Story first appeared on WSJ.com.
After nearly three years of winding its way through federal bankruptcy court, Vallejo, Calif., was cleared Friday to emerge from Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.
A Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of California signed off on Vallejo's debt-restructuring plan, which is the final step before the city can exit bankruptcy.
Vallejo became insolvent early in the 2008 financial crisis, and its emergence from bankruptcy protection is being closely watched by other struggling municipalities. Central Falls, R.I., filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection Monday after the city and its public-safety unions failed to reach an agreement on contract concessions. And officials in Jefferson County, Ala., are working to avert bankruptcy by seeking to restructure $3.2 billion in debt tied to bonds sold for a new sewer system.
Vallejo filed for Chapter 9 after three consecutive years of budget shortfalls that depleted the city's cash reserves. At $50 million, it was the second largest municipal bankruptcy filing in California, trailing only Orange County's bankruptcy filing in 1994. Since seeking bankruptcy protection, Vallejo has spent more than $10 million on attorney and consultant fees.
Vallejo's finances had been particularly saddled by its labor contracts with police and fire unions. The unions' salary and benefits took up about 80% of the city's budget, which for the fiscal year that began July 1 is about $65 million. Before the bankruptcy filing, the city's budget was $78 million.
Vallejo's restructuring of some $50 million in debt calls for the city to reduce pension benefits for new employees, cut payments for retiree health care, raise pension contributions for current workers and creates a rainy-day fund. The city's largest creditors, Union Bank N.A. and bond insurer National Public Finance Guarantee Corp., along with its retirees and union members consented to the debt-restructuring plan in June.
Union Bank will be paid nearly 50% for some of its loans to the city. Debt payments to National Public Finance will be deferred for a year and interest payments will be lower.
Vallejo interim city manager said the city can't access debt markets even after it emerges from bankruptcy because it can't afford to pay for interest on loans. So Vallejo will need to stick to a five-year budget plan that anticipates flat revenue and maintaining the city's work force at its current level, he said. The number of city workers that are supported by the general fund budget now stands at 312, down nearly 40% from 2004. He added that it could still take some time before the city returns to normal. Vallejo has slashed the work force in its police department by nearly 50% since 2008; it is operating with about 90 sworn officers. The city also reduced the number of its firefighters by 42% since 2008 to about 70 and closed three of eight fire stations. He said he hopes to offset some of the losses by applying for public-safety grants.
To help raise revenue and address maintenance problems in buildings and streets, officials plan to put a ballot initiative before residents that would increase sales tax by one cent. The proposed tax is projected to raise more than $10 million for Vallejo.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS MAY RECEIVE IMMIGRATION FINE
Story first appeared in Bloomberg News.
Georgia mayors, county commissioners and even business-license clerks may face $5,000 fines from a panel of state-sanctioned volunteers empowered to investigate complaints about compliance with a new immigration law.
The board will be able to subpoena witnesses and strip funding from public bodies it finds have violated the law and levy fines against governments and individuals.
The first-of-its-kind Immigration Enforcement Review Board is part of a law that took effect July 1, making Georgia one of six states that have taken immigration enforcement duties into their own hands. To date, the law has provoked a federal lawsuit, a court injunction and a shortage of fruit and vegetable pickers in Georgia’s harvest season.
The enforcement board’s job is to keep government officials in line.
The board is unique to Georgia, not duplicated in the other five states -- Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Alabama and South Carolina -- that have enacted immigration laws.
Its members will be appointed by Governor Nathan Deal, Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle and David Ralston, speaker of the House of Representatives. Members will be unpaid. The law sets no eligibility standards.
Deal said in an interview yesterday that he expects to make his appointments in the next few months and the review board to begin its work in January.
Kuck said the review panel was added to the legislation with no public hearing, and will invite mischief, increase paperwork and waste money without effect on illegal immigration. He said the board reminded him of Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy’s investigations of supposed Communists in the 1950s.
Supporters, including state Representative Matthew Ramsey, say citizen oversight is critical and that the new board is a compromise.
More than 10,000 protesters descended on Atlanta, capital of the ninth-most-populous state, on the day the law went into effect. In reality, only a few parts of the law became enforceable July 1. This law can hurt many including those who cannot afford and immigration lawyer.
A federal court blocked two key requirements four days earlier in response to a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union and several partners. It blocked language allowing police to check immigration status and criminalizing transportation of illegal aliens in some circumstances.
The ACLU has sued in five of the six states with new laws and won similar injunctions in four.
There were 425,000 illegal immigrants in Georgia in 2009, or 4.3 percent of the state’s population then. The 325,000 of them who worked composed about 6.5 percent of the labor force.
After a two-year phase-in that starts in January, Georgia companies will have to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm their employees’ legal status through government records. The system has been criticized for inefficiency, bad data and vulnerability to identity fraud, according to a 2008 U.S. Government Accountability Office report.
The provisions of the law that did start July 1 include those targeted at elected officials and public employees. They add penalties and an enforcement process -- including the citizen review board -- to laws in effect since 2006.
Those require government to E-Verify employees and contractors and to check the legal status of noncitizens applying for public benefits, which include services as varied as housing assistance, adult education and business licenses.
The new review board will examine complaints from registered Georgia voters about public bodies failure to use either the E-Verify system or the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database. If it finds a violation based on a preponderance of evidence, the board can levy fines of as much as $5,000, cut funding for local governments or strip them of eligibility for state-administered funds and programs.
Ramsey, the law’s sponsor, said the board would sanction only those who didn’t follow or agree to board-ordered remediation plans and that individuals would be fined only if their violations were knowing or willful.
Most local governments already comply with the E-Verify part of the law, said Amy Henderson, a spokeswoman for the Georgia Municipal Association.
The verification requirement for public-benefit applicants has been more problematic, she said, calling the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database cumbersome.
Parrott, three hours south of Atlanta, has a population of 156. It’s one of only five jurisdictions that in the past year complied with the requirement to report a business-license applicant whose legal status was unverifiable.
Riegle said she’d heard of the new penalties for failing to check benefit applicants, and about the enforcement board. She called the idea awful, while saying she’ll do her best to comply with the law.
Georgia mayors, county commissioners and even business-license clerks may face $5,000 fines from a panel of state-sanctioned volunteers empowered to investigate complaints about compliance with a new immigration law.
The board will be able to subpoena witnesses and strip funding from public bodies it finds have violated the law and levy fines against governments and individuals.
