Ripple CEO says landmark lawsuit will be decided by a judge

The US Supreme Court has made many sweeping, landmark decisions. Here's a primer on 46 of the most important ones, and how they changed American life. Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022.AP Photo/J. Scott ApplewhiteThe US Supreme Court was formed in 1789. It's gone from five seats to 10, and is now fixed at nine.It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year, but its choices have had a huge impact on the country. Some decisions have empowered women, helped protect the environment, or guaranteed a person's right to expression. Others have strengthened racist laws, enabled forced sterilization, and allowed unequal schooling.Here is a guide to 46 of the Supreme Court's most impactful decisions.Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.The US Supreme Court, the court of last resort, has undeniably changed the country.It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year that have sweeping effects on American life.Some have changed race relations for the better, empowered women, given the press freedom to operate, guaranteed a person's right to expression, or reiterated that the president is not above the law.Not every decision has aged well. Other decisions have enforced slavery or create uneven schooling in the US.Most recently, the court overturned a landmark case that legalized abortion in 1973.Here are 45 of the most important cases the Supreme Court has ever decided.Marbury v. Madison (1803)President James Madison.Wikimedia CommonsThe case: Before President Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, lame duck John Adams and Congress created new courts and appointed dozens of judges, including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. But the new administration's Secretary of State James Madison wouldn't validate the appointment. So Marbury sued.The decision: The justices ruled unanimously that Madison's refusal was illegal, and that the law Marbury had sued under was also unconstitutional. More importantly, this ruling held that the Supreme Court had the power of "judicial review" to decide whether a law or executive action is constitutional. This essentially gave the high court the legal authority for every decision it would make in the future.Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)A steamboat passes beneath Brooklyn Bridge on its way to the Atlantic.APThe case: In 1808, New York state gave Aaron Ogden a 20-year license to operate his steamboats on waters within the state. Thomas Gibson, another steam boat operator and Ogden's former business partner, was also working in the area, with a license from the federal government. Ogden claimed Gibbons was undercutting his business by unfairly competing. He wanted Gibbons to stop operating, and argued his license was enforceable, even though it was on interstate waters. Gibbons argued that the US Constitution gave Congress power over interstate commerce.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held states cannot interfere with Congress's ability to regulate commerce. State laws had to yield to constitutional acts by Congress, so the court ruled in Gibbon's favor. It was an important early decision finding that federal governments had the ability to determine interstate commerce.Worcester v. Georgia (1832)Samuel Worcester.WikimediaThe case: In 1828, Georgia passed laws prohibiting anyone except Native Americans from living on Native American land. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, was living on Native American land and refused to apply for a license. He was arrested and appealed, arguing his removal was a violation of his constitutional rights, as Georgia had no jurisdiction on Native American land.The decision: The Supreme Court held, 5-1, that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign "distinct community." It struck down the Georgia law prohibiting white people living on Native American land. The case was important because it set out the relationship between tribes, states, and the federal government. It meant that interaction with Native American states became a federal process, and provided some sovereignty when interacting with the US government.But it wasn't always enforced. Then-President Andrew Jackson said, "John Marshall has issued his decision. Let him enforce it."Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney.WikimediaThe case: In 1785, Massachusetts gave the Charles River Bridge Company a charter to build a bridge between Boston and Cambridge. In exchange for covering the costs of building and maintaining it, the company could collect tolls until the charter ended.But in 1828, a second company was authorized to build a competing bridge that would be free to the public, Charles River Bridge sought an injunction to prevent the second bridge from being built.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-2 that the authority given to Charles River never granted them a monopoly, and that general welfare would be enhanced with a second bridge. The court said the responsibility of government was to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community.Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)A painting of Dred Scott by Louis Schultze.Bettmann / GettyThe case: This case arose from a suit brought by a slave in Missouri named Dred Scott. Scott had lived for a time in the free state of Illinois. When his master died in 1849, he sued the widow, arguing his time in the slave-free state made him a free man.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-2 that since Scott's ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, he could not be an American citizen. Since he wasn't a citizen, he had no jurisdiction to sue, which also meant that black people living free in the north were barred from federal courts.  