Original Story: theglobeandmail.com
Sportscaster and TV host Erin Andrews testified Tuesday that her career has thrived since a stalker took nude videos of her and posted them on the Internet, but she doesn’t think she’ll ever get over the emotional fallout. A Nashville insurance defense attorney is following the details of this case.
Andrews has been on the witness stand for two days, often giving tearful testimony about the fear and suffering she has gone through as a result of the stalking and the videos.
She has filed a $75-million (U.S.) lawsuit against her stalker and the owner and operator of the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University. The hotel is a franchise.
Jurors will have to determine whether the companies share some of the blame after stalker Michael David Barrett altered a peephole in her hotel room in September, 2008, to shoot the secret video footage. They also will have to determine how much Andrews suffered emotionally as a result.
A defense attorney for the companies told Andrews that they both agreed she was a victim of a crime. But during cross-examination, attorney Marc Dedman asked her about her career success since she discovered in July, 2009, that someone put the secretly shot videos of her online.
Andrews acknowledged that she has moved on to Fox Sports, making more money than she did at ESPN, and is now hosting the show Dancing With the Stars.
Dedman noted that, in addition, Andrews has endorsed Reebok, Degree antiperspirant, Florida orange juice and a slew of other companies, as well as appeared in a commercial for Victoria Secret – one where she was fully clothed – and worked the red carpet and hosted the CMT Awards.
“You have done very well in your career since 2009?” Dedman asked.
“Yes,” Andrews replied.
Andrews said she has thrown herself into her career just to feel normal but remains anxious and depressed. She also said it ripped her apart when some in the media thought the nude videos were part of a publicity stunt before Barrett was arrested.
Barrett was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison after he admitted to stalking Andrews in three different cities, altering hotel room peepholes and shooting nude videos of her in Nashville and Columbus.
Barrett testified Monday, in a videotaped deposition, that he removed the hotel door peepholes and altered them so he could pull them out easily to place his cellphone up to the empty hole and shoot videos. A Memphis sexual harassment lawyer is following this story closely.
She also talked about her reluctance to date after the videos were posted and her relationship with boyfriend Jarret Stoll, a professional hockey player who plays for the Minnesota Wild.
“I feel sad because I think he would have loved the girl more who was there before this happened,” Andrews said tearfully. “And I feel guilty about that.”
She said to this day she remains on guard every time she stays in a hotel during her extensive business travels.
When she checks in, she immediately asks to change rooms in the hotel, she said. She said she refuses to let anyone inside the room, and sweeps it for cameras and “booby traps.”
She said she is taunted daily about the videos, which are still online. She also testified that she fears that she will have children who will one day come home and say that other kids have seen the nude images. A Nashville insurance defense lawyer offers a responsive, creative, and proactive approach to legal disputes involving insurance coverage and defense.
The defence presented an ESPN executive, who testified via video that he did not notice any problems with her work after the discovery of the nude videos. In fact, Patrick Donaher, who was senior director of talent, planning and development for the network while Andrews was there, said she did a good job covering games and improved before she left for Fox in 2012.
Jurors must decide how Barrett came to be placed next to her room in the hotel. She maintains that the hotel honoured a request of his to be put in an adjacent or conjoining room but never told her about it. The defence maintains that Barrett schemed his way into getting into the room.
Monday, March 14, 2016
P.F. CHANG'S FACES NEW SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS BY FEMALE WORKERS
Original Story: latimes.com
P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Inc. is facing new litigation brought by female employees who claim they were sexually harassed at work.
Two women who worked at P.F. Chang’s restaurants in Carlsbad and La Jolla were awarded nearly $500,000 each in arbitration against the company in 2014. They claimed they were repeatedly sexually harassed. A Memphis sexual harassment lawyer is following this story closely.
Since then, at least four more women have filed claims against the company, saying they were sexually harassed at restaurants in Anaheim, Chino Hills, Beverly Hills and Riverside. The women used the arbitration process required by their employment contracts, which barred them from taking action in court.
Their San Diego law firm, Hogue & Belong, also is representing a fifth woman who was 16 when she signed on with P.F. Chang’s in Beverly Hills in 2012.
The law firm has successfully argued that she was not of legal age to give consent to the arbitration requirement, and her case is proceeding in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The restaurant is seeking to enforce the arbitration clause.
During her two years of employment, the young woman says she was harassed and sexually assaulted. She was fired in 2014. An Orlando employment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
P.F. Chang’s provided a statement in response to the San Diego Union-Tribune’s request for comment: “While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we can tell you that P.F. Chang’s is committed to providing a workplace free of any type of unlawful harassment or discrimination.”
Tyler J. Belong, one of the women’s attorneys, said the new round of claims is alarming and surprising, given the outcome of the arbitration in 2014.
According to complaints filed on behalf of the five women, supervisors and co-workers subjected them to unwanted sexual attention, simulated sex with them when they were bent over or not looking, tried to kiss them and touched them inappropriately. A Poughkeepsie labor and employment lawyer defends small businesses, insurance companies, and large corporations in labor and employment law matters.
The young woman who worked for P.F. Chang’s at 16 claims a male co-worker once grabbed her hand and forced it down the front of his pants, according to her complaint. On another occasion, a co-worker slapped her in the face, her lawsuit alleges.
P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Inc. is facing new litigation brought by female employees who claim they were sexually harassed at work.
Two women who worked at P.F. Chang’s restaurants in Carlsbad and La Jolla were awarded nearly $500,000 each in arbitration against the company in 2014. They claimed they were repeatedly sexually harassed. A Memphis sexual harassment lawyer is following this story closely.
Since then, at least four more women have filed claims against the company, saying they were sexually harassed at restaurants in Anaheim, Chino Hills, Beverly Hills and Riverside. The women used the arbitration process required by their employment contracts, which barred them from taking action in court.
Their San Diego law firm, Hogue & Belong, also is representing a fifth woman who was 16 when she signed on with P.F. Chang’s in Beverly Hills in 2012.
The law firm has successfully argued that she was not of legal age to give consent to the arbitration requirement, and her case is proceeding in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The restaurant is seeking to enforce the arbitration clause.
During her two years of employment, the young woman says she was harassed and sexually assaulted. She was fired in 2014. An Orlando employment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
P.F. Chang’s provided a statement in response to the San Diego Union-Tribune’s request for comment: “While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we can tell you that P.F. Chang’s is committed to providing a workplace free of any type of unlawful harassment or discrimination.”
Tyler J. Belong, one of the women’s attorneys, said the new round of claims is alarming and surprising, given the outcome of the arbitration in 2014.
According to complaints filed on behalf of the five women, supervisors and co-workers subjected them to unwanted sexual attention, simulated sex with them when they were bent over or not looking, tried to kiss them and touched them inappropriately. A Poughkeepsie labor and employment lawyer defends small businesses, insurance companies, and large corporations in labor and employment law matters.
The young woman who worked for P.F. Chang’s at 16 claims a male co-worker once grabbed her hand and forced it down the front of his pants, according to her complaint. On another occasion, a co-worker slapped her in the face, her lawsuit alleges.
UCLA COMMUNITY PROTESTS PROFESSOR'S PUNISHMENT FOR SEX HARASSMENT: $3,000 FINE AND 11-WEEK SUSPENSION
Original Story: latimes.com
UCLA students, faculty and alumni are escalating their complaints against the university over its decision to allow a prominent history professor accused of sexual harassment to return to campus after imposing what they regard as inadequate sanctions. A Memphis sexual harassment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
More than 75 people rallied Wednesday to protest the decision involving Gabriel Piterberg, a Mideast specialist who joined the UCLA faculty in 1999. Two female graduate students have accused Piterberg of repeatedly harassing them over many years by making sexual comments, pressing himself against their bodies and forcing his tongue into their mouths.
The students, Nefertiti Takla and Kristen Glasgow, have filed a federal lawsuit against the UC regents for failing to take sufficient action regarding their complaints.
UCLA launched an internal investigation and quietly settled with Piterberg in March 2014. The settlement was released by UCLA on Wednesday, nearly two years later.
Piterberg did not concede that he had engaged in improper or unlawful conduct or that any of the allegations were accurate. But he agreed to pay a $3,000 fine, accept a suspension without pay for one quarter and attend sexual harassment training. He is barred for three years from holding one-on-one meetings in his office unless the door is open and the meeting takes place between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. A Philadelphia employment lawyer is following this story closely.
The sanctions also prevent Piterberg from engaging in “romantic” or “inappropriate” relationships with students, actions which already are prohibited. Any future allegations will be reviewed in an expedited disciplinary process, according to the settlement.