The first-of-its-kind Immigration Enforcement Review Board is part of a law that took effect July 1, making Georgia one of six states that have taken immigration enforcement duties into their own hands. To date, the law has provoked a federal lawsuit, a court injunction and a shortage of fruit and vegetable pickers in Georgia’s harvest season.
The enforcement board’s job is to keep government officials in line.
The board is unique to Georgia, not duplicated in the other five states -- Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Alabama and South Carolina -- that have enacted immigration laws.
Its members will be appointed by Governor Nathan Deal, Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle and David Ralston, speaker of the House of Representatives. Members will be unpaid. The law sets no eligibility standards.
Deal said in an interview yesterday that he expects to make his appointments in the next few months and the review board to begin its work in January.
Kuck said the review panel was added to the legislation with no public hearing, and will invite mischief, increase paperwork and waste money without effect on illegal immigration. He said the board reminded him of Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy’s investigations of supposed Communists in the 1950s.
Supporters, including state Representative Matthew Ramsey, say citizen oversight is critical and that the new board is a compromise.
More than 10,000 protesters descended on Atlanta, capital of the ninth-most-populous state, on the day the law went into effect. In reality, only a few parts of the law became enforceable July 1. This law can hurt many including those who cannot afford and immigration lawyer.
A federal court blocked two key requirements four days earlier in response to a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union and several partners. It blocked language allowing police to check immigration status and criminalizing transportation of illegal aliens in some circumstances.
The ACLU has sued in five of the six states with new laws and won similar injunctions in four.
There were 425,000 illegal immigrants in Georgia in 2009, or 4.3 percent of the state’s population then. The 325,000 of them who worked composed about 6.5 percent of the labor force.
After a two-year phase-in that starts in January, Georgia companies will have to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm their employees’ legal status through government records. The system has been criticized for inefficiency, bad data and vulnerability to identity fraud, according to a 2008 U.S. Government Accountability Office report.
The provisions of the law that did start July 1 include those targeted at elected officials and public employees. They add penalties and an enforcement process -- including the citizen review board -- to laws in effect since 2006.
Those require government to E-Verify employees and contractors and to check the legal status of noncitizens applying for public benefits, which include services as varied as housing assistance, adult education and business licenses.
The new review board will examine complaints from registered Georgia voters about public bodies failure to use either the E-Verify system or the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database. If it finds a violation based on a preponderance of evidence, the board can levy fines of as much as $5,000, cut funding for local governments or strip them of eligibility for state-administered funds and programs.
Ramsey, the law’s sponsor, said the board would sanction only those who didn’t follow or agree to board-ordered remediation plans and that individuals would be fined only if their violations were knowing or willful.
Most local governments already comply with the E-Verify part of the law, said Amy Henderson, a spokeswoman for the Georgia Municipal Association.
The verification requirement for public-benefit applicants has been more problematic, she said, calling the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database cumbersome.
Parrott, three hours south of Atlanta, has a population of 156. It’s one of only five jurisdictions that in the past year complied with the requirement to report a business-license applicant whose legal status was unverifiable.
Riegle said she’d heard of the new penalties for failing to check benefit applicants, and about the enforcement board. She called the idea awful, while saying she’ll do her best to comply with the law.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Trump Lawsuits
Story first appeared in USA TODAY.
It's a business challenge fit for The Celebrity Apprentice, the reality TV hit starring real estate mogul Donald Trump: A broker helps land a lucrative licensing deal for a high-profile executive, who in turn allegedly cuts off payments to the broker.
What would The Donald do?
A New York State Supreme Court may decide, because the executive starring in this real-life lawsuit is Trump himself.
His company hired ALM International, a New York City-based firm, in 2003 to seek clothing industry licensing deals for the Trump brand, court records in the case show. ALM helped arrange a meeting that ultimately led apparel giant PVH, formerly known asPhillips-Van Heusen, to license Trump's name for a line of dress shirts and formal neckwear.
ALM, now known as ALM Unlimited, argues that Trump improperly halted payments on the agreement in 2008 after 11 consecutive quarters in which the world-famous executive personally signed checks to the firm for its work.
ALM attorney Jay Itkowitz said part of the art of the deal is to comply with the deal, to fulfill your responsibilities, pointedly invoking the title of Trump's signature business book. He said they argue that he hasn't done that. He added that he thinks if this little problem was presented on his TV show, somebody might get called down to the boardroom.
Trump said that this lawsuit is without merit and is very insignificant. His lawyer has moved to dismiss the case.
Testifying in pretrial depositions, Trump and two of his business lieutenants gave contradictory statements on whether ALM should have been paid anything at all. Trump said the nearly three years of payments were a mistake because he wasn't aware of them, and he doesn’t feel that these people did very much, if anything, with respect to this deal.
Trump attorney George Ross, an adviser seen on the Apprentice series, said ALM was entitled to far less than it got before the cutoff. But Cathy Glosser, Trump's executive vice president of global licensing, said Ross told her to see to it that ALM got paid.
The previously unpublicized lawsuit offers a colorful inside glimpse of Trump's management style — one in which he portrayed himself in his deposition as signing foot-high stacks of payment checks while only occasionally checking the invoices.
Additionally, the case is one of several civil lawsuits nationwide that allege that improper Trump actions in licensing or other business deals collectively cost clients, buyers or associates millions of dollars in losses. Coming after Trump this year flirted with a White House campaign for weeks before opting to continue with his TV series, some business experts and lawyers say the combined legal impact could jeopardize his brand's value — a conclusion Trump emphatically disputed.
According to Trump's deposition, he began licensing about 10 years ago. He said it started with buildings, and then it went over to many other products after the Apprentice series became a success, adding that it was his idea.
And that idea, Glosser said in her deposition, was terrific quality, at a great price point.
Today, fans who want to get their Trump on have a wide array of products to choose from. Trump video games. Trump chocolate. Trump tea. Trump ice. Trump furniture. Trump mattresses. Trump lighting. Trump home fragrance. Trump crystal. Trump eyewear. Trump cuff links and tie clips. Trump belts and small leather goods. And Trump business suits.
Although Trump said he didn't recall his first product licensing deal, the one with PVH was among the earliest apparel agreements. And it was profitable, producing more than $3.2 million in royalties for Trump from 2005 through 2007, according to ALM's amended court complaint. PVH declined to comment on sales of the Trump line.
