause the car to shut down while driving and therefore causing car accidents and also the air bags would not be deployed which would lead to the injury from the crash to be amplified. Therefore, General Motors is liable for the injuries caused by the defect, because their product is directly causing the accidents and the injuries that are related to it.

The other portion of the lawsuits was about false advertisement by General Motors about their cars. General Motors did not know about their defective ignition switch before 2005 but decided to not recall the cars after a risk assessment about the expense that will needed to fix the ignition switch. Now even if they decided to stop selling cars with faulty ignition switch, they still did not make an effort to fix the ignition switch for cars that were already sold and also did not warn the customers about the product’s defect. This is not only false advertisement but also negligence because the customers were going to be harmed even after using the product as it was intended to be used. So in conclusion, General Motors was liable for the injuries that were caused by their defective products because they did not inform the customers about the hazard of using the product and also for not attempting to fix a defect that could injure the customers.

The irony of the whole situation is that General Motors decided not to recall the vehicles in 2005 to fix the defect because of the fact that they came to the conclusion that it would too expensive. And now in 2015, their insistence on not recalling the cars back for repairs back in 2005 has led to a federal fine of $900 million and settlements of $575 million for the customers who were injured due to the cars faulty switch.

In the business world, when a company is attempting to look at the direction the company is going they need to see how their actions might affect the company in the long term. While paying for the repairs in 2005 may have been expensive, right now they have paid around $2 billion dollars in fine and are predicted to pay around $2.7 billion for repairing the recalled cars. And on top of that, the break of trust between GM and the customers are surely going to affect the company’s progress and profit.

Shakil is a business student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University.