In exchange, UCLA agreed to end its Title IX investigation into the harassment charges without reaching a conclusion or initiating charges against Piterberg with the Academic Senate.
The settlement said it was forged to “avoid the cost, uncertainty and inconvenience of an administrative proceeding.” It was signed by Piterberg, his attorney and Vice Chancellor of Academic Personnel Carole Goldberg.
The university’s deal with Piterberg has been sharply criticized by Takla and Glasgow, as well as by other graduate students, history department faculty and UCLA alumni now teaching at other universities. Some of these critics pointed out that UCLA allowed Piterberg to defer his suspension until the spring of 2015 while he served as a fellow at the European University Institute in Italy — a move that lessened the impact of the sanctions.
Piterberg did not respond to requests for comment. He is on sabbatical in Europe and is scheduled to return to campus in July.
Criticism over administrative handling of faculty harassment cases has roiled other UC campuses as well. At Berkeley, administrators’ decision not to fire Geoff Marcy, a renowned astronomer found to have sexually harassed female students for years, prompted his colleagues to mount a successful campaign to force him out last fall.
Across the country, more than 100 campuses are under investigation by the federal government for their handling of sexual misconduct cases. A Toronto employment lawyer represents clients in confidentiality, non-solicitation, and employment agreements.
At UCLA, many of Piterberg's colleagues said the historian’s return to Westwood this summer would create a dysfunctional work environment. In a letter to UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and other campus officials, 38 history faculty members said Piterberg’s presence would make students feel unsafe and that the restrictions on his conduct would increase their workloads.
“His actions were not only deeply injurious to the specific parties involved, but have poisoned the academic community,” according to the Feb. 18 letter. Allowing Piterberg to come back to work “will signal that an effective climate of tolerance for harassment persists at UCLA.”
In a separate protest letter, more than 65 graduate students criticized the secrecy surrounding the settlement and said Piterberg had lost the trust and confidence of faculty, students and staff. Through its handling of Piterberg’s case, ”the administration is perpetuating the unsafe and hostile climate of our department,” that letter said.
Born in Argentina and raised in Israel, Piterberg is an expert on the history of the Ottoman Empire and the Mediterranean in the early modern period. He also teaches about colonialism, Zionism, Israel and Palestine and served as director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies until he was removed from the post as part of his sanctions.
UCLA indicated Wednesday that more would be done to address the protests over Piterberg. Jerry Kang, vice chancellor of equity, diversity and inclusion, said officials are examining Piterberg's office location, teaching time, teaching arrangements and other issues to address the campus concerns.
“My fundamental commitment is to build an equal learning and working environment for all, and the letters I have received demonstrate how Prof. Piterberg's return threatens to undermine that environment,” Kang said in a statement. “We are thinking intensely and creatively about solutions.”
UCLA spokesman Ricardo Vazquez said administrators have taken several steps to strengthen protections for students, including hiring a new Title IX coordinator and more staff to handle complaints of sexual assault and other bias; establishing Kang's new diversity office; and bringing in a confidential advocate to support students who have experienced sexual violence or harassment.
“The university vigorously disputes allegations made in the lawsuit and will respond in due course,” Vazquez said in a statement.
Takla and Glasgow declined to comment on the protests. But their attorney, Michael Porcello, said the women were gratified by the support.
The best way to resolve the situation is for the university to cut its ties to the professor, Porcello said.
“Piterberg’s continued presence on campus poses an ongoing threat to those students and faculty given past complaints of harassment against him by members of the UCLA community,” he said.
On Wednesday, protesters vowed to keep up the pressure against Piterberg. They marched through campus, chanting, banging drums and waving signs calling for Piterberg to be fired and for the school to crack down on sexual harassment.
The procession stopped at the chancellor's office, but three campus police officers blocked the protesters’ entry and said Block was not available to meet.
Scottie Hale Buehler, a graduate student in the history department, said she felt she had to speak out despite her fear that it could jeopardize her academic career.
“You can get labeled a troublemaker, but if we don't speak out we're just perpetuating this culture of silence,” she said.
Peter Chesney, another graduate student in the history department, said faculty members suggested to students that their hands were tied because Piterberg has tenure. But Chesney said the students would plan sustained actions on their own.
“The idea is to disrupt the university until it operates in a way that's safe for students,” he said.
The UC Student-Workers Union (UAW 2865), which represents teaching assistants and other academic student workers, helped organize the protest as part of a coordinated series of actions this week against sexual harassment at UCLA and other campuses. Jonathan Gingerich of the union's UCLA unit said the new systemwide policy against sexual violence and harassment raised several concerns, including requiring his members to report incidents without the consent of the person harmed.
The union is also critical of a new report by UC administrators and the Academic Senate, which found that policies governing sexual harassment complaints against faculty members were “reasonable.” Amanda Reyes, the UC Santa Cruz representative who heads a union committee on sexual harassment, said the process is stacked against students. Students are required, for instance, to undergo questioning by the accused professor's attorney but are not allowed their own legal counsel, she said. A Memphis sexual harassment attorney is dedicated to helping victims stop the harassment and recover damages for the emotional damages and physical injuries that may have occurred.
The union's recent survey of Santa Cruz graduate students found that 32.6% of 200 respondents said they had been sexually harassed or knew someone who had been.
“There's a lot of injustice happening,” Gingerich said. “The system isn't doing enough to insure accountability for powerful perpetrators of sexual harassment and violence.”
UCLA students, faculty and alumni are escalating their complaints against the university over its decision to allow a prominent history professor accused of sexual harassment to return to campus after imposing what they regard as inadequate sanctions. A Memphis sexual harassment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
More than 75 people rallied Wednesday to protest the decision involving Gabriel Piterberg, a Mideast specialist who joined the UCLA faculty in 1999. Two female graduate students have accused Piterberg of repeatedly harassing them over many years by making sexual comments, pressing himself against their bodies and forcing his tongue into their mouths.
The students, Nefertiti Takla and Kristen Glasgow, have filed a federal lawsuit against the UC regents for failing to take sufficient action regarding their complaints.
UCLA launched an internal investigation and quietly settled with Piterberg in March 2014. The settlement was released by UCLA on Wednesday, nearly two years later.
Piterberg did not concede that he had engaged in improper or unlawful conduct or that any of the allegations were accurate. But he agreed to pay a $3,000 fine, accept a suspension without pay for one quarter and attend sexual harassment training. He is barred for three years from holding one-on-one meetings in his office unless the door is open and the meeting takes place between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. A Philadelphia employment lawyer is following this story closely.
The sanctions also prevent Piterberg from engaging in “romantic” or “inappropriate” relationships with students, actions which already are prohibited. Any future allegations will be reviewed in an expedited disciplinary process, according to the settlement.
In exchange, UCLA agreed to end its Title IX investigation into the harassment charges without reaching a conclusion or initiating charges against Piterberg with the Academic Senate.
The settlement said it was forged to “avoid the cost, uncertainty and inconvenience of an administrative proceeding.” It was signed by Piterberg, his attorney and Vice Chancellor of Academic Personnel Carole Goldberg.
The university’s deal with Piterberg has been sharply criticized by Takla and Glasgow, as well as by other graduate students, history department faculty and UCLA alumni now teaching at other universities. Some of these critics pointed out that UCLA allowed Piterberg to defer his suspension until the spring of 2015 while he served as a fellow at the European University Institute in Italy — a move that lessened the impact of the sanctions.
Piterberg did not respond to requests for comment. He is on sabbatical in Europe and is scheduled to return to campus in July.
Criticism over administrative handling of faculty harassment cases has roiled other UC campuses as well. At Berkeley, administrators’ decision not to fire Geoff Marcy, a renowned astronomer found to have sexually harassed female students for years, prompted his colleagues to mount a successful campaign to force him out last fall.
Across the country, more than 100 campuses are under investigation by the federal government for their handling of sexual misconduct cases. A Toronto employment lawyer represents clients in confidentiality, non-solicitation, and employment agreements.
At UCLA, many of Piterberg's colleagues said the historian’s return to Westwood this summer would create a dysfunctional work environment. In a letter to UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and other campus officials, 38 history faculty members said Piterberg’s presence would make students feel unsafe and that the restrictions on his conduct would increase their workloads.
“His actions were not only deeply injurious to the specific parties involved, but have poisoned the academic community,” according to the Feb. 18 letter. Allowing Piterberg to come back to work “will signal that an effective climate of tolerance for harassment persists at UCLA.”