Court records show ALM's agreement initially called for Trump to pay the firm 22.5% of royalties he received from apparel licensing deals the broker helped secure. A subsequent amendment that extended the deal's length and also covered any extensions of previously approved Trump licensing agreements with apparel firms cut ALM's percentage to 10%.
Accordingly, ALM received more than $300,000 in fees until 2008, when the Trump Organization cut off payments to the firm on the continuing apparel licensing deal. As Trump recounted it in his deposition, it was his insistence on signing all payment checks that detected what he termed the ALM payment mistake.
Trump said he still uses the old-fashioned method and he signs his own checks, but he signs so many of them over the course of a week or over the course of a month that it's a long, arduous process.
So arduous that he has thousands of checks that he signs a week, and he doesn’t look at very many of the checks; and eventually he did look, and when he saw the ALM checks he stopped paying them because he knew it was a mistake or somebody made a mistake.
According to his deposition, Trump questioned whether he should have paid ALM anything, because the only agreement with the firm was a memorandum of understanding that never became a signed contract.
Trump acknowledged he signed that agreement. But he said he didn't realize it called for automatic renewals.
Ross said in his deposition he refused to advise Trump to sign a contract with ALM because the firm's payment percentage and lack of a termination clause were too high. But Ross said he didn't convey that to ALM representative Jeff Danzer in writing, because that might have created a situation where he would kill the PVH deal, and he thought he was devious enough to do that.
Instead, Ross said in his deposition, he told Danzer that after the apparel deal was finalized, theye will sit down like gentlemen and work out what they should be entitled to. Ross added that he told Glosser exactly the same thing.
But Glosser in her deposition offered a far different recollection of her conversations with Ross. She said he told her after she probed many times to find out if he had a signed deal with ALM … that ALM was entitled to payment and to see to it that they got paid.
Itkowitz, ALM's attorney, offered his own conclusion stating that this situation seems to be a case where a financially strong person is attempting to use economic power to get a better deal, namely to pay less than he's required to under the agreement. He added that if there are situations where it gets out that you're not going to fulfill your part of the deal, it creates the risk of damage to your reputation.
If so, the risk may have been heightened by other lawsuits against Trump.
Lawsuits in other deals
•In 2005, Trump and Tampa officials announced plans for a 52-story condominium, one that would have been the city's tallest building. But the project, Trump Tower Tampa, slid into bankruptcy in 2008.
Would-be buyers allege in a Tampa federal court lawsuit they collectively lost nearly $8.5 million in deposits and interest. Defense attorneys argued in court filings that Trump wasn't the developer and had absolutely no responsibility for the project's failure or the losses. But the prospective buyers contend Trump misled them into believing he was deeply involved in the project.
•Trump Ocean Resort Baja was marketed in 2006 as a $200 million hotel condominium in Baja California, Mexico, with 526 luxury suites that owners could offer for rent when they weren't using them. The project, which the court complaint argues was to be a Donald Trump development, with Donald Trump participating as a developer, collapsed before construction began.
Scores of would-be buyers argue in a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit that they lost about $25 million. Both Trump and his partners in the deal contend they weren't the actual developers and thus bore no legal responsibility for the project's demise. Trump also argued unsuccessfully that the court lacked jurisdiction over a project in Mexico.
•A federal lawsuit in Palm Beach charges that many prospective buyers lost money when they placed deposits on units at the Trump Ocean Club, a 70-story, sail-shaped condominium-hotel in Panama that opened this month.
Court papers filed by the would-be buyers argue the Trump Organization originally said it would provide 70% financing to investors who put down 30% deposits. The buyers argue they were also told that those who bought two condo units could resell one at a profit before they would be required to close on the first purchase.
Both incentives were withdrawn, said Roderick Flynn Coleman, the lawyer who filed the case against Trump. Coleman said Trump also canceled plans for his organization to manage the hotel and a casino at the site.
The court dismissed the case based on Trump's argument that the purchase agreements included a stipulation that any dispute … will be subject … to the courts of Panama. The ruling, which Coleman is appealing, allows the would-be buyers to refile the case if the Panamanian legal system deprives them of any chance to recover alleged damages.
•Trump is also being sued by former students of Trump University, now known as the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative. They argue they were defrauded of as much as $35,000 each by promises they would learn secrets of real estate success from teachers handpicked by Trump. Arguing the former students suffered no harm, Trump moved to dismiss the case. But a California federal judge in May ruled parts of the lawsuit should proceed. The court has scheduled a conference with both sides next month.
A luxury brand
To be sure, Trump has licensed his name to successful deals in real estate and other ventures. In Toronto, he has partnered with one of Canada's wealthiest businessmen on a luxury tower expected to open this year. That and successful projects in Las Vegas, Chicago and elsewhere have given Trump a strong reputation as a luxury brand in the hotel-condo sector, said Sean Hennessey of Lodging Advisors, a New York consultant for hotel investors. He said, Trump should consider extra measures to guard his brand, such as taking more of an investor and management role in his deals.
Branding expert O'Flaherty suggested Trump should decide what his brand is and be more judicious in his licensing deals. He said what he stood for — the American dream — is slowly being drained away by overextension, putting his name on everything from real estate to mattresses.
But Trump, in a pretrial deposition for the Tampa case, said he carefully guards his name. Citing a recent surge in demand for units at Trump Towers in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., a licensing deal slammed by the recession, Trump added in the telephone interview that the brand has never been hotter than it is today.
It's a business challenge fit for The Celebrity Apprentice, the reality TV hit starring real estate mogul Donald Trump: A broker helps land a lucrative licensing deal for a high-profile executive, who in turn allegedly cuts off payments to the broker.
What would The Donald do?
A New York State Supreme Court may decide, because the executive starring in this real-life lawsuit is Trump himself.
His company hired ALM International, a New York City-based firm, in 2003 to seek clothing industry licensing deals for the Trump brand, court records in the case show. ALM helped arrange a meeting that ultimately led apparel giant PVH, formerly known asPhillips-Van Heusen, to license Trump's name for a line of dress shirts and formal neckwear.
ALM, now known as ALM Unlimited, argues that Trump improperly halted payments on the agreement in 2008 after 11 consecutive quarters in which the world-famous executive personally signed checks to the firm for its work.
ALM attorney Jay Itkowitz said part of the art of the deal is to comply with the deal, to fulfill your responsibilities, pointedly invoking the title of Trump's signature business book. He said they argue that he hasn't done that. He added that he thinks if this little problem was presented on his TV show, somebody might get called down to the boardroom.