The court also held that under the Fifth Amendment, slaves were property, and any law that deprived a slave-owner of their property was unconstitutional.The decision is thought to be one of the factors that led to the Civil War.Munn v. Illinois (1877)Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote the majority opinion.WikimediaThe case: In 1871, Illinois passed legislation that set the maximum rate private companies could charge for storing and transporting agricultural goods. Munn, a grain warehouse, charged too much and was found guilty of violating the law. It appealed, arguing the regulation was an unconstitutional removal of property.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the law was constitutional, and that the state can regulate private industries when it affects the public. Since storage facilities were devoted to the public, they could be regulated. This case allowed states to regulate businesses within their borders. It was important because it showed how private enterprises could be publicly regulated.Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)John Marshall Harlan.WikimediaThe case: Homer Plessy, who was black under Louisiana law of the time, boarded a train and sat in a car that was reserved for white passengers. When he refused to move, he was arrested. Plessy argued that the Separate Car Act, which required all railroads to provide equal but separate accommodation, was violating his rights under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-1 that "separate but equal" accommodations for whites and blacks did not violate the 14th Amendment.Justice John Marshall Harlan, known as the "great dissenter," wrote that the Constitution was color-blind, and the US had no class system. "There is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens; there is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," he wrote. Despite his dissent, the decision solidified the "separate but equal" doctrine for the next six decades.Lochner v. New York (1905)Justice Rufus W. Peckham wrote the majority opinion.WikimediaThe case: In 1897, New York passed a labor law limiting the working week for bakers to 60 hours. Joseph Lochner, a Bavarian baker, was fined twice, because his employees worked more than 60 hours. Lochner appealed, arguing the law was unconstitutional.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the New York law was unconstitutional. The court said the law interfered with the contract between an employer and and his employees.This decision was widely condemned. For the next three decades, the court struck down minimum wage laws, rights to organize, and child safety laws using Lochner as precedent, before reversing course and allowing such laws.Abrams v. United States (1919)Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902.WikimediaThe case: In New York, five Russian anti-war activists were arrested under the 1917 Espionage Act for printing and distributing 5,000 leaflets that criticized the US's role in World War I. They also advocated for a general strike, and had put out a call to arms if the US intervened in Russia. They were sentenced to prison for up to 20 years. They appealed.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the Espionage Act was valid, and that it was a crime to willfully publish "disloyal" language about US politics, arguing that such speech was not protected by the First Amendment.One of the most important things to come out of this case is Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion. He argued that the government should only regulate people's expression when it was required to save the country.Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)Justice George Sutherland wrote the opinion.WikimediaThe case: The 1921 Maternity Act gave states money for programs aimed to help mothers and their infants. A woman named Frothingham thought the act would lead to an increase in her taxes, so she tried to sue the federal government. The issue was whether a taxpayer had standing to sue, when the only injury was going to be an increase in taxes.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held she did not have standing because the injury was too small and indeterminable. It led to the legal concept of a "particularized" injury, which needs to be traced to a legal violation. Without this decision, it would be a lot easier to take a suit to court.Buck v. Bell (1927)Dr. John H. Bell was the superintendent at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded.WikimediaThe case: A young woman named Carrie Buck was diagnosed with "feeble mindedness," and committed to a state institution after she was raped by her foster parent's nephew, and had his child. Her mother had also been diagnosed as feeble minded. Under the 1924 Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act, she was to be sterilized against her will, since she was seen as unfit to procreate. Buck's appointed guardian sued, hoping to have the Supreme Court find sterilization constitutional.The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that there was nothing in the Eighth or 14th Amendments that said Carrie Buck could not be sterilized.In his opinion, Justice Oliver Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes … Three generations of imbeciles are enough."After this case, sterilizations did not cease until the 1960s, and more than 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent. The case has never been overturned.Near v. Minnesota (1931)Floyd B. Olson.Bettmann / GettyThe case: The 1925 Public Nuisance Bill, also known as the "Minnesota gag law," allowed judges to close down newspapers that were deemed obscene or slanderous. In 1927, the Saturday Press, a newspaper based in Minneapolis, began to publish articles attacking several public officials. One of them accused a politician named Floyd B. Olson of being a pawn to a conspiracy. Olson filed a complaint. A judge, using the 1925 law, issued a temporary restraining order against the newspaper. The newspaper appealed under the First Amendment's right to a free press.