In a separate protest letter, more than 65 graduate students criticized the secrecy surrounding the settlement and said Piterberg had lost the trust and confidence of faculty, students and staff. Through its handling of Piterberg’s case, ”the administration is perpetuating the unsafe and hostile climate of our department,” that letter said.
Born in Argentina and raised in Israel, Piterberg is an expert on the history of the Ottoman Empire and the Mediterranean in the early modern period. He also teaches about colonialism, Zionism, Israel and Palestine and served as director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies until he was removed from the post as part of his sanctions.
UCLA indicated Wednesday that more would be done to address the protests over Piterberg. Jerry Kang, vice chancellor of equity, diversity and inclusion, said officials are examining Piterberg's office location, teaching time, teaching arrangements and other issues to address the campus concerns.
“My fundamental commitment is to build an equal learning and working environment for all, and the letters I have received demonstrate how Prof. Piterberg's return threatens to undermine that environment,” Kang said in a statement. “We are thinking intensely and creatively about solutions.”
UCLA spokesman Ricardo Vazquez said administrators have taken several steps to strengthen protections for students, including hiring a new Title IX coordinator and more staff to handle complaints of sexual assault and other bias; establishing Kang's new diversity office; and bringing in a confidential advocate to support students who have experienced sexual violence or harassment.
“The university vigorously disputes allegations made in the lawsuit and will respond in due course,” Vazquez said in a statement.
Takla and Glasgow declined to comment on the protests. But their attorney, Michael Porcello, said the women were gratified by the support.
The best way to resolve the situation is for the university to cut its ties to the professor, Porcello said.
“Piterberg’s continued presence on campus poses an ongoing threat to those students and faculty given past complaints of harassment against him by members of the UCLA community,” he said.
On Wednesday, protesters vowed to keep up the pressure against Piterberg. They marched through campus, chanting, banging drums and waving signs calling for Piterberg to be fired and for the school to crack down on sexual harassment.
The procession stopped at the chancellor's office, but three campus police officers blocked the protesters’ entry and said Block was not available to meet.
Scottie Hale Buehler, a graduate student in the history department, said she felt she had to speak out despite her fear that it could jeopardize her academic career.
“You can get labeled a troublemaker, but if we don't speak out we're just perpetuating this culture of silence,” she said.
Peter Chesney, another graduate student in the history department, said faculty members suggested to students that their hands were tied because Piterberg has tenure. But Chesney said the students would plan sustained actions on their own.
“The idea is to disrupt the university until it operates in a way that's safe for students,” he said.
The UC Student-Workers Union (UAW 2865), which represents teaching assistants and other academic student workers, helped organize the protest as part of a coordinated series of actions this week against sexual harassment at UCLA and other campuses. Jonathan Gingerich of the union's UCLA unit said the new systemwide policy against sexual violence and harassment raised several concerns, including requiring his members to report incidents without the consent of the person harmed.
The union is also critical of a new report by UC administrators and the Academic Senate, which found that policies governing sexual harassment complaints against faculty members were “reasonable.” Amanda Reyes, the UC Santa Cruz representative who heads a union committee on sexual harassment, said the process is stacked against students. Students are required, for instance, to undergo questioning by the accused professor's attorney but are not allowed their own legal counsel, she said. A Memphis sexual harassment attorney is dedicated to helping victims stop the harassment and recover damages for the emotional damages and physical injuries that may have occurred.
The union's recent survey of Santa Cruz graduate students found that 32.6% of 200 respondents said they had been sexually harassed or knew someone who had been.
“There's a lot of injustice happening,” Gingerich said. “The system isn't doing enough to insure accountability for powerful perpetrators of sexual harassment and violence.”
Thursday, February 11, 2016
SUPREME COURT RULING BOLSTERS ABILITY TO BUILD CLASS ACTIONS
Original Story: nytimes.com
WASHINGTON — In a victory for class-action plaintiffs, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled by a 6-to-3 vote that courts may not dismiss lawsuits simply because a defendant has offered to give the lead plaintiff everything he sought. A contrary decision would have allowed companies accused of minor but mass wrongdoing to pick off plaintiffs one by one, frustrating their ability to band together to sue over their claims. A Charleston class action lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
“Once unaccepted, the offer is off the table,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in summarizing her majority opinion from the bench.
In dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that approach gave plaintiffs too much power. “If the defendant is willing to give the plaintiff everything he asks for, there is no case or controversy to adjudicate, and the lawsuit is moot,” he wrote.
The case, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, arose from a text message on behalf of the Navy sent to Jose Gomez in 2006. “Get a career,” the text said. “An education. And a chance to serve a greater cause.” Mr. Gomez was 40 at the time, well above the age range for Navy recruits. A Minneapolis class action attorney is following this story closely.
Mr. Gomez sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which allows people who receive unwanted text messages to recover up to $1,500, and he sought to represent a class of people who had received the message.
A Navy contractor, the Campbell Ewald Company, offered to settle the case for $1,503 for each unsolicited text, court costs and a promise to stop sending such messages. Mr. Gomez did not respond to the offer.
The company argued that the case should have been dismissed as moot because it had capitulated and offered Mr. Gomez everything he had asked for.
Justice Ginsburg said the company’s true aim was “to avoid a potential adverse decision, one that could expose it to damages a thousandfold larger than the bid Gomez declined to accept.”
“While a class lacks independent status until certified,” she wrote, “a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted.” A South Jersey class action attorney provides professional representation to clients involved in class action lawsuits.
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Ginsburg’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the majority but did not adopt its rationale.
Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the majority had run afoul of the constitutional requirement that federal courts may hear only live cases and controversies. “The problem for Gomez is that the federal courts exist to resolve real disputes,” the chief justice wrote, “not to rule on a plaintiff’s entitlement to relief already there for the taking.”
The majority left the door open to procedures in which defendants did more than make an offer. “We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff ’s individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.
Chief Justice Roberts welcomed that aspect of the majority opinion, calling it “good news” on the assumption that “there are other plaintiffs out there who, like Gomez, won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.” A Cleveland class action lawyer is following this story closely.
In a separate dissent, Justice Alito said he had not joined the majority only because there was no question that the company could and would pay. He urged courts to be wary of dismissing cases where there was a risk that “the defendant’s failure to follow through on its promise to pay would leave the plaintiff forever empty-handed.”
He suggested two acceptable procedures.
“The most straightforward way is simply to pay over the money,” Justice Alito wrote. “Alternatively, a defendant might deposit the money with the district court (or another trusted intermediary) on the condition that the money be released to the plaintiff when the court dismisses the case as moot.”
The decision was the first in the three class-action cases the court has heard this term. A second, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, concerns an attempt by thousands of workers at an Iowa pork processing plant to band together in a single lawsuit seeking overtime pay. The third, Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339, asks whether Congress may authorize lawsuits by plaintiffs who cannot prove they suffered a concrete injury.
WASHINGTON — In a victory for class-action plaintiffs, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled by a 6-to-3 vote that courts may not dismiss lawsuits simply because a defendant has offered to give the lead plaintiff everything he sought. A contrary decision would have allowed companies accused of minor but mass wrongdoing to pick off plaintiffs one by one, frustrating their ability to band together to sue over their claims. A Charleston class action lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
“Once unaccepted, the offer is off the table,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in summarizing her majority opinion from the bench.
In dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that approach gave plaintiffs too much power. “If the defendant is willing to give the plaintiff everything he asks for, there is no case or controversy to adjudicate, and the lawsuit is moot,” he wrote.
The case, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, arose from a text message on behalf of the Navy sent to Jose Gomez in 2006. “Get a career,” the text said. “An education. And a chance to serve a greater cause.” Mr. Gomez was 40 at the time, well above the age range for Navy recruits. A Minneapolis class action attorney is following this story closely.
Mr. Gomez sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which allows people who receive unwanted text messages to recover up to $1,500, and he sought to represent a class of people who had received the message.
A Navy contractor, the Campbell Ewald Company, offered to settle the case for $1,503 for each unsolicited text, court costs and a promise to stop sending such messages. Mr. Gomez did not respond to the offer.
The company argued that the case should have been dismissed as moot because it had capitulated and offered Mr. Gomez everything he had asked for.
Justice Ginsburg said the company’s true aim was “to avoid a potential adverse decision, one that could expose it to damages a thousandfold larger than the bid Gomez declined to accept.”
“While a class lacks independent status until certified,” she wrote, “a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted.” A South Jersey class action attorney provides professional representation to clients involved in class action lawsuits.
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Ginsburg’s opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the majority but did not adopt its rationale.
Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said the majority had run afoul of the constitutional requirement that federal courts may hear only live cases and controversies. “The problem for Gomez is that the federal courts exist to resolve real disputes,” the chief justice wrote, “not to rule on a plaintiff’s entitlement to relief already there for the taking.”
The majority left the door open to procedures in which defendants did more than make an offer. “We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff ’s individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.
Chief Justice Roberts welcomed that aspect of the majority opinion, calling it “good news” on the assumption that “there are other plaintiffs out there who, like Gomez, won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.” A Cleveland class action lawyer is following this story closely.
In a separate dissent, Justice Alito said he had not joined the majority only because there was no question that the company could and would pay. He urged courts to be wary of dismissing cases where there was a risk that “the defendant’s failure to follow through on its promise to pay would leave the plaintiff forever empty-handed.”
He suggested two acceptable procedures.
“The most straightforward way is simply to pay over the money,” Justice Alito wrote. “Alternatively, a defendant might deposit the money with the district court (or another trusted intermediary) on the condition that the money be released to the plaintiff when the court dismisses the case as moot.”
The decision was the first in the three class-action cases the court has heard this term. A second, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, concerns an attempt by thousands of workers at an Iowa pork processing plant to band together in a single lawsuit seeking overtime pay. The third, Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339, asks whether Congress may authorize lawsuits by plaintiffs who cannot prove they suffered a concrete injury.
GROSSE POINTE LAWYER GETS 18 MONTHS PRISON FOR LYING
Original Story: freep.com
A Grosse Pointe lawyer is going to prison for 18 months for telling a client in an immigration case to lie in court about a criminal conviction so that he could stay in the country. A Detroit immigration attorney provides domestic and foreign-based clients with exceptional representation, multi-disciplinary support, and creative problem solving to address a wide range of immigration issues.
According to court documents, the hushed conviction was for criminal sexual misconduct.
"You cannot admit to it or else you're gone, you're done," the lawyer told his client in a recorded jailhouse conversation that prosecutors used against him.
The attorney in the case is David Wenger, 70, and a decorated Army veteran who pleaded for leniency, saying he pleaded guilty to the crime, spared the government a costly trial, and had nothing to gain financially by trying to help his client. A Grand Rapids professional liability lawyer is following this story closely.
Neither Wenger or his lawyer could be reached for comment. But in court documents, his lawyer portrayed him as a good husband, father and attorney of 35-plus years who helped numerous clients.
"He is profoundly remorseful for what he did and he accepts responsibility for his actions," Wenger's lawyer, David Tholen, has argued in court documents, noting his client had nothing to gain by hiding the conviction. "It was the client and the client’s family that stood to benefit from the offense. (The) defendant did not receive any additional funds or benefit from his (conduct)."
Tholen was hoping to keep his client out of prison, requesting home detention or confinement in a residential center.
But U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland concluded that punishment didn't fit the crime. Rather, before imposing the sentence Friday, Cleland lambasted Wenger, calling his actions among “the most serious crimes a lawyer can commit." He also called his conduct “outrageous behavior" that demanded a prison sentence to send a message that the courts do not tolerate lawyers who commit perjury. A Cincinnati professional liability attorney is reviewing the details of this case.
According to prosecutors, Wenger not only instructed his client to conceal his conviction from the immigration court, but he himself did it, too.
“Our immigration court system relies on lawyers to present truthful information so that judges can make informed decisions about the cases before them,” U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said in announcing the sentence. “This lawyer committed a very significant violation of the law when he presented false testimony to the Immigration Court to conceal his client’s prior conviction.”
According to court records, Wenger's case stems from a 2013 immigration case involving a client who was about to be deported.
Wenger opposed the government's efforts and filed an application with the Immigration Court, seeking permission for his client to stay. But prosecutors allege that Wenger omitted from the application a key piece of information that would have made it very unlikely for his client to stay in the U.S: a conviction for criminal sexual conduct. A Roseland immigration lawyer is experienced in the effective resolution of immigration lawsuits as related to legal and illegal immigrants.
According to prosecutors, Wenger knew about this conviction because he had previously represented the same client in a Macomb County drug case, and was privy to his criminal history. The client did want to be truthful and expressed an interest in disclosing the conviction, prosecutors said, but his lawyer wouldn't hear of it and told his client to "play dumb" and "be selective" with his honesty.
To bolster its case, prosecutors cited an email that Wenger wrote regarding whether the conviction should be disclosed.
“NO! NO! NO! The government doesn’t know anything about what happened in (the defendant's) 20’s. It’s simple and I have said it at least 10 times. If they know about it he will be deported plain and simple. The answer is NO.” Wenger's email read.
After filing the application, an immigration hearing followed.
At the hearing, Wenger claimed that he had disclosed his client’s entire criminal record when he hadn't, prosecutors alleged. Wenger also had coached his client and his client's family to hide the conviction during their testimony -- though Wenger later argued the family knew what it was doing.
"Defendant’s client, and the client’s family, were fully active participants ... (but) of this group, only (Wenger) was prosecuted for the offense," the defense argued in court documents.
The scheme fell apart during the government's cross-examination of the defendant, who confessed to his full criminal history and said that Wenger had instructed him to lie.
Prosecutors also cited Wenger's past disciplinary troubles, noting he had been admonished at least 10 times by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, and reprimanded twice by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, including once for failing to deposit legal fees into a client trust account.
"Mr. Wenger is not deserving of the leniency he requests," prosecutors argued in court records. "To the contrary, he has earned a substantial prison sentence."
A Grosse Pointe lawyer is going to prison for 18 months for telling a client in an immigration case to lie in court about a criminal conviction so that he could stay in the country. A Detroit immigration attorney provides domestic and foreign-based clients with exceptional representation, multi-disciplinary support, and creative problem solving to address a wide range of immigration issues.
According to court documents, the hushed conviction was for criminal sexual misconduct.
"You cannot admit to it or else you're gone, you're done," the lawyer told his client in a recorded jailhouse conversation that prosecutors used against him.
The attorney in the case is David Wenger, 70, and a decorated Army veteran who pleaded for leniency, saying he pleaded guilty to the crime, spared the government a costly trial, and had nothing to gain financially by trying to help his client. A Grand Rapids professional liability lawyer is following this story closely.
Neither Wenger or his lawyer could be reached for comment. But in court documents, his lawyer portrayed him as a good husband, father and attorney of 35-plus years who helped numerous clients.
"He is profoundly remorseful for what he did and he accepts responsibility for his actions," Wenger's lawyer, David Tholen, has argued in court documents, noting his client had nothing to gain by hiding the conviction. "It was the client and the client’s family that stood to benefit from the offense. (The) defendant did not receive any additional funds or benefit from his (conduct)."
Tholen was hoping to keep his client out of prison, requesting home detention or confinement in a residential center.
But U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland concluded that punishment didn't fit the crime. Rather, before imposing the sentence Friday, Cleland lambasted Wenger, calling his actions among “the most serious crimes a lawyer can commit." He also called his conduct “outrageous behavior" that demanded a prison sentence to send a message that the courts do not tolerate lawyers who commit perjury. A Cincinnati professional liability attorney is reviewing the details of this case.
According to prosecutors, Wenger not only instructed his client to conceal his conviction from the immigration court, but he himself did it, too.
“Our immigration court system relies on lawyers to present truthful information so that judges can make informed decisions about the cases before them,” U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said in announcing the sentence. “This lawyer committed a very significant violation of the law when he presented false testimony to the Immigration Court to conceal his client’s prior conviction.”
According to court records, Wenger's case stems from a 2013 immigration case involving a client who was about to be deported.
Wenger opposed the government's efforts and filed an application with the Immigration Court, seeking permission for his client to stay. But prosecutors allege that Wenger omitted from the application a key piece of information that would have made it very unlikely for his client to stay in the U.S: a conviction for criminal sexual conduct. A Roseland immigration lawyer is experienced in the effective resolution of immigration lawsuits as related to legal and illegal immigrants.
According to prosecutors, Wenger knew about this conviction because he had previously represented the same client in a Macomb County drug case, and was privy to his criminal history. The client did want to be truthful and expressed an interest in disclosing the conviction, prosecutors said, but his lawyer wouldn't hear of it and told his client to "play dumb" and "be selective" with his honesty.
To bolster its case, prosecutors cited an email that Wenger wrote regarding whether the conviction should be disclosed.
“NO! NO! NO! The government doesn’t know anything about what happened in (the defendant's) 20’s. It’s simple and I have said it at least 10 times. If they know about it he will be deported plain and simple. The answer is NO.” Wenger's email read.
After filing the application, an immigration hearing followed.