Trump said that this lawsuit is without merit and is very insignificant. His lawyer has moved to dismiss the case.
Testifying in pretrial depositions, Trump and two of his business lieutenants gave contradictory statements on whether ALM should have been paid anything at all. Trump said the nearly three years of payments were a mistake because he wasn't aware of them, and he doesn’t feel that these people did very much, if anything, with respect to this deal.
Trump attorney George Ross, an adviser seen on the Apprentice series, said ALM was entitled to far less than it got before the cutoff. But Cathy Glosser, Trump's executive vice president of global licensing, said Ross told her to see to it that ALM got paid.
The previously unpublicized lawsuit offers a colorful inside glimpse of Trump's management style — one in which he portrayed himself in his deposition as signing foot-high stacks of payment checks while only occasionally checking the invoices.
Additionally, the case is one of several civil lawsuits nationwide that allege that improper Trump actions in licensing or other business deals collectively cost clients, buyers or associates millions of dollars in losses. Coming after Trump this year flirted with a White House campaign for weeks before opting to continue with his TV series, some business experts and lawyers say the combined legal impact could jeopardize his brand's value — a conclusion Trump emphatically disputed.
According to Trump's deposition, he began licensing about 10 years ago. He said it started with buildings, and then it went over to many other products after the Apprentice series became a success, adding that it was his idea.
And that idea, Glosser said in her deposition, was terrific quality, at a great price point.
Today, fans who want to get their Trump on have a wide array of products to choose from. Trump video games. Trump chocolate. Trump tea. Trump ice. Trump furniture. Trump mattresses. Trump lighting. Trump home fragrance. Trump crystal. Trump eyewear. Trump cuff links and tie clips. Trump belts and small leather goods. And Trump business suits.
Although Trump said he didn't recall his first product licensing deal, the one with PVH was among the earliest apparel agreements. And it was profitable, producing more than $3.2 million in royalties for Trump from 2005 through 2007, according to ALM's amended court complaint. PVH declined to comment on sales of the Trump line.
Court records show ALM's agreement initially called for Trump to pay the firm 22.5% of royalties he received from apparel licensing deals the broker helped secure. A subsequent amendment that extended the deal's length and also covered any extensions of previously approved Trump licensing agreements with apparel firms cut ALM's percentage to 10%.
Accordingly, ALM received more than $300,000 in fees until 2008, when the Trump Organization cut off payments to the firm on the continuing apparel licensing deal. As Trump recounted it in his deposition, it was his insistence on signing all payment checks that detected what he termed the ALM payment mistake.
Trump said he still uses the old-fashioned method and he signs his own checks, but he signs so many of them over the course of a week or over the course of a month that it's a long, arduous process.
So arduous that he has thousands of checks that he signs a week, and he doesn’t look at very many of the checks; and eventually he did look, and when he saw the ALM checks he stopped paying them because he knew it was a mistake or somebody made a mistake.
According to his deposition, Trump questioned whether he should have paid ALM anything, because the only agreement with the firm was a memorandum of understanding that never became a signed contract.
Trump acknowledged he signed that agreement. But he said he didn't realize it called for automatic renewals.
Ross said in his deposition he refused to advise Trump to sign a contract with ALM because the firm's payment percentage and lack of a termination clause were too high. But Ross said he didn't convey that to ALM representative Jeff Danzer in writing, because that might have created a situation where he would kill the PVH deal, and he thought he was devious enough to do that.
Instead, Ross said in his deposition, he told Danzer that after the apparel deal was finalized, theye will sit down like gentlemen and work out what they should be entitled to. Ross added that he told Glosser exactly the same thing.
But Glosser in her deposition offered a far different recollection of her conversations with Ross. She said he told her after she probed many times to find out if he had a signed deal with ALM … that ALM was entitled to payment and to see to it that they got paid.
Itkowitz, ALM's attorney, offered his own conclusion stating that this situation seems to be a case where a financially strong person is attempting to use economic power to get a better deal, namely to pay less than he's required to under the agreement. He added that if there are situations where it gets out that you're not going to fulfill your part of the deal, it creates the risk of damage to your reputation.
If so, the risk may have been heightened by other lawsuits against Trump.
Lawsuits in other deals
•In 2005, Trump and Tampa officials announced plans for a 52-story condominium, one that would have been the city's tallest building. But the project, Trump Tower Tampa, slid into bankruptcy in 2008.
Would-be buyers allege in a Tampa federal court lawsuit they collectively lost nearly $8.5 million in deposits and interest. Defense attorneys argued in court filings that Trump wasn't the developer and had absolutely no responsibility for the project's failure or the losses. But the prospective buyers contend Trump misled them into believing he was deeply involved in the project.
•Trump Ocean Resort Baja was marketed in 2006 as a $200 million hotel condominium in Baja California, Mexico, with 526 luxury suites that owners could offer for rent when they weren't using them. The project, which the court complaint argues was to be a Donald Trump development, with Donald Trump participating as a developer, collapsed before construction began.
Scores of would-be buyers argue in a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit that they lost about $25 million. Both Trump and his partners in the deal contend they weren't the actual developers and thus bore no legal responsibility for the project's demise. Trump also argued unsuccessfully that the court lacked jurisdiction over a project in Mexico.
•A federal lawsuit in Palm Beach charges that many prospective buyers lost money when they placed deposits on units at the Trump Ocean Club, a 70-story, sail-shaped condominium-hotel in Panama that opened this month.
Court papers filed by the would-be buyers argue the Trump Organization originally said it would provide 70% financing to investors who put down 30% deposits. The buyers argue they were also told that those who bought two condo units could resell one at a profit before they would be required to close on the first purchase.
Both incentives were withdrawn, said Roderick Flynn Coleman, the lawyer who filed the case against Trump. Coleman said Trump also canceled plans for his organization to manage the hotel and a casino at the site.
The court dismissed the case based on Trump's argument that the purchase agreements included a stipulation that any dispute … will be subject … to the courts of Panama. The ruling, which Coleman is appealing, allows the would-be buyers to refile the case if the Panamanian legal system deprives them of any chance to recover alleged damages.
