Posted by Daniel Szatkowski.

According to Chris Bruce in a Bloomberg article dated October 17, 2017, Wells Fargo was found charging costumers fees to lock interest rates on mortgages and other loans made with the bank. The lock rate fees earned by Wells Fargo are up to $98 million in the period of approximately four and half years ending February 2017. Wells Fargo incorrectly claims that their clients are behind and/or missing payments, which would lead to increased interest rates. Instead of increasing the rate, Wells Fargo tells them to pay rate-lock fees to keep the rate where it is.

The manner in which Wells Fargo is charging lock-rate fees is unethical. First of all, many of the Wells Fargo clients were not actually behind on their loan payments. According to Brian Brach and other mortgage applicants, “Wells Fargo employees wrongfully blamed customers for loan processing delays and made them pay fees to maintain a lock on interest rates that might otherwise expire.” The delays were caused by Wells Fargo, which triggered the rate-lock fees; therefore, no fees should have been issued to the clients.

Wells Fargo wanted to unethically increase their profit by charging these rate-lock fees even though they did not apply to the situation. The company’s reputation will drop due to the new unwanted press and the clients are putting Wells Fargo on trial. The first of the reimbursement will be sent out during the final quarter of this year.

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

Posted by Johnny A. Guerrero.

This article was published by the New York Times on 26 November 2017 and was written by Stacy Cowley.  The article illuminates the tension between a high-ranking government civil service official, Ms. Leandra English, and the President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump.  To further understand this dilemma, one has to first comprehend what is “the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” and what do they do.  For starters, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “was created six years ago to oversee a wide variety of financial products, including mortgages, credit cards, bank accounts and student loans” (Cowley).  With this in mind, one can say that the bureau was a regulator created in the aftermath of the global financial crisis that hit the New York Stock Market Exchange harshly.  The “Regulatory Agency,” also referred to as (CFPB) was created by the Obama Administration to protect consumers from the tyrants of Wall Street.  Thus, the agency is charged with overseeing financial products and services, as noted.

The tension raised because Ms. English, the deputy director of the bureau, was not willing to step down from her post because she believed that the President could not fire or replace her.  So, she “filed a lawsuit late Sunday night on 26 November 2017 to block Mr. Trump’s choice of someone else from taking control of the agency on Monday morning, 27 November 2017” (Cowley).  Ms. English was defending her cause because Congress gave the agency infrequent independency and autonomy to protect it from political interference.  Thus, the bureau’s director “is one of the few federal officials the President cannot fire at will” (Cowley).  However, the President nominates the agency’s director, who is subject to the approval and confirmation of the United States Senate.  Ms. English was not nominated by former President Obama; she was appointed director by the agency itself because the director, Mr. Richard Cordray, brusquely stepped down on Friday 24 November 2017.

To add more fire to the already burning wood, Ms. English, a seasoned agency veteran who rose progressively through the agency’s ranks, was being replace by Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s budget director.  Paradoxically, Trump wanted someone who saw the bureau as “sad, sick, a joke” (Cowley), and who openly supported legislation to eliminate it, as the agency’s new director.  Ethically this is not right.  Why appoint someone who speaks harshly about the agency to be its head?  Mulvaney, a white-collar professional, many believed would undo what the bureau had achieved since its conception, which was to protect consumers from the abusive debt collectors and politics of Wall Street Financiers.  This notion becomes eloquent with Senator Dick Durbin’s, a Democrat from Illinois, metaphor: “Wall Street hates it (the Agency) like the devil hates holy water” (Battle for Control of Consumer Agency Heads to Court, New York Times Article).

However, even though one may think that the President’s choice is ludicrous, he as the Head of the United States Government has the authority to appoint whoever he wants as the head of any Federal Government Agency.  Ms. English did not have the grounds to veto the President’s decision; after all the actual director, Mr. Cordray, was the one who resigned.  Therefore, it is the President’s duty to appoint a new head leader for the agency.  The law regarding Presidential Nominees is clear, “not grey.”  One must hope that Mr. Mulvaney does a good job protecting the American People from the Wall Street Tyrants, as he swore to do.

Johnny is in the dual B.A/M.B.A program at the College of Arts and Sciences (political science, minor in history) and the Stillman School of Business (management and finance), Seton Hall University, Classes of 2018 and 2019.

Source:

Posted by Nicholas Lillig.