At the hearing, Wenger claimed that he had disclosed his client’s entire criminal record when he hadn't, prosecutors alleged. Wenger also had coached his client and his client's family to hide the conviction during their testimony -- though Wenger later argued the family knew what it was doing.
"Defendant’s client, and the client’s family, were fully active participants ... (but) of this group, only (Wenger) was prosecuted for the offense," the defense argued in court documents.
The scheme fell apart during the government's cross-examination of the defendant, who confessed to his full criminal history and said that Wenger had instructed him to lie.
Prosecutors also cited Wenger's past disciplinary troubles, noting he had been admonished at least 10 times by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, and reprimanded twice by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, including once for failing to deposit legal fees into a client trust account.
"Mr. Wenger is not deserving of the leniency he requests," prosecutors argued in court records. "To the contrary, he has earned a substantial prison sentence."
Thursday, January 21, 2016
I WAS FORCED TO HAVE SEX WITH MY BOSS FOR POSITIVE PERFORMANCE REVIEWS
Original Story: nypost.com
A top doctor at NYU Medical Center turned the renowned hospital into his personal sex den, forcing another physician into trysts in an office and a lab by threatening her job, a new lawsuit charges. A Memphis sexual harassment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Married Dr. David Zagzag, chief of NYU’s neuropathology division, became the direct supervisor of Harvard-educated Dr. Irina Mikolaenko in 2012, and immediately became obsessed with her, Manhattan court papers claim.
He allegedly whispered to Mikolaenko that he got an erection just by listening to her voicemails.
And he boasted that he wore his white lab coat only to hide his excitement, the documents allege.
Mikolaenko, who is also married with children, says she went along with Zagzag’s insatiable sexual appetite because she needed a paycheck due to “financial pressures at home,” according to the suit.
“Defendant Zagzag made it be known to plaintiff that if she did not have sex with [him], she would receive poor reviews and be terminated,” said Mikolaenko’s lawyers, Matthew Blit and Russell Moriarty, who filed suit Tuesday in Manhattan federal court. A Texas employment lawyer represents clients in wrongful termination and retaliation claims.
Zagzag — whose wife is a registered nurse — repeatedly forced Mikolaenko to engage in sex, sometimes in her office, according to the suit. On one occasion, he lured Mikolaenko to the hospital’s lab for sex, knowing that the technicians had already left for the afternoon, the suit claims.
By June 2014, Mikolaenko had had enough and started pushing back, but Zagzag continued to lust after her “as if she was his property,” the court papers state.
The situation came to a head in early 2015, when Zagzag stormed into her office, blocked the door with a chair and threatened her with a poor performance review to the department chairman, the suit alleges. “If you want to have a good evaluation, we need to have sex so that I can feel better discussing you with the chair,” the papers claim Zagzag said.
Mikolaenko was fired a week later, after refusing to have sex with Zagzag, the documents say.
She is seeking an unspecified amount of money for emotional distress, panic attacks, depression, sleeplessness and paranoia. A Memphis wrongful termination attorney is following this story closely.
NYU issued a statement saying, “Dr. Irina Mikolaenko was terminated on Feb. 8, 2015, from NYU School of Medicine for misconduct and inappropriate behavior. We have fully investigated her claims, and have found there to be absolutely no truth or merit to her outlandish allegations. NYU . . . will vigorously support and defend Dr. Zagzag and the School of Medicine against her manufactured accusations.”
Zagzag’s wife — reached at the couple’s home in Rego Park, Queens — appeared clueless about her husband’s alleged shenanigans. Asked whether she was aware of the lawsuit, she replied, “No, he has not mentioned’’ it.
She also said she knew Mikolaenko’s name but added, “I don’t know her personally.’’
A top doctor at NYU Medical Center turned the renowned hospital into his personal sex den, forcing another physician into trysts in an office and a lab by threatening her job, a new lawsuit charges. A Memphis sexual harassment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Married Dr. David Zagzag, chief of NYU’s neuropathology division, became the direct supervisor of Harvard-educated Dr. Irina Mikolaenko in 2012, and immediately became obsessed with her, Manhattan court papers claim.
He allegedly whispered to Mikolaenko that he got an erection just by listening to her voicemails.
And he boasted that he wore his white lab coat only to hide his excitement, the documents allege.
Mikolaenko, who is also married with children, says she went along with Zagzag’s insatiable sexual appetite because she needed a paycheck due to “financial pressures at home,” according to the suit.
“Defendant Zagzag made it be known to plaintiff that if she did not have sex with [him], she would receive poor reviews and be terminated,” said Mikolaenko’s lawyers, Matthew Blit and Russell Moriarty, who filed suit Tuesday in Manhattan federal court. A Texas employment lawyer represents clients in wrongful termination and retaliation claims.
Zagzag — whose wife is a registered nurse — repeatedly forced Mikolaenko to engage in sex, sometimes in her office, according to the suit. On one occasion, he lured Mikolaenko to the hospital’s lab for sex, knowing that the technicians had already left for the afternoon, the suit claims.
By June 2014, Mikolaenko had had enough and started pushing back, but Zagzag continued to lust after her “as if she was his property,” the court papers state.
The situation came to a head in early 2015, when Zagzag stormed into her office, blocked the door with a chair and threatened her with a poor performance review to the department chairman, the suit alleges. “If you want to have a good evaluation, we need to have sex so that I can feel better discussing you with the chair,” the papers claim Zagzag said.
Mikolaenko was fired a week later, after refusing to have sex with Zagzag, the documents say.
She is seeking an unspecified amount of money for emotional distress, panic attacks, depression, sleeplessness and paranoia. A Memphis wrongful termination attorney is following this story closely.
NYU issued a statement saying, “Dr. Irina Mikolaenko was terminated on Feb. 8, 2015, from NYU School of Medicine for misconduct and inappropriate behavior. We have fully investigated her claims, and have found there to be absolutely no truth or merit to her outlandish allegations. NYU . . . will vigorously support and defend Dr. Zagzag and the School of Medicine against her manufactured accusations.”
Zagzag’s wife — reached at the couple’s home in Rego Park, Queens — appeared clueless about her husband’s alleged shenanigans. Asked whether she was aware of the lawsuit, she replied, “No, he has not mentioned’’ it.
She also said she knew Mikolaenko’s name but added, “I don’t know her personally.’’
Thursday, January 7, 2016
CHIPOTLE IS SUBPOENAED IN CRIMINAL PROBE TIED TO NOROVIRUS IN SIMI VALLEY
Original Story: latimes.com
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. said Wednesday that it was served with a federal grand jury subpoena in connection with a criminal investigation tied to a norovirus incident at a Simi Valley restaurant.
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Denver restaurant chain said the subpoena, which was served in December, requires it to produce a “broad range of documents” related to the Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley that experienced the “isolated” incident in August. A Denver criminal defense attorney is reviewing the details of this case.
The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. attorney's office for the Central District of California in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration's office of criminal investigations.
Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said in an email that the company does not discuss pending legal actions as a matter of policy, but that it would cooperate fully in the investigation.
Criminal inquiries related to food safety outbreaks are uncommon, but there has been increased attention on these issues and companies' responses to them, especially after the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act was signed into law in 2011. The measure focuses on preventing contamination.
“We're sort of in new territory here,” said Michael Roberts, executive director of the Resnick Program for Food Law and Policy at UCLA. “I think we're seeing a new partnership between the FDA and prosecutors.” A Des Moines criminal lawyer is following this story closely.
In 2014, a federal jury convicted former Peanut Corp. of America owner Stewart Parnell of knowingly shipping peanut butter contaminated with salmonella and covering up the evidence. Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for his role in a 2009 salmonella outbreak that was blamed for nine deaths and linked to the company's plant.
“The FDA ... sent a clear signal that it's going to use its criminal sections to focus on these food safety outbreaks,” Roberts said of the Peanut Corp. case. “It's not so much the outbreak itself, it's the response.”
Chipotle's sales have been rocked by E. coli outbreaks linked to Chipotle restaurants in several states. In November, the chain temporarily closed 43 restaurants in Washington and Oregon after 22 cases were initially linked to some of its eateries. Those restaurants have since reopened.
A month later, 141 Boston College students were reported to have contracted norovirus from eating at a Chipotle restaurant in Brighton, Mass. This separate outbreak was specifically mentioned in the company's Wednesday SEC filing as worsening the “adverse financial and operating impacts” from the E. coli outbreak in October and November. A San Diego securities lawyer is experienced in securities fraud claims and SEC enforcement.
As of December, 53 people in nine states, including California, have been affected by one norovirus strain, and five people in three states were hit by another, according to the FDA.