•Trump is also being sued by former students of Trump University, now known as the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative. They argue they were defrauded of as much as $35,000 each by promises they would learn secrets of real estate success from teachers handpicked by Trump. Arguing the former students suffered no harm, Trump moved to dismiss the case. But a California federal judge in May ruled parts of the lawsuit should proceed. The court has scheduled a conference with both sides next month.
A luxury brand
To be sure, Trump has licensed his name to successful deals in real estate and other ventures. In Toronto, he has partnered with one of Canada's wealthiest businessmen on a luxury tower expected to open this year. That and successful projects in Las Vegas, Chicago and elsewhere have given Trump a strong reputation as a luxury brand in the hotel-condo sector, said Sean Hennessey of Lodging Advisors, a New York consultant for hotel investors. He said, Trump should consider extra measures to guard his brand, such as taking more of an investor and management role in his deals.
Branding expert O'Flaherty suggested Trump should decide what his brand is and be more judicious in his licensing deals. He said what he stood for — the American dream — is slowly being drained away by overextension, putting his name on everything from real estate to mattresses.
But Trump, in a pretrial deposition for the Tampa case, said he carefully guards his name. Citing a recent surge in demand for units at Trump Towers in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., a licensing deal slammed by the recession, Trump added in the telephone interview that the brand has never been hotter than it is today.
Hewlett-Packard Executive Falsely Accused
Story first appeared in the Associated Press.
Oracle says a former Hewlett-Packard executive has been falsely accused of stealing trade secrets in one of several ongoing legal skirmishes between the two technology heavyweights.
Oracle Corp. demanded in a letter sent to Hewlett-Packard Co. on Thursday that it drop its lawsuit against Adrian Jones, a former senior vice president who was in charge of HP's server, storage and networking businesses in Asia before going to work for rival Oracle.
HP says Jones resigned in February before he was about to be fired for allegedly failing to disclose a "close personal relationship" with a subordinate and submitting thousands of dollars in expenses for visiting the subordinate without a legitimate business purpose.
Palo Alto-based HP sued, also alleging that Jones downloaded hundreds of files and thousands of emails detailing HP's secrets before he quit. But Oracle now argues that a subsequent investigation revealed that the hard drive containing the sensitive information was never in Jones' possession, and that HP itself had created the backup of Jones' files as part of its internal investigation into his behavior.
An Oracle spokeswoman said the central allegation in HP's employment lawsuit against Adrian Jones has turned out to be complete fiction, and if they did it knowingly then HP and their lawyers should be sanctioned. She added that if they did it mistakenly then they simply owe Mr. Jones an apology.
HP said Thursday that Jones did possess trade secrets after he left HP, contrary to a sworn declaration, and that only after the court issued a temporary restraining order requested by HP did Jones return to HP certain confidential information.
Neither side addressed the other allegations against Jones in their statements Thursday.
The case is one in a series of legal battles between the Silicon Valley titans. Oracle and HP have had a decades-long partnership that is now strained by Oracle's entry into the computer server business, an HP stronghold. Oracle's hiring of former HP CEO Mark Hurd after he resigned under pressure from HP is another wedge.
Another ongoing lawsuit concerns Oracle's decision to stop supporting a particular type of HP server in future versions of its database software. Oracle says Intel Corp. is planning on phasing out the server chip, called Itanium. Intel denies that. HP says Oracle is trying to strong-arm customers into buying Oracle's Sun servers.
Oracle says a former Hewlett-Packard executive has been falsely accused of stealing trade secrets in one of several ongoing legal skirmishes between the two technology heavyweights.
Oracle Corp. demanded in a letter sent to Hewlett-Packard Co. on Thursday that it drop its lawsuit against Adrian Jones, a former senior vice president who was in charge of HP's server, storage and networking businesses in Asia before going to work for rival Oracle.
HP says Jones resigned in February before he was about to be fired for allegedly failing to disclose a "close personal relationship" with a subordinate and submitting thousands of dollars in expenses for visiting the subordinate without a legitimate business purpose.
Palo Alto-based HP sued, also alleging that Jones downloaded hundreds of files and thousands of emails detailing HP's secrets before he quit. But Oracle now argues that a subsequent investigation revealed that the hard drive containing the sensitive information was never in Jones' possession, and that HP itself had created the backup of Jones' files as part of its internal investigation into his behavior.
An Oracle spokeswoman said the central allegation in HP's employment lawsuit against Adrian Jones has turned out to be complete fiction, and if they did it knowingly then HP and their lawyers should be sanctioned. She added that if they did it mistakenly then they simply owe Mr. Jones an apology.
HP said Thursday that Jones did possess trade secrets after he left HP, contrary to a sworn declaration, and that only after the court issued a temporary restraining order requested by HP did Jones return to HP certain confidential information.
Neither side addressed the other allegations against Jones in their statements Thursday.
The case is one in a series of legal battles between the Silicon Valley titans. Oracle and HP have had a decades-long partnership that is now strained by Oracle's entry into the computer server business, an HP stronghold. Oracle's hiring of former HP CEO Mark Hurd after he resigned under pressure from HP is another wedge.
Another ongoing lawsuit concerns Oracle's decision to stop supporting a particular type of HP server in future versions of its database software. Oracle says Intel Corp. is planning on phasing out the server chip, called Itanium. Intel denies that. HP says Oracle is trying to strong-arm customers into buying Oracle's Sun servers.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Apple Has Patent Violations
Article First Appeared in Silicon Valley News:
The U.S. International Trade Commission has ruled that Apple's Mac OS X operating system violates two patents held by S3 Graphics in a decision that could open the door for a ban on imports of some Mac computers.
The decision by ITC Judge was made on July 1but not made public until Wednesday.
The patents in question will soon be in the hands of Taiwan-based HTC, a key Apple rival which is a major producer of smartphones that use Google's rival Android operating system. HTC had previously agreed to acquire Fremont-based S3 for $300 million.
The ruling doesn't affect Macs that use graphic-processing chips made by Nvidia, which the judge ruled have an implied license to the patents.
The U.S. International Trade Commission has ruled that Apple's Mac OS X operating system violates two patents held by S3 Graphics in a decision that could open the door for a ban on imports of some Mac computers.
The decision by ITC Judge was made on July 1but not made public until Wednesday.
The patents in question will soon be in the hands of Taiwan-based HTC, a key Apple rival which is a major producer of smartphones that use Google's rival Android operating system. HTC had previously agreed to acquire Fremont-based S3 for $300 million.