On October 20^th, a judge tossed out a $417 million jury award to a woman who claimed that she developed ovarian cancer by using Johnson & Johnson talcum-based powder for feminine hygiene. The lawsuit is continuing even after the woman, Eva Echeverria, has died. Her attorney released a statement saying, “We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product.” Under clear scrutiny for their product, Johnson & Johnson has most recently been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson granted the company’s request for a new trial, saying there were errors and jury misconduct in the previous trial that ended with the award two months ago.” She also ruled that there was not enough convincing evidence that Johnson & Johnson acted with malice and that the award for the damages was far too excessive. This was the fourth time that Johnson & Johnson had to go to court in order to address this matter.

The product, Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder, uses a talcum based powder in which is used to treat diaper rashes. It is commonly found in soap, antiperspirant, toothpaste, makeup and even bath bombs. Many people use this powder to fight inflammation on their skin or for personal hygiene. The reason as to why this company is brought under the microscope is to debate whether the talc based powder can cause ovarian cancer in women. There is evidence on both sides of the argument for how it can effectively cause ovarian cancer. A report that was released in May of 2016 determined that 63 percent of women with ovarian cancer had used talc. Another previous study reports, “In 1971, four OB/GYNs found talc particles in more than 75 percent of the ovarian tumors they investigated”. Scientific studies and the juries involved point to yes, this product is liable to cause ovarian cancer. Evidence against the case states that the exact relationship is unclear as tumors can develop regardless of whether talc is applied in the situation.

The issue is that for over 100 years, Johnson & Johnson has been marketing their baby powder to treat diaper rash and as a daily feminine hygiene product. In the most recent cases, juries are pointing towards the evidence that it does cause ovarian cancer. Eva Echeverria and her attorney believe Johnson & Johnson failed to warn the public about “talcum powders potential cancer risks”. A spokeswoman for J&J said, “Ovarian cancer is a devastating disease – but it is not caused by the cosmetic-grade talc we have used in Johnson’s Baby Powder for decades. The science is clear and we will continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder as we prepare for additional trials in the U.S.” The company has decided that it will continue to fight for their product in further trials.

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

Sources:

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 Charles Bond.

My article is about the people who feed millions of Americans, farmers. Specifically, a ruling the USDA first tried to implement, but then decided to rescind. This ruling would have offered more protection for farmers who raise cows, pigs, and chickens for the largest meat producers in the United States. The USDA’s plan would have made it easier for farmers to sue those meat producers they are in contract with for unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practices. This was a policy that was set to be enacted at the end of the Obama Administration but was put on hold until the Trump Administration took over; the USDA under the new administration decided to drop it. “Currently, several court rulings have interpreted federal law as saying a farmer must prove a company’s action harm competition in the entire industry before a lawsuit can move forward.” The farmer’s cannot just say they believe a company is aiming to cause harm; they must prove the company said this was their intent.  Passing the new rule would ease the burden of finding proof.

This new rule would have been extremely beneficial for chicken and pork farmers. “Chicken and pork producers must enter long-term contracts with companies like Tyson Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride that farmers allege lock them into deals that fix their compensation at unprofitably low levels and forces them deeply into debt.” Farmers are unaware of the repercussions of these deals until it is too late to do anything about them. The National Chicken Council President was strongly against this rule and thought the rule would have “opened the floodgates to frivolous and costly litigation.” Politicians are split on the ruling. Senator Pat Roberts was pleased with the rule being dropped stating, “It demonstrates the Trump administration’s commitment to promoting economic prosperity and reducing regulatory burdens in rural America.” Meanwhile Senator Charles Grassley criticized the rule being shot down saying ,“The USDA is the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the U.S. Department of Big Agribusiness.”

This is a complicated issue, with reasonable arguments on both sides. However, it seems unreasonable not to have this rule. It is proven that meat producers exploit farmers across the board just so they can maximize profit and keep the farmers reliant on them for business. An argument made against the rule was that it opens the floodgate for farmers to bring cases against the companies, whether they have sufficient evidence or not. If the companies really were doing no wrong than they would not care because the cases would always go there way and secondly the ruling is only being implemented because so many farmers are claiming the companies are doing wrong and they have means to bring them to court. It really is a dicey issue, but ultimately the farmers should be allowed to take the companies court and have the law settle the disagreement.