Chipotle's December sales were down 30% from a year earlier, according to the SEC filing.
On Wednesday, shares of Chipotle sank $22.36, or nearly 5%, to $426.67.
Historically, Roberts said, companies have been able to rebound from food safety problems. Chains such as Jack in the Box and Taco Bell recovered from E. coli outbreaks related to food sold at their stores in the quarters and years after the event, according to an investors' note from Credit Suisse analyst Jason West.
“It's a different age where I think consumers are more sensitive to these issues or looking at them more closely,” Roberts said. “There's a growing societal interest in food.”
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. said Wednesday that it was served with a federal grand jury subpoena in connection with a criminal investigation tied to a norovirus incident at a Simi Valley restaurant.
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Denver restaurant chain said the subpoena, which was served in December, requires it to produce a “broad range of documents” related to the Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley that experienced the “isolated” incident in August. A Denver criminal defense attorney is reviewing the details of this case.
The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. attorney's office for the Central District of California in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration's office of criminal investigations.
Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said in an email that the company does not discuss pending legal actions as a matter of policy, but that it would cooperate fully in the investigation.
Criminal inquiries related to food safety outbreaks are uncommon, but there has been increased attention on these issues and companies' responses to them, especially after the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act was signed into law in 2011. The measure focuses on preventing contamination.
“We're sort of in new territory here,” said Michael Roberts, executive director of the Resnick Program for Food Law and Policy at UCLA. “I think we're seeing a new partnership between the FDA and prosecutors.” A Des Moines criminal lawyer is following this story closely.
In 2014, a federal jury convicted former Peanut Corp. of America owner Stewart Parnell of knowingly shipping peanut butter contaminated with salmonella and covering up the evidence. Parnell was sentenced to 28 years in prison for his role in a 2009 salmonella outbreak that was blamed for nine deaths and linked to the company's plant.
“The FDA ... sent a clear signal that it's going to use its criminal sections to focus on these food safety outbreaks,” Roberts said of the Peanut Corp. case. “It's not so much the outbreak itself, it's the response.”
Chipotle's sales have been rocked by E. coli outbreaks linked to Chipotle restaurants in several states. In November, the chain temporarily closed 43 restaurants in Washington and Oregon after 22 cases were initially linked to some of its eateries. Those restaurants have since reopened.
A month later, 141 Boston College students were reported to have contracted norovirus from eating at a Chipotle restaurant in Brighton, Mass. This separate outbreak was specifically mentioned in the company's Wednesday SEC filing as worsening the “adverse financial and operating impacts” from the E. coli outbreak in October and November. A San Diego securities lawyer is experienced in securities fraud claims and SEC enforcement.
As of December, 53 people in nine states, including California, have been affected by one norovirus strain, and five people in three states were hit by another, according to the FDA.
Chipotle's December sales were down 30% from a year earlier, according to the SEC filing.
On Wednesday, shares of Chipotle sank $22.36, or nearly 5%, to $426.67.
Historically, Roberts said, companies have been able to rebound from food safety problems. Chains such as Jack in the Box and Taco Bell recovered from E. coli outbreaks related to food sold at their stores in the quarters and years after the event, according to an investors' note from Credit Suisse analyst Jason West.
“It's a different age where I think consumers are more sensitive to these issues or looking at them more closely,” Roberts said. “There's a growing societal interest in food.”
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
WOMAN ADMITS EMBEZZLING $100K FROM HER BRIGHTON EMPLOYER
Original Story: freep.com
A Brighton woman pleaded guilty Tuesday to embezzling from her employer, to whom she tearfully whispered an apology as she was led away to a holding cell. A Birmingham criminal lawyer provides counsel and strategic advice to individuals, corporations, and other entities facing criminal investigations or charges.
The plea deal includes a sentence agreement that will put Brynn Annette Robinson, 35, behind bars for three to 15 years for embezzling more than $100,000 from AArbor Colorants Corp. on Citation Drive in Brighton. The plea deal also calls for Robinson to pay $200,000 in restitution.
Sentencing is Jan. 7 in Judge Michael P. Hatty’s courtroom.
In entering the plea, Robinson acknowledged that she used the company’s credit cards between March 2012 and August for her personal use. A Salt Lake City criminal lawyer is following this story closely.
“I’m very sorry,” she whispered to one of the company co-owners, who was sitting in the courtroom.
Robinson entered the plea as a habitual offender. Her criminal history includes a 2003 conviction for embezzling and using a financial transaction device without permission in Washtenaw County and a 2010 attempted filing of a false police report in Shiawassee County. A Hartford employment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
AArbor Colorants is a privately held company in business since 1987 that is a “customer-driven flushed colors and dry color pigments manufacturer,” according to its website at www.aarbor.com.
A Brighton woman pleaded guilty Tuesday to embezzling from her employer, to whom she tearfully whispered an apology as she was led away to a holding cell. A Birmingham criminal lawyer provides counsel and strategic advice to individuals, corporations, and other entities facing criminal investigations or charges.
The plea deal includes a sentence agreement that will put Brynn Annette Robinson, 35, behind bars for three to 15 years for embezzling more than $100,000 from AArbor Colorants Corp. on Citation Drive in Brighton. The plea deal also calls for Robinson to pay $200,000 in restitution.
Sentencing is Jan. 7 in Judge Michael P. Hatty’s courtroom.
In entering the plea, Robinson acknowledged that she used the company’s credit cards between March 2012 and August for her personal use. A Salt Lake City criminal lawyer is following this story closely.
“I’m very sorry,” she whispered to one of the company co-owners, who was sitting in the courtroom.
Robinson entered the plea as a habitual offender. Her criminal history includes a 2003 conviction for embezzling and using a financial transaction device without permission in Washtenaw County and a 2010 attempted filing of a false police report in Shiawassee County. A Hartford employment lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
AArbor Colorants is a privately held company in business since 1987 that is a “customer-driven flushed colors and dry color pigments manufacturer,” according to its website at www.aarbor.com.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
KARMANOS ALLEGES FRAUD IN NEW LAWSUIT AGAINST COMPUWARE
Original Story: freep.com
Peter Karmanos Jr. has filed his own shareholder lawsuit against Compuware, the Detroit-based company he founded, claiming a proposed settlement with other Compuware shareholders is too small.
The Karmanos' lawsuit, which also names his four young sons as co-plaintiffs, alleges fraud and blackmail were involved in the company's decision last year to sell itself to private equity firm Thoma Bravo for $2.4 billion, or $10.92 per share, a price that Karmanos argues was unfair and that undervalued Compuware. A Birmingham securities lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Peter Karmanos personally received more than $52.5 million from his Compuware shares -- not including an additional $16.5 million that he was awarded earlier this year by an arbitrator after Karmanos sued the company for firing him as a consultant and for canceling his remaining stock options. The company is still appealing the $16.5 million award.
Compuware's board voted to fire Karmanos for cause in response to profane comments he made regarding board members and the company's largest shareholder, an activist New York hedge fund called Elliott Management that had sought a sale. Karmanos retired from day-to-day work at Compuware in March 2013. A Tulsa finance attorney represents clients in business and investment transactions.
The Karmanos lawsuit was filed last week in Wayne County Circuit Court. It seeks unspecified damages and potentially the unwinding of the Compuware - Thoma Bravo deal.
“Frankly, they felt that the settlement did not provide any economic benefit to them," the Karmanos' attorney, Sharon Almonrode of The Miller Law Firm in Rochester, said Tuesday. "It did not address many of the issues that were raised in our complaint, and accordingly, they opted out.”
She did not say how much money additional Peter Karmanos believes he and his sons are due.
The Karmanos lawsuit contends that Compuware was worth more than what it sold for and that key information was missing from the materials distributed before the shareholder vote, such as Peter Karmanos' interest in perhaps buying parts of Compuware.
It also accuses the company's largest shareholder -- activist hedge fund Elliott Management -- of having "engaged in blackmail, and the other defendants succumbed to the blackmail instead of reporting it to the relevant authorities."
Besides Compuware, the lawsuit names as defendants former Compuware board members or executives including Gurminder Bedi, Fritz Henderson, William Grabe, Bob Paul and Daniel Follis. Thoma Bravo and Elliott Management are also named. A Harrisonburg securities lawyer is following this story closely.
The sale of Compuware to the Thoma Bravo private equity firm was overwhelmingly approved by Compuware shareholders in a December 2014 vote. Prior to the vote, the deal had prompted several shareholder class-action lawsuits that consolidated into one case in Wayne County Circuit Court.