The ruling doesn't affect Macs that use graphic-processing chips made by Nvidia, which the judge ruled have an implied license to the patents.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
REIT SALES PLUMMET AFTER BAD PRESS
This story first appeared on WSJ.com.
A popular family of real-estate funds that has raised billions of dollars from small investors over the years saw sales plunge in its latest fund in June, after a securities regulator filed a complaint against the broker that markets the funds.
The unlisted Apple REIT 10, which, like other Apple real-estate investment trusts, is sold through broker David Lerner Associates Inc., raised $26.6 million in June, according to investment-banking firm Robert A. Stanger & Co., which tracks REITs through SEC filings. That compares with $51.2 million in May and $66.1 million in April.
By contrast, Robert A. Stanger noted, nontraded REITs overall raised more money in June than in the previous month.
At the end of May, the financial industry's regulating body filed a complaint against the Lerner firm, charging that the broker was misleading investors in the way it marketed the funds. Lerner has called the complaint by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, baseless.
David Lerner Associates General Counsel Joseph Pickard put the blame for the sales decline on the Finra complaint, negative press and two class-action lawsuits against Lerner. One suit filed in New Jersey charged that the firm duped investors into buying Apple REITs by misstating the business model and failing to disclose risks.
Mr. Pickard said in a statement that though these products remain a viable investment option for suitable investors, the allegations involving the Apple REITs, the negative media attention, and the actions of self-interested lawyers have undoubtedly affected sales. He also said the company will defend against the class-action suits, which he called without merit.
Since 2000, the Apple family of nontraded REITs has raised about $6.2 billion, according to Robert A. Stanger.
Finra's complaint takes particular issue with the valuations of four of the Apple REITs, which have long maintained a constant share price of $11. The securities regulator questioned why Apple's valuations of its extended-stay hotels remained the same during the financial crisis, when the extended-stay hotel industry suffered a significant, material downturn.
For the June statement, the Apple funds were listed as "not priced" instead of the previous $11 valuation. Mr. Pickard said the recent stir and hoopla in other people's minds about the Apple REIT pricing contributed to DLA's decision to change the statement format.
Earlier this month, Finra indicated it had concerns with nontraded REITs that extend beyond Lerner and Apple. Typically, these unlisted funds charge higher fees than publicly traded real-estate investment trusts and pay higher dividends.
Finra is weighing new reporting rules for all nontraded REITs. Under the proposal, heavy upfront fees of about 10% would have to be reflected in valuations. And if the broker-dealer selling the nontraded REIT had reason to believe the value estimated by the REIT sponsor is inaccurate, the broker would have to remove it from its account statements.
A popular family of real-estate funds that has raised billions of dollars from small investors over the years saw sales plunge in its latest fund in June, after a securities regulator filed a complaint against the broker that markets the funds.
The unlisted Apple REIT 10, which, like other Apple real-estate investment trusts, is sold through broker David Lerner Associates Inc., raised $26.6 million in June, according to investment-banking firm Robert A. Stanger & Co., which tracks REITs through SEC filings. That compares with $51.2 million in May and $66.1 million in April.
By contrast, Robert A. Stanger noted, nontraded REITs overall raised more money in June than in the previous month.
At the end of May, the financial industry's regulating body filed a complaint against the Lerner firm, charging that the broker was misleading investors in the way it marketed the funds. Lerner has called the complaint by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, baseless.
David Lerner Associates General Counsel Joseph Pickard put the blame for the sales decline on the Finra complaint, negative press and two class-action lawsuits against Lerner. One suit filed in New Jersey charged that the firm duped investors into buying Apple REITs by misstating the business model and failing to disclose risks.
Mr. Pickard said in a statement that though these products remain a viable investment option for suitable investors, the allegations involving the Apple REITs, the negative media attention, and the actions of self-interested lawyers have undoubtedly affected sales. He also said the company will defend against the class-action suits, which he called without merit.
Since 2000, the Apple family of nontraded REITs has raised about $6.2 billion, according to Robert A. Stanger.
Finra's complaint takes particular issue with the valuations of four of the Apple REITs, which have long maintained a constant share price of $11. The securities regulator questioned why Apple's valuations of its extended-stay hotels remained the same during the financial crisis, when the extended-stay hotel industry suffered a significant, material downturn.
For the June statement, the Apple funds were listed as "not priced" instead of the previous $11 valuation. Mr. Pickard said the recent stir and hoopla in other people's minds about the Apple REIT pricing contributed to DLA's decision to change the statement format.
Earlier this month, Finra indicated it had concerns with nontraded REITs that extend beyond Lerner and Apple. Typically, these unlisted funds charge higher fees than publicly traded real-estate investment trusts and pay higher dividends.
Finra is weighing new reporting rules for all nontraded REITs. Under the proposal, heavy upfront fees of about 10% would have to be reflected in valuations. And if the broker-dealer selling the nontraded REIT had reason to believe the value estimated by the REIT sponsor is inaccurate, the broker would have to remove it from its account statements.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
PHONEHENGE WEST CREATOR GOES TO JAIL
Story first appeared in the Associated Press.
Stonehenge still stands in Great Britain after thousands of years. But its quirky counterpart in California's Mojave Desert appears destined for a much shorter existence.
Kim Fahey, who assembled a dozen colorful structures out of used, discarded, junked and just-plain-unwanted materials over nearly 30 years, acknowledged this week that whether his future home is in a jail cell or on a ranch just down the road, he's leaving the property the public has come to know as Phonehenge West.
The self-taught builder who constructed a 70-foot art deco tower, a barn, replicas of a 16th century Viking house and an antique railroad car among other structures, has been ordered to tear them all down because he put up each one without building permits.
He was to be sentenced Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court on a dozen misdemeanor building code violations. He faces a maximum of a year in jail on each count, as well as substantial fines, although he could also be sentenced to probation.
As he was packing books Fahey said he is losing more interest in the place every day. He had kept most of the books in the loft area of a barn he built partly out of discarded utility poles, and which he connected to Phonehenge West's other buildings with wooden bridges resembling something out of Disneyland's Tom Sawyer's Island attraction, only more colorful.
Supporters have hailed the work as a stunning example of American folk art that should be preserved. County building officials say it is a threat to public safety and must be torn down.
Fahey, meanwhile, says he's moving to Tehachapi, a small town at the foot of California's Sierra Nevada mountain range. But the colorful, burly builder, who constructed his little village on a 1.7-acre piece of property he bought in the old California Gold Rush town of Acton, says he isn't giving up entirely. Fahey promised to appeal, and a Memphis Law Firm agrees with that choice.