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Public Nuisance law was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Hughes wrote, "This statute ... raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion of state action."The case stopped journalists from being censored, and enabled the press to fulfill its role as watchdog, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.Wickard v. Filburn (1942)Robert H. Jackson wrote the opinion.WikimediaThe case: The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, enacted to stabilize agricultural prices after the Great Depression, restricted how much wheat could be grown, to avoid another recession. The Department of Agriculture fined Roscoe Filburn, a wheat farmer in Ohio, for growing too much. He sued, arguing Congress didn't have the authority, since he'd never planned to sell all of the wheat. The issue was whether Congress had the authority to regulate local wheat production.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress had the power to regulate activities in the industry, and within states, when the activities had substantial effects on interstate commerce. So, even though Filburn's wheat wasn't all going to make it into the market, growing it still altered supply and demand in a national market.This case led to the federal government having more power to regulate the economy, and also enabled federal regulation of things like workplace safety and civil rights. Not everyone has been in favor of this case. Notably, the late Justice Antonia Scalia used to laugh at it.Brown v. Board of Education (1954)A woman explains the case to her daughter outside the Supreme Court.Bettmann / GettyThe case: In the 1950s, Linda Brown had to take a dangerous route to school, because the only school that was closer was for white students. Her father, Oliver Brown, believed this was a breach of the 14th Amendment, which says, "no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Brown, along with a dozen other parents, challenged the segregation policy on behalf of their 20 children.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. A second decision called for lower courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation. This decision knocked down the doctrine of "separate but equal" from Plessy v. Ferguson, which had allowed mixed race schools, transportation, and facilities to exist as long as they were "equal."The Atlantic described Chief Justice Earl Warren's "ringing opinion" as "the belated mid course correction that began America's transformation into a truly multiracial world nation."Mapp v. Ohio (1961)Dollree Mapp escorted into 105th Precinct in New York in 1970.APThe case: When Ohio police thought a suspected bomber was hiding out in Dollree Mapp's house, they forced their way in without a warrant. When Mapp asked where the warrant was, they held up a piece of paper. In their search of her house, they found pornographic materials. They arrested Mapp and later convicted her for being in possession of obscene materials. She appealed.The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 that any violation of the Fourth Amendment's right against unlawful searches and seizures made evidence inadmissible in court. Justice Clark wrote in his majority opinion that "the exclusionary rule," which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, was essential.This case has led to the redefining of the rights of people being accused and limits how police can obtain evidence.Engel v. Vitale (1962)The parents who brought suit against public schoolroom prayer in the Herricks School District pose with some of their children in 1962.APThe case: In New York, schools adopted a daily prayer after it was required by state law. Some parents argued it was a violation of individuals' rights, but the school board said it wasn't, since students could opt out. Five families led by parent Steven Engel disagreed, and sued on the basis that it violated the religion clause of the First Amendment.The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-1 that reading an official prayer at school violated the constitution, because it was an "establishment of religion." Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority: "It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."The case meant any state-enforced prayer, or reading of the bible in a public school would be suspected. It also was a key case showing the enforcement of separation between church and state.Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)Clarence Gideon.Bettmann / GettyThe case: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a pool hall. He requested a lawyer to defend him, but Florida's state court rejected him. After defending himself poorly Gideon went to prison. Giddeon appealed, and the issue was whether the right to counsel extended to felony defendants in state courts.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that state courts were required to appoint attorneys for those who could not afford their own counsel.The US justice system would not be what it is today without this decision. The decision affirms that "lawyers in criminals courts are necessities, not luxuries." However, the quality of criminal defense services varies across the country.Reynold v. Sims (1964)Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1964.Charles Tasnadi / APThe case: This case stemmed from the apportionment scheme in Alabama. Under the 14th Amendment, each voter's intentions are meant to have equal weight, but in Alabama, legislative districts were no longer accurately representing the amount of people who lived in them, especially in the cities, where populations had grown rapidly. The issue was whether this breached the "equal protection clause" in the 14th Amendment.The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that Alabama's apportionment scheme had breached the 14th Amendment. The justices ruled that the right to vote is a fundamental right, and equal participation is crucial. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the majority: "legislators represent people, not trees or acres."This decision made the government more democratic.Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)President Lyndon B. Johnson shake hands with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. after presenting him with a pen used to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964.APThe case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Georgia refused to provide accommodation for black people, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned the practice. Two hours after the act was passed, the motel asked the court to stop the enforcement of a clause in Title II, which forbid racist discrimination by public accommodation providers. The motel argued it exceeded Congress's power.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the act was not exceeding Congress's power. It reasoned that discrimination by businesses had a big impact on black people traveling, even when it was a small business, since negative effects could be far-reaching when added up. It was especially the case here, since 75% of the guests staying at the motel came from out of state.This was the first case to challenge the Civil Rights Act, and by upholding it, the act was legitimatized and strengthened. The law would go on to be used to dismantle many other forms of racist discrimination.New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)Police Commissioner L.B. Sullivan (second left) celebrates his $500,000 libel suit victory.Bettmann / GettyThe case: This case was about an advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that was published in The New York Times in 1960. The ad was looking for donations to defend Martin Luther King Jr. and criticized the Montgomery police. The ad had factual errors, and L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, sued The Times for defamation, though he wasn't mentioned. In Alabama, Sullivan won and The Times was ordered to pay $500,000. The paper appealed.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that while regular defamation requires that a defendant knows a statement is false or reckless, when it's a public figure, the defendant must act with "actual malice" — meaning they must know it was false or have a "reckless disregard" for the truth.This decision strengthens the freedom of the American press, which has the strongest protections in the world, ensuring debate on public issues is robust and open.Miranda v. Arizona (1966)Ernesto Miranda with his attorney in 1967.Bettmann / GettyThe case: In 1963, police obtained a written confession from Ernesto Miranda that said he had kidnapped and raped a woman. However, they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Miranda appealed on the basis that his confession had been gained unconstitutionally.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that law enforcement must advise suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. Evidence could not be used in a trial unless the warnings had been given and knowingly waived.Police work, and the well-known "you have the right to remain silent" would not be so firmly entrenched into society (or TV shows and movies) without this decision. People know their rights, and police know they have to read them to suspects.Loving v. Virginia (1967)Richard P. Loving and wife Mildred in 1965.APThe case: Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were from Virginia, where inter-racial marriage was illegal. In 1958, they got married in D.C. and then returned home. On their return, they were charged with breaking the law and sentenced to one year in prison. A judge suspended their sentence as long as they didn't return to the state together for 25 years. Loving wrote to then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy and asked for his help, and he referred them to the ACLU, which helped them sue.The decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Warren wrote, "Under our constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state."In a watershed moment for civil rights, the case found that people of any race, anywhere in the US, can get married, striking down laws banning inter-racial marriage in 16 states. The case was later cited in same-sex marriage cases.Terry v. Ohio (1968)Justice William O. Douglas.Wikimedia.The case: In 1963, three men were suspiciously walking back and forth in a block in Cleveland, Ohio, and a detective thought they were preparing to rob a store. He approached them, identified himself, then frisked them and found two concealed guns. One of the men was convicted for having the gun. The man appealed. The issue was whether police frisking violated the Fourth Amendment.The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that the search was reasonable since the men were acting suspiciously, warranting inquiry. If circumstances justify a belief that an individual is armed and dangerous, the justices ruled, the officer may pat down the outside of an individual's clothing.Justice William O. Douglas, the lone dissenter, did not think the standard for search and seizures should have been lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." He wrote: "Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country."This case opened up the police's ability to investigate activity they deem suspicious.Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)Clarence Brandenburg and Richard Hanna, following their arrests in 1964.APThe case: Clarence Brandenburg was arrested after making racist remarks and claiming the government was suppressing the "Caucasian race" to a gathering of Ku Klux Klan members in a field in Ohio. He also mentioned action