Lawyers on both sides of that case reached an agreement that involved Compuware disclosing additional information before the shareholder vote to show why the deal made sense.
Under the terms of the case's proposed settlement, the plaintiffs' lawyers would declare that the extra information "empowered the shareholders of Compuware to make a fully informed decision" when voting. The settlement is still pending in court. (It also proposes that Compuware pay the plaintiffs' lawyers $525,000 for their fees.)
But Karmanos is not part of that main shareholder lawsuit. He and his four young sons, who are minors, opted out of the earlier lawsuit to retain their right to file a separate lawsuit. The sons' mother, Danialle Karmanos, is acting as their custodian in the lawsuit.
The alleged blackmail was the compiling of dossiers with information on certain board members by an Elliott Management portfolio manager, including a remark to Compuware's then-CEO Bob Paul about the vintage Aston Martin sports car that Paul kept at home in his garage and that few people knew about.
A Compuware representative said the company doesn't comment on legal matters. Elliott Management said in a statement that "(it) is pleased to have been involved in a process that maximized value for Compuware shareholders.” Former CEO Paul did not return a message seeking comment. A Boca Raton corporate attorney has experience representing clients in shareholder lawsuits.
Steven Harms, an adjunct professor in business of Walsh College, said shareholder lawsuits are fairly common in corporate deals but can be tough to win.
"They have a steep road to climb in order to prevail," Harms said. "My guess is that as a lawyer for 39 years, more are lost than won."
Since the December sale, Compuware has been split into two main pieces. Its mainframe business is still headquartered in Detroit on the fourth floor of what was formerly known as the Compuware building.
Peter Karmanos Jr. has filed his own shareholder lawsuit against Compuware, the Detroit-based company he founded, claiming a proposed settlement with other Compuware shareholders is too small.
The Karmanos' lawsuit, which also names his four young sons as co-plaintiffs, alleges fraud and blackmail were involved in the company's decision last year to sell itself to private equity firm Thoma Bravo for $2.4 billion, or $10.92 per share, a price that Karmanos argues was unfair and that undervalued Compuware. A Birmingham securities lawyer is reviewing the details of this case.
Peter Karmanos personally received more than $52.5 million from his Compuware shares -- not including an additional $16.5 million that he was awarded earlier this year by an arbitrator after Karmanos sued the company for firing him as a consultant and for canceling his remaining stock options. The company is still appealing the $16.5 million award.
Compuware's board voted to fire Karmanos for cause in response to profane comments he made regarding board members and the company's largest shareholder, an activist New York hedge fund called Elliott Management that had sought a sale. Karmanos retired from day-to-day work at Compuware in March 2013. A Tulsa finance attorney represents clients in business and investment transactions.
The Karmanos lawsuit was filed last week in Wayne County Circuit Court. It seeks unspecified damages and potentially the unwinding of the Compuware - Thoma Bravo deal.
“Frankly, they felt that the settlement did not provide any economic benefit to them," the Karmanos' attorney, Sharon Almonrode of The Miller Law Firm in Rochester, said Tuesday. "It did not address many of the issues that were raised in our complaint, and accordingly, they opted out.”
She did not say how much money additional Peter Karmanos believes he and his sons are due.
The Karmanos lawsuit contends that Compuware was worth more than what it sold for and that key information was missing from the materials distributed before the shareholder vote, such as Peter Karmanos' interest in perhaps buying parts of Compuware.
It also accuses the company's largest shareholder -- activist hedge fund Elliott Management -- of having "engaged in blackmail, and the other defendants succumbed to the blackmail instead of reporting it to the relevant authorities."
Besides Compuware, the lawsuit names as defendants former Compuware board members or executives including Gurminder Bedi, Fritz Henderson, William Grabe, Bob Paul and Daniel Follis. Thoma Bravo and Elliott Management are also named. A Harrisonburg securities lawyer is following this story closely.
The sale of Compuware to the Thoma Bravo private equity firm was overwhelmingly approved by Compuware shareholders in a December 2014 vote. Prior to the vote, the deal had prompted several shareholder class-action lawsuits that consolidated into one case in Wayne County Circuit Court.
Lawyers on both sides of that case reached an agreement that involved Compuware disclosing additional information before the shareholder vote to show why the deal made sense.
Under the terms of the case's proposed settlement, the plaintiffs' lawyers would declare that the extra information "empowered the shareholders of Compuware to make a fully informed decision" when voting. The settlement is still pending in court. (It also proposes that Compuware pay the plaintiffs' lawyers $525,000 for their fees.)
But Karmanos is not part of that main shareholder lawsuit. He and his four young sons, who are minors, opted out of the earlier lawsuit to retain their right to file a separate lawsuit. The sons' mother, Danialle Karmanos, is acting as their custodian in the lawsuit.
The alleged blackmail was the compiling of dossiers with information on certain board members by an Elliott Management portfolio manager, including a remark to Compuware's then-CEO Bob Paul about the vintage Aston Martin sports car that Paul kept at home in his garage and that few people knew about.
A Compuware representative said the company doesn't comment on legal matters. Elliott Management said in a statement that "(it) is pleased to have been involved in a process that maximized value for Compuware shareholders.” Former CEO Paul did not return a message seeking comment. A Boca Raton corporate attorney has experience representing clients in shareholder lawsuits.
Steven Harms, an adjunct professor in business of Walsh College, said shareholder lawsuits are fairly common in corporate deals but can be tough to win.
"They have a steep road to climb in order to prevail," Harms said. "My guess is that as a lawyer for 39 years, more are lost than won."
Since the December sale, Compuware has been split into two main pieces. Its mainframe business is still headquartered in Detroit on the fourth floor of what was formerly known as the Compuware building.
Thursday, December 3, 2015
MENTAL COMPETENCE SUIT AGAINST REDSTONE RAISES QUESTIONS OVER FUTURE OF VIACOM AND CBS
Original Story: latimes.com
The lawsuit filed this week challenging the mental competence of media mogul Sumner Redstone has raised questions among legal and business experts over the future of the 92-year-old billionaire's empire and how his companies should respond. An Iowa probate lawyer is following this story closely.
Redstone controls CBS Corp. and Viacom Inc., which owns Paramount Pictures, MTV and other media properties. The companies have a combined market value of about $45 billion, but neither has publicly discussed details of Redstone's deteriorating health.
The suit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Manuela Herzer claims Redstone was not mentally competent when he removed her from oversight of his healthcare last month.
Redstone's lawyers have called the legal action by Redstone's ex-girlfriend "preposterous," "meritless" and "riddled with lies" — but it could nonetheless force CBS and Viacom to address the issue of Redstone's competence, some legal experts say.
Companies are not required to disclose medical details about their executives, according to analysts. But they do have to divulge "material" information — in other words, anything that reasonable investors would need to make informed decisions when buying and selling stocks. An ESOP lawyer represents clients in business exit planning and employee stock ownership programs.
If the court finds that Redstone is in fact incapable of making decisions, that could open up the companies to potential lawsuits from shareholders claiming that key information was kept from them, lawyers said.
"It raises the question of who knew what when, and what should've been disclosed to shareholders at what point in time," said Los Angeles attorney Bryan Sullivan, a partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae who has handled fiduciary duty matters. "If one person in the power structure knew he was incompetent, then there is potential liability under SEC regulations for failure to disclose material facts."
A representative for Viacom did not respond to a request for comment, and CBS declined to comment.
The issue of executive health came to the forefront in 2009 when Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs took a medical leave and disclosed a hormone imbalance. Jobs, who had undergone surgery in 2004 to remove a cancerous tumor in his pancreas, did not say whether his cancer had returned at the time but said that the issue was "more complex" and required a six-month leave.
In April 2009, Jobs underwent a liver transplant. That procedure triggered a discussion of whether Apple, long known for its secretive corporate culture, had run afoul of federal securities rules by not disclosing the severity of the executive's condition. Jobs returned to work at Apple in June 2009.
He took another leave from Apple in 2011 — citing health issues — and resigned from his post before he died that October from complications of pancreatic cancer. A Des Moines probate attorney is reviewing the details of this story.
Another recent high-profile case of an executive's declining health taking center stage was former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who lost control of his enterprise after being declared mentally incapacitated.
In the aftermath of the release of an audio recording of Sterling disparaging blacks in April 2014, the 81-year-old executive's wife sought control of the National Basketball Assn. team.
In May 2014, two doctors found Sterling, who by then was banned for life from the NBA, mentally incapable of continuing on as a member of the family trust that owned the basketball franchise. Shelly Sterling then reached a deal to sell the Clippers to former Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Steve Ballmer for $2 billion.