Charles is a sports management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/10/18/us/ap-us-farm-rules.html

Posted by Justin Trigg.

Northern California homeowners have filed a lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for failing to sufficiently protect power lines before the region’s deadly wildfires. The homeowners Wayne and Jennifer Harvell argue, “[the] drought-like conditions over the summer put fire dangers ‘at an extraordinarily high level’, the homeowners are claiming PG&E failed to trim and remove vegetation within close proximity of power lines.” The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are actively “investigating the power lines and equipment as a possible cause of the fires that have killed at least 41 people and destroyed 6,000 homes.”

If the state, fire investigators determine the utility’s equipment as a possible cause, then the California Public Utilities Commission, who regulates PG&E, investigates the issue. In recent years, PG&E has been fined “$8.3 million for failing to maintain a power line that sparked a massive blaze in Northern California that destroyed 549 homes and killed two people” and “$1.6 billion for [a] 2010 natural gas explosion in the San Francisco Bay Area city of San Bruno that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes”. Moreover, PG&E has reported to state regulators of several accounts of damages to its equipment. However, the report failed to acknowledge whether they might have caused the fire.

In my opinion, because of the evidence of PG&E’s failures to maintain their equipment from causing destruction and damage in recent years, they must increase their efforts to sustain their equipment in order to avoid these tragedies. Meanwhile, California homeowners, who appear to be aware of the danger of vegetation growing close to power lines, must alert the proper authorities to trim and cut down these hazards. With an increased effort from both parties, perhaps the degree of severity from these reoccurring California wildfires can be lessened.

A day following the lawsuit, United States Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris of California wrote the Federal Communications Commission expressing their concern of the federal government’s failure, “to adopt rules that would require wireless carriers to more precisely target neighborhoods with orders to evacuate”. This regulation would certainly benefit the residents of neighborhoods in imminent risk, while evading alerting residents, who are in safe areas. The Senators argue, “These emergency services are caught in a bind between notifying individuals in imminent danger and risking mass panic”.

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

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/b98b3394040d470aa6db2afbdb2ea4dd

Posted by Randy Gomez.

In Business Law class, I learned about business ethics and how an entity should behave as a good citizen. In this article that I found online, it explains how the Federal Communications Commission fined AT&T 100 million dollars for slowing down data speeds to some customers. According to the FCC, AT&T violated a transparency rule by misleading customers saying that their plans were unlimited, when there was a maximum speed that customers would receive. AT&T is accused of not sufficiently informing its subscribers. The FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said “consumers deserve to get what they paid for,” and that, “[b]roadband providers must be upfront and transparent about the services they provide.”

It seems that the corporation was trying to maximize their short-term profits, by not being clear enough about the services provided to the consumer. As it usually happens when a corporation acts unethically to increase their profits, AT&T hurt their profits and now is receiving bad publicity. This is a great example of why companies have to take in consideration moral and ethical principles toward their decisions, instead of just trying to maximize profits.

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

Posted by Abier Mustafa.

Cell phone Company, AT&T, has agreed to pay back $105 million in what is being called ”the largest cramming settlement in history.” AT&T has been adding unauthorized charges to tens of thousands of customers’ monthly bills. The charges are usually for the amount of $9.99 per month, coming from third-party services, including trivia, horoscopes, and love tips.  ”AT&T is accused of keeping at least 35% of the fees, as well as obscuring the charges on bills and preventing customers from securing full refunds.”

There have been previous lawsuits against other cell phone providers besides AT&T.  For example, the Federal Trade Commission has filed a similar lawsuit against T-Mobile in the past also due to unethical charges to customers.  “For too long, consumers have been charged on their phone bills for things they did not buy,” Wheeler, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, said- “It’s estimated that 20 million consumers this year are caught in this kind of trap, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.”

AT&T has released a statement saying that they have provided customers with “Premium Short Messaging Services” in the past. However, they have discontinued third-party billing.  To resolve all claims, $80 million of the settlement has been set aside for customer refunds, along with $25 million in penalties due to regulators.

So if you’re an AT&T customer and have been wrongfully charged, you may be eligible for a refund!

Abier is a finance major at Montclair State 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 Spencer Sink.

Volkswagen is currently in the process of being sued for deliberately manufacturing cars that essentially cheat the emissions test. This case is somewhat similar to the cases with Toyota and General Motors, as Volkswagen will most definitely be forced to compensate the current vehicle owners for selling faulty products. However, we will most likely see even higher punitive damages being paid in the Volkswagen case because of the fact that Volkswagen admitted to intentionally cheating on emissions. The Toyota and General Motors cases were both honest mistakes made by the companies.

Volkswagen was given a short amount of time to attempt to find a way to mechanically fix the issue in the cars, and make them environmentally acceptable. However, even if they did fix the emissions, either the fuel efficiency or the overall vehicle performance would change, forcing Volkswagen to compensate owners for the loss in value.

What Volkswagen did was completely wrong, and must be punished accordingly. Deliberately cheating the emissions tests, and creating excess pollution, is unacceptable. If it were up to me, I would force Volkswagen to pay high punitive damages to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. Volkswagen owners should be compensated accordingly for being blindly brought into this situation.

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

Posted by Brianna Montalvo.

Since 2014, General Motors has been having ignition switch issues with their vehicles which has lead to 30 million recalls. As of Tuesday, March 29 2016, a jury in New York City has yet to reach a verdict on the ignition switch controversy. This case was brought to the jury by a lawyer who is defending a man and a woman whom were in an accident on a New Orleans bridge back in 2014. The couple claim the ignition switch of their GM vehicle is to blame for the accident.

As stated, “Hundreds of claims remain against the automaker after GM revealed two years ago that it had continued to sell flawed vehicles for more than a decade after discovering an ignition switch defect in Chevy Cobalts and other small cars,” (Neumeister). It has been said that the ignition switch itself can slip out of position making it difficult to steer or stop the vehicle, which then would cause the vehicle to stall. GM has claimed they fixed their problem, which I believe is highly doubtful. The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that a key chain had pulled the weight of the keys down which would cause the switch to be pulled out of position, initiating the car to stall and cause an accident. General Motor’s attorney blamed ice as the probable cause in the accident, since there were no serious injuries or dents to the car, only a few minor scratches on the bumper.

Although a verdict has not been reached, I would not be surprised if the ignition switch in fact was the cause of the accident. In September of 2015, General Motors declared it had settled 1,385 death and injury cases for $275 million and a class-action shareholders’ lawsuit for $300 million. The company has given millions towards a numerous amount of claims. $600 million was paid to settle 399 claims to a fund GM established. 124 deaths, as well as 275 injuries were covered with those claims.

I feel that it was unethical of General Motors to continue selling their vehicles with the ignition switch defect. They claim they fixed it, but I do not believe it is something to fix that easily and quickly. There have been hundreds of deaths and injuries due to the ignition switch recall. They will always get business since vehicles will always be in demand, but I believe they should fix the ignition switch so that they wouldn’t have to deal with so many recalls, as well as have any deaths or injuries on their conscious.

Brianna is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Sheyenne Hurt-Lewis.

General Motors created millions of vehicles with defective ignition switches. This defect is linked to more than 100 deaths and 200 reported injuries. Many lawsuits have arisen from these defective switches which makes General Motors likely to face a large sum of punitive damages which, “could amount to millions, if not billions of dollars,” as stated by Judge Gerber. Punitive damages are those intended to punish the wrongdoer and deter others from similar wrongdoing. “GM had sought to block plaintiffs, including those suing for personal injury or wrongful death, from making punitive damages claims.” The recent defects ignited numerous other complaints of other GM cars recalled in 2014 that were “equipped with a faulty ignition switch that can slip out of the run position and disable safety features including air bags.” The effects of these defects have resulted in numerous injuries and lost lives.

Robert Hillard is representing nearly 1,500 plaintiffs suing GM for the injuries and deaths that are tied to the defective ignition switch. Hillard is confident that his clients are capable of being awarded the punitive damages they are seeking. GM has already spent $575 million to settle Hillard’s cases but there are still a large number of cases that remain unsettled. In September, GM agreed to pay nearly $900 million to settle a case similar to this. In addition to this payment, they were also forced to pay a $35 million fine for failing to report the defect themselves when they were first made aware of it. The company created a compensation fund of $625 million for victims.

GM attempted to restructure, and split into “New GM” and “Old GM.” Old GM kept all liabilities but agreed to be held responsible for “future product-liability cases involving other vehicles.” Judge Gerber wrote, “New GM may be held responsible, on claims for both compensatory and punitive damages, for its own knowledge and conduct” on the basis that workers were aware of the defective switch and related accident claims. However, it was made clear by Judge Gerber that punitive damages can only be sought against New GM if and only if it’s solely on the basis of the conduct or knowledge of New GM.

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

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 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.

Posted by Connor Lynch. 

An article from The Wall Street Journal titled, “General Motors May Face Punitive Damages Over Ignition Switches” is a perfect example of short-run profit maximization versus long-run profit maximization. As of November 9, General Motors can face punitive damages in several lawsuits regarding defective ignition switches in millions of vehicles. Although those vehicles have all been recalled, the defective part has been linked to more than 100 deaths.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber has linked GM to the deaths and injuries caused by the defective part in millions of their vehicles. After the case has been discussed, “Texas lawyer Robert Hilliard, who represents people suing GM for injuries and deaths tied to the defective ignition switch, called the decision ‘a major win’ for plaintiffs, contending that punitive damages are the only way to properly compensate victims who have been harmed by the defect.” Although it seems as if it was a complete loss for the defendant, a GM spokesperson said the company disputed the statement that the ruling was an utter victory for plaintiffs.

Punitive damages are damages intended to deter the defendants and others from getting involved in conduct that is similar to the actions that formed the basis of the lawsuit. Punitive damages are also used to punish corporations for wrongdoing such as selling defective products. Those defective products usually lead to death/injury which often can lead to large awards from the jury. It is unclear to what the punitive damages of this case will amount to: “Judge Gerber at one point in his ruling suggested GM’s punitive damages exposure could amount to millions, if not billions, of dollars, though any actual exposure will depend on whether legal claims against the company are settled or ultimately successful.”

This is not the first time that General Motors has been involved with a defective product recall resulting in punitive damages. Last year GM agreed to pay $35 million for failing to alert the public about the specific defect in a timely manner. Judge Gerber’s ruling stems from separating the “Old GM” and “New GM” because of the controversial belief that GM has retained liabilities pertaining to their restructuring.

“Old GM” had so many problems at one point that they were forced to restructure and become a new and reformed company. This has resulted in product-liability, “GM, as part of the bankruptcy restructuring, agreed to assume responsibility for future product-liability cases involving older vehicles, or those under the purview of Old GM.” General Motors’ reconstruction has allowed them to avoid several lawsuits because of their “bankruptcy shield.” Judge Gerber has ruled that “New GM” may be held responsible for the recent defective ignition switch that has caused over 100 deaths. Punitive damages may be sought out to the extent of new GM’s knowledge on the subject matter involving the defective ignition switch. Because of all the injuries/deaths, there are over 1,000 plaintiffs represented by Texas attorney, Mr. Hilliard. General Motors seems as if it is doomed to pay more money in punitive damages in addition to the $575 million they have paid recently to settle cases involving defective products.

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

Posted by Genna Salvtoriello.

General Motors has been hit with a $3 billion dollar lawsuit by the state of Arizona. The lawsuit is due to a record number of 2.6 million vehicles this spring that have been claimed to be linked to safety defects such as a faulty ignition switch. This defect has been linked to 33 deaths and more injuries according to Kenneth Feinberg, who is looking after compensation to the victims of this defect and the damage that it has caused. Arizona’s lawsuit is focusing on the loss of value GM car owners have suffered due to the now damaged reputation of the “General Motors” name. The law that Arizona is suing General Motor’s under is a consumer fraud law that has a maximum penalty of $10,000. And that’s just for each individual violation. There are about 300,000 GM vehicles that are registered in the state of Arizona. Which means a judge could fine General Motors up to $3 billion dollar, according to a report in the New York Times.

However, the ignition doesn’t seem to be the only issue with GM cars. The lawsuit that Arizona is pending shows not just one, but multiple defects with the GM vehicles. These defects include seat belts, brake lights, airbags and transmission cables. The GM vehicles have dropped significantly in value because of the safety defects, which has cost those car owners to lose thousands of dollars. “GM is committed to setting a new industry standard for safety, quality and excellence. This includes recalling vehicles proactively when we identify a safety issue,” said spokesman James Cain. GM is also under investigation by the U.S. attorney in New York, congressional committees, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The number of claimants is rising for GM who is running a compensation program. The company is allowing potential victims of this recall over faulty ignition switches an extra month to file claims seeking compensation. It will be clear in the near future to see just how many people have been put at risk, or even worse, actually hurt by this life threatening recall.