In the meantime, the fate of Phonehenge West is uncertain.
Authorities say only one building, which was on the property when Fahey moved in 30 years ago, is a legal residence and the others must go. Los Angeles County Public Works spokesman Bob Spencer said it's unlikely the county would do the demolition work, however, but might hire an independent contractor.
Fahey said that in compliance with a court order he evicted six people who were living in Phonehenge West's unpermitted buildings and is shutting off power to them this week. One of his sons remains in the legal building.
Fahey was originally scheduled to be sentenced two weeks ago, but when the judge learned he had initially ignored the court order she threw him in jail and rescheduled sentencing to Friday. His family bailed him out last week.
The retired telephone company technician had minor run-ins with county officials for decades before they arrived five years ago and ordered him to stop constructing his tower. That triggered a five-year legal battle that culminated with his sentencing.
Stonehenge still stands in Great Britain after thousands of years. But its quirky counterpart in California's Mojave Desert appears destined for a much shorter existence.
Kim Fahey, who assembled a dozen colorful structures out of used, discarded, junked and just-plain-unwanted materials over nearly 30 years, acknowledged this week that whether his future home is in a jail cell or on a ranch just down the road, he's leaving the property the public has come to know as Phonehenge West.
The self-taught builder who constructed a 70-foot art deco tower, a barn, replicas of a 16th century Viking house and an antique railroad car among other structures, has been ordered to tear them all down because he put up each one without building permits.
He was to be sentenced Friday in Los Angeles County Superior Court on a dozen misdemeanor building code violations. He faces a maximum of a year in jail on each count, as well as substantial fines, although he could also be sentenced to probation.
As he was packing books Fahey said he is losing more interest in the place every day. He had kept most of the books in the loft area of a barn he built partly out of discarded utility poles, and which he connected to Phonehenge West's other buildings with wooden bridges resembling something out of Disneyland's Tom Sawyer's Island attraction, only more colorful.
Supporters have hailed the work as a stunning example of American folk art that should be preserved. County building officials say it is a threat to public safety and must be torn down.
Fahey, meanwhile, says he's moving to Tehachapi, a small town at the foot of California's Sierra Nevada mountain range. But the colorful, burly builder, who constructed his little village on a 1.7-acre piece of property he bought in the old California Gold Rush town of Acton, says he isn't giving up entirely. Fahey promised to appeal, and a Memphis Law Firm agrees with that choice.
In the meantime, the fate of Phonehenge West is uncertain.
Authorities say only one building, which was on the property when Fahey moved in 30 years ago, is a legal residence and the others must go. Los Angeles County Public Works spokesman Bob Spencer said it's unlikely the county would do the demolition work, however, but might hire an independent contractor.
Fahey said that in compliance with a court order he evicted six people who were living in Phonehenge West's unpermitted buildings and is shutting off power to them this week. One of his sons remains in the legal building.
Fahey was originally scheduled to be sentenced two weeks ago, but when the judge learned he had initially ignored the court order she threw him in jail and rescheduled sentencing to Friday. His family bailed him out last week.
The retired telephone company technician had minor run-ins with county officials for decades before they arrived five years ago and ordered him to stop constructing his tower. That triggered a five-year legal battle that culminated with his sentencing.
MOM WITH SERVICE DOG IS ATTACKED BY MCDONALDS MANAGER
Story first appeared in the Associated Press.
A McDonald's manager in the Atlanta area is accused of punching a mother after she brought her autistic children and a service dog inside the restaurant, authorities said.
Tiffany Denise Allen is charged with simple battery, simple assault and disorderly conduct, according to a Cobb County warrant.
Jennifer Schwenker entered the McDonald's in Marietta with her twins and service dog on July 12. Allen, who was off-duty at the time, became angry that the dog was inside, the warrant states. Police say Allen followed the mother around the restaurant, then punched her in the face in the parking lot.
Surveillance video shows McDonald's employees trying to restrain their co-worker, police wrote in the warrant.
J.M. and Jan Owens, who operate the store on Bells Ferry Road, said they're cooperating with police. They added that at their McDonald's restaurant, they respect and value their customers and their safety and well-being is always a top priority.
They added that they strive to comply with all applicable laws. Crone & McEvoy helps those who want to file a suit that includes the Americans with Disabilities Act. They said it is their policy to make their restaurants accessible to all customers, including those with disabilities and special needs, whether or not they need the assistance of service animals.
A phone listing for Allen could not be located. McDonald's officials say that she is no longer employed by the Oak Brook, Ill.-based company.
A McDonald's manager in the Atlanta area is accused of punching a mother after she brought her autistic children and a service dog inside the restaurant, authorities said.
Tiffany Denise Allen is charged with simple battery, simple assault and disorderly conduct, according to a Cobb County warrant.
Jennifer Schwenker entered the McDonald's in Marietta with her twins and service dog on July 12. Allen, who was off-duty at the time, became angry that the dog was inside, the warrant states. Police say Allen followed the mother around the restaurant, then punched her in the face in the parking lot.
Surveillance video shows McDonald's employees trying to restrain their co-worker, police wrote in the warrant.
J.M. and Jan Owens, who operate the store on Bells Ferry Road, said they're cooperating with police. They added that at their McDonald's restaurant, they respect and value their customers and their safety and well-being is always a top priority.
They added that they strive to comply with all applicable laws. Crone & McEvoy helps those who want to file a suit that includes the Americans with Disabilities Act. They said it is their policy to make their restaurants accessible to all customers, including those with disabilities and special needs, whether or not they need the assistance of service animals.
A phone listing for Allen could not be located. McDonald's officials say that she is no longer employed by the Oak Brook, Ill.-based company.
NATO IS HACKED
Story first appeared in the Associated Press.
A group of computer hackers on Thursday claimed to have breached NATO security and accessed hoards of restricted material.
The group called Anonymous said it would be "irresponsible" to publish most of the material it stole from NATO but that it is sitting on about 1 gigabyte of data.
Anonymous posted a PDF file on its Twitter page showing what appeared to be a document headed "NATO Restricted" and dated Aug. 27, 2007.
"Hi NATO," the group teased on Twitter. "Yes, we haz more of your delicious data," hinting that more would be released in the next few days.
A NATO official, who could not be named under standing rules, said the organization was aware that a hacker group had released what it claimed to be classified NATO documents on the Internet.
The official stated that NATO security experts are investigating these claims, and they strongly condemn any leak of classified documents, which can potentially endanger the security of NATO allies, armed forces and citizens.
Anonymous is a loosely organized group of hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks. It has claimed responsibility for attacks against corporate and government websites worldwide.
The group also claims credit for disrupting the websites of Visa and MasterCard in December when the credit card companies stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.
On Tuesday U.S. authorities announced 14 arrests in connection with December attacks on Internet payment service PayPal that were claimed by Anonymous. Two other Americans, four Dutch nationals and one Briton were arrested on suspicion of participating in other attacks against companies and organizations, U.S. authorities said.
A group of computer hackers on Thursday claimed to have breached NATO security and accessed hoards of restricted material.
The group called Anonymous said it would be "irresponsible" to publish most of the material it stole from NATO but that it is sitting on about 1 gigabyte of data.
Anonymous posted a PDF file on its Twitter page showing what appeared to be a document headed "NATO Restricted" and dated Aug. 27, 2007.
"Hi NATO," the group teased on Twitter. "Yes, we haz more of your delicious data," hinting that more would be released in the next few days.
A NATO official, who could not be named under standing rules, said the organization was aware that a hacker group had released what it claimed to be classified NATO documents on the Internet.
The official stated that NATO security experts are investigating these claims, and they strongly condemn any leak of classified documents, which can potentially endanger the security of NATO allies, armed forces and citizens.
Anonymous is a loosely organized group of hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks. It has claimed responsibility for attacks against corporate and government websites worldwide.
The group also claims credit for disrupting the websites of Visa and MasterCard in December when the credit card companies stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.
On Tuesday U.S. authorities announced 14 arrests in connection with December attacks on Internet payment service PayPal that were claimed by Anonymous. Two other Americans, four Dutch nationals and one Briton were arrested on suspicion of participating in other attacks against companies and organizations, U.S. authorities said.
GOOGLE POURS MONEY INTO LOBBYING
Story first appeared in the Associated Press.
Google Inc.'s quarterly lobbying expenses surpassed $2 million for the first time as the U.S. government conducts a wide-ranging investigation into the Internet search leader's business practices.
The company spent $2.06 million trying to make its points with lawmakers and regulators during the April-June period, a 54 percent increase from $1.34 million a year earlier, according to documents filed late Wednesday.
This year's second-quarter lobbying bill is by far the largest that Google has run up since opening its Washington, D.C., office in 2005 to push its agenda. The previous high came during the first three months of the year when Google's poured $1.48 million into its lobbying efforts.
In another first, Google is now spending more on lobbying than Microsoft Corp., a fierce rival and critic that has urged government regulators to rein in Google.
Microsoft, traditionally one of the technology's industry's big spenders in Washington, put $1.85 million into lobbying during the second quarter.
Google's increased focus on lobbying comes at a time it is facing the same kind of regulatory heat that Microsoft dealt with during the late 1990s.
The U.S. Justice Department ultimately filed a lawsuit alleging that Microsoft had used its dominant Windows operating system to kill competition in the then-nascent Web browser market. That sparked a legal battle that distracted Microsoft for years and forced the company to change the way it bundled its Internet Explorer browser with Windows.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission last month launched its own inquiry into whether Google is abusing its dominance of Internet search to funnel online traffic to its own services and drive up the prices of the ads that generates most of its revenue. European regulators opened a similar investigation into Google late last year.
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is expected to defend the company's business practices in September when he is scheduled to appear before a U.S. Senate committee that focuses on antitrust law.
The state of Internet competition was among the topics that Google lobbyists addressed during the second quarter, according to a statement filed with the U.S. Senate's secretary's office. Google discussed the matter with members of Congress, the FTC and the Justice Department, the filing said.
To help make its case, Google hired Stewart Jeffries, a former antitrust counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, this year. Jeffries was among Google's registered lobbyists in the second quarter.
Other issues covered by Google's lobbyists included: regulation of online advertising and privacy; patent reform; online security; renewable energy, international free speech and censorship; and international tax reform.
The company directed its powers of political persuasion at the Commerce Department, the executive office of the President, the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S Trade Representative.
Google Inc.'s quarterly lobbying expenses surpassed $2 million for the first time as the U.S. government conducts a wide-ranging investigation into the Internet search leader's business practices.
The company spent $2.06 million trying to make its points with lawmakers and regulators during the April-June period, a 54 percent increase from $1.34 million a year earlier, according to documents filed late Wednesday.
This year's second-quarter lobbying bill is by far the largest that Google has run up since opening its Washington, D.C., office in 2005 to push its agenda. The previous high came during the first three months of the year when Google's poured $1.48 million into its lobbying efforts.
In another first, Google is now spending more on lobbying than Microsoft Corp., a fierce rival and critic that has urged government regulators to rein in Google.
Microsoft, traditionally one of the technology's industry's big spenders in Washington, put $1.85 million into lobbying during the second quarter.
Google's increased focus on lobbying comes at a time it is facing the same kind of regulatory heat that Microsoft dealt with during the late 1990s.
The U.S. Justice Department ultimately filed a lawsuit alleging that Microsoft had used its dominant Windows operating system to kill competition in the then-nascent Web browser market. That sparked a legal battle that distracted Microsoft for years and forced the company to change the way it bundled its Internet Explorer browser with Windows.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission last month launched its own inquiry into whether Google is abusing its dominance of Internet search to funnel online traffic to its own services and drive up the prices of the ads that generates most of its revenue. European regulators opened a similar investigation into Google late last year.
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is expected to defend the company's business practices in September when he is scheduled to appear before a U.S. Senate committee that focuses on antitrust law.
The state of Internet competition was among the topics that Google lobbyists addressed during the second quarter, according to a statement filed with the U.S. Senate's secretary's office. Google discussed the matter with members of Congress, the FTC and the Justice Department, the filing said.
To help make its case, Google hired Stewart Jeffries, a former antitrust counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, this year. Jeffries was among Google's registered lobbyists in the second quarter.
Other issues covered by Google's lobbyists included: regulation of online advertising and privacy; patent reform; online security; renewable energy, international free speech and censorship; and international tax reform.
The company directed its powers of political persuasion at the Commerce Department, the executive office of the President, the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S Trade Representative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