Donald Sterling has unsuccessfully fought the sale of the team in court.
Some corporate governance experts say companies have been more forthright about their executives' health problems since the Jobs ordeal. Still, it often makes more sense for companies to stay muted, said law professor Allan Horwich, who practices at the Chicago firm Schiff Hardin. Firms can expose themselves to greater risk if they make affirmative public statements about an executive's health.
"This issue becomes much more difficult for the company when they do say something and they leave out information about the health of an executive who might not be able to serve," said Horwich, who focuses on securities litigation and fiduciary duty matters. He also teaches at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law.
Steven Davidoff Solomon, a law professor at UC Berkeley, also said it's unclear what the companies would need to divulge to shareholders and when.
"Given the control he has over the company, one would like to think that the company would think this is material information that should be disclosed," Solomon said. "But it's hard to know how much the company knows and how much it doesn't know and what it's real duties are."
The future of Viacom and CBS has been the subject of much speculation on Wall Street in recent months. Viacom has suffered from falling ratings at its cable networks and a weak film slate from its Paramount Pictures movie studio. Shares of Viacom, which owns MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central, have fallen 32% this year. In contrast, CBS' stock has decreased just 8%.
On Friday, Viacom shares slipped $1.19 to $51.16, while CBS fell 23 cents to $50.75. A Los Angeles finance lawyer is knowledgeable in asset sales, debt and equity finance claims, and financial restructuring matters.
Herzer's suit demands that Redstone receive a mental examination, including a brain scan, and submit to a videotaped deposition. If her suit succeeds, Herzer could return to prominence in Redstone's affairs. Her suit asked the court to determine that her authority as the healthcare agent be reinstated.
Herzer was the agent of Redstone's advance healthcare directive and says she made decisions about his medical care until she was expelled from Redstone's home last month. Viacom Chief Executive Philippe Dauman then took over as the agent of Redstone's healthcare directive. If a doctor determines that Redstone has become incapacitated, Dauman would make decisions on Redstone's behalf. Redstone's lawyers say the former girlfriend filed the suit to avoid being cut out of his will.
--------
For the Record
An earlier version of this article said Manuela Herzer made healthcare decisions on Sumner Redstone's behalf until she was expelled from his home. The article should have said Herzer says she made decisions about Redstone's medical care.
--------
Redstone and his family control 79% of the voting shares of the two companies. Redstone has not been involved in the day-to-day functions of Viacom or CBS for some time. CBS is run by CEO Leslie Moonves.
When Redstone dies, the Sumner M. Redstone National Amusements Trust will determine what happens to his controlling interest in the companies. The companies each have a two-tier stock structure, with most shareholders owning nonvoting shares.
Still, a fraught and protracted legal battle could harm the Redstone empire even if the court finds the allegations to be meritless, said David Becher, a professor of finance at Drexel University.
"Even if it is a frivolous suit and there's nothing going on, I think the distractibility is going to hurt the company," Becher said.
The lawsuit filed this week challenging the mental competence of media mogul Sumner Redstone has raised questions among legal and business experts over the future of the 92-year-old billionaire's empire and how his companies should respond. An Iowa probate lawyer is following this story closely.
Redstone controls CBS Corp. and Viacom Inc., which owns Paramount Pictures, MTV and other media properties. The companies have a combined market value of about $45 billion, but neither has publicly discussed details of Redstone's deteriorating health.
The suit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Manuela Herzer claims Redstone was not mentally competent when he removed her from oversight of his healthcare last month.
Redstone's lawyers have called the legal action by Redstone's ex-girlfriend "preposterous," "meritless" and "riddled with lies" — but it could nonetheless force CBS and Viacom to address the issue of Redstone's competence, some legal experts say.
Companies are not required to disclose medical details about their executives, according to analysts. But they do have to divulge "material" information — in other words, anything that reasonable investors would need to make informed decisions when buying and selling stocks. An ESOP lawyer represents clients in business exit planning and employee stock ownership programs.
If the court finds that Redstone is in fact incapable of making decisions, that could open up the companies to potential lawsuits from shareholders claiming that key information was kept from them, lawyers said.
"It raises the question of who knew what when, and what should've been disclosed to shareholders at what point in time," said Los Angeles attorney Bryan Sullivan, a partner at Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae who has handled fiduciary duty matters. "If one person in the power structure knew he was incompetent, then there is potential liability under SEC regulations for failure to disclose material facts."
A representative for Viacom did not respond to a request for comment, and CBS declined to comment.
The issue of executive health came to the forefront in 2009 when Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs took a medical leave and disclosed a hormone imbalance. Jobs, who had undergone surgery in 2004 to remove a cancerous tumor in his pancreas, did not say whether his cancer had returned at the time but said that the issue was "more complex" and required a six-month leave.
In April 2009, Jobs underwent a liver transplant. That procedure triggered a discussion of whether Apple, long known for its secretive corporate culture, had run afoul of federal securities rules by not disclosing the severity of the executive's condition. Jobs returned to work at Apple in June 2009.
He took another leave from Apple in 2011 — citing health issues — and resigned from his post before he died that October from complications of pancreatic cancer. A Des Moines probate attorney is reviewing the details of this story.
Another recent high-profile case of an executive's declining health taking center stage was former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who lost control of his enterprise after being declared mentally incapacitated.
In the aftermath of the release of an audio recording of Sterling disparaging blacks in April 2014, the 81-year-old executive's wife sought control of the National Basketball Assn. team.
In May 2014, two doctors found Sterling, who by then was banned for life from the NBA, mentally incapable of continuing on as a member of the family trust that owned the basketball franchise. Shelly Sterling then reached a deal to sell the Clippers to former Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Steve Ballmer for $2 billion.
Donald Sterling has unsuccessfully fought the sale of the team in court.
Some corporate governance experts say companies have been more forthright about their executives' health problems since the Jobs ordeal. Still, it often makes more sense for companies to stay muted, said law professor Allan Horwich, who practices at the Chicago firm Schiff Hardin. Firms can expose themselves to greater risk if they make affirmative public statements about an executive's health.
"This issue becomes much more difficult for the company when they do say something and they leave out information about the health of an executive who might not be able to serve," said Horwich, who focuses on securities litigation and fiduciary duty matters. He also teaches at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law.
Steven Davidoff Solomon, a law professor at UC Berkeley, also said it's unclear what the companies would need to divulge to shareholders and when.
"Given the control he has over the company, one would like to think that the company would think this is material information that should be disclosed," Solomon said. "But it's hard to know how much the company knows and how much it doesn't know and what it's real duties are."
The future of Viacom and CBS has been the subject of much speculation on Wall Street in recent months. Viacom has suffered from falling ratings at its cable networks and a weak film slate from its Paramount Pictures movie studio. Shares of Viacom, which owns MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central, have fallen 32% this year. In contrast, CBS' stock has decreased just 8%.
On Friday, Viacom shares slipped $1.19 to $51.16, while CBS fell 23 cents to $50.75. A Los Angeles finance lawyer is knowledgeable in asset sales, debt and equity finance claims, and financial restructuring matters.
Herzer's suit demands that Redstone receive a mental examination, including a brain scan, and submit to a videotaped deposition. If her suit succeeds, Herzer could return to prominence in Redstone's affairs. Her suit asked the court to determine that her authority as the healthcare agent be reinstated.
Herzer was the agent of Redstone's advance healthcare directive and says she made decisions about his medical care until she was expelled from Redstone's home last month. Viacom Chief Executive Philippe Dauman then took over as the agent of Redstone's healthcare directive. If a doctor determines that Redstone has become incapacitated, Dauman would make decisions on Redstone's behalf. Redstone's lawyers say the former girlfriend filed the suit to avoid being cut out of his will.
--------
For the Record
An earlier version of this article said Manuela Herzer made healthcare decisions on Sumner Redstone's behalf until she was expelled from his home. The article should have said Herzer says she made decisions about Redstone's medical care.
--------
Redstone and his family control 79% of the voting shares of the two companies. Redstone has not been involved in the day-to-day functions of Viacom or CBS for some time. CBS is run by CEO Leslie Moonves.
When Redstone dies, the Sumner M. Redstone National Amusements Trust will determine what happens to his controlling interest in the companies. The companies each have a two-tier stock structure, with most shareholders owning nonvoting shares.
Still, a fraught and protracted legal battle could harm the Redstone empire even if the court finds the allegations to be meritless, said David Becher, a professor of finance at Drexel University.
"Even if it is a frivolous suit and there's nothing going on, I think the distractibility is going to hurt the company," Becher said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