Genna is a marketing major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

One of the causes of action a plaintiff can bring in a product’s liability lawsuit is a defective design claim. General Motors is facing multiple lawsuits over faulty ignition switches installed in the following vehicles: Chevy Cobalt (2005-2010) and HHR (2006-2011); Pontiac G5 (2007-2010) and Solstice (2006-2010); Saturn Ion (2003-2007) and Sky (2007-2010). More than 2.6 million have been recalled.

A Georgia couple who settled a lawsuit with GM for their daughter’s death is suing again on the grounds that GM’s lead design engineer lied when he testified he had no knowledge of any design “changes” to the switches. Their daughter was killed when her 2005 Cobalt slipped into accessory mode, cutting off the engine and causing her to collide with another vehicle. Her family settled based on this information.

But in recent disclosures to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Congress that testimony appears to be false. The company apparently knew about the problem for years. Now, the family has filed another lawsuit claiming they would not have settled if they had known that evidence was concealed. GM denies the accusation.Settlements are contractual, and therefore, considered final once the parties agree to the terms.  Like all contracts, there are certain situations where a settlement agreement would be deemed void.  In this case, plaintiffs would have to convince a judge that they were somehow misled or defrauded by what GM did or said in order for the settlement to be void and the case to proceed.

Posted by Justin Ihnken.

For many years, especially those who found themselves in an area of economic success, investors who succeeded because they worked with a financial advisor. The roll of the advisor is to assist individuals in asset portfolio management. Investments in both fixed market vehicles, and those driven with equity in the market, have [for the majority of advisors] been the number one and two sources of financial security investments. Both of these categories are tied together with the strategic planning and goal orientations of specific individuals. This theory comes primarily because “your advisor” would allocate dollars in a way that would ultimately secure monies for specific reasons and even more so, provide an aspect of future practical growth.

As time continues, there are still many individuals that work with advisors and insist that they do planning and individual investments on their own. Coming changes in investments will show that there is a driving need for RIA’s (Registered Investment Advisor). Unfortunatly, the traditional fixed income and equity allocations are rather lacking for specific individuals that wish to diversify their portfolios accordingly. A recent study done by Bridget Bearden, director of retirement research at fund industry consultant, Strategic Insight, went as far as to say many folks do not understand that the effects of falling short on their diversification strategy may have a serious impact in the long run.

“The fund industry generally advocates a 10 percent to 20 percent allocation to liquid alternatives for risk mitigation. But many off-the-shelf asset allocation portfolios seem to fall short of that.”

Many RIA’s are of traditional thought, however the coming realization of alternative investments is proving itself to be a more prominent tool to properly advocate clients. An example of a small and “up and coming” firm that shows its mindset is multiple footsteps ahead of the curve would be that of Circled Squared Alternative Investments. Circled Squared was founded in 2014, by Jeffrey Sica, CEO and President of Sica Wealth Management. With the changing times and ability to allocate dollars properly will prove to be a huge outlet for this small powerhouse. In an interview with a Berkshire Hathaway associated press, Sica spoke on his outlook and thoughts on the future for both Circle Square and alternative investments.

Add to this the inescapable conclusion that investors are growing increasingly dissatisfied with the stagnant performance and unacceptable volatility they’re getting from traditional investments like stocks and bonds, and you have a situation in which advisors have fewer and fewer ways to provide value to their clients.

As the stock market continues to be a murky water, few dare to try to understand the various inlets and outlets of the market. With the change of alternative investments slowly phasing themselves into our everyday planning as RIA’s, we must work above and beyond the curve and enable our’ clients and potential clients alike to take advantage of the various opportunities that alternative investments withhold.

**About Circled Square Alternative Investments

“Circle Squared Alternative Investments is a firm devoted to providing independent financial advisors with access to a range of innovative alternative investments previously available only to institutions and ultra-high net-worth investors. The suite of investment products will include real estate, private equity, private credit, natural resources, private placement offerings, entertainment and media.”

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

Sources:

1. D’Allegro, Joe. “A Retirement Riddle Placing $1 Trillion at Risk.” Cnbc.com. CNBC, 10 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

2. Healy, Andrew. “Jeff Sica Launches New Alternative Investments Firm for RIAs; Unlocks Door to ‘Real Economy’.” Business Wire: A Berkshire Hathaway Company. Berkshire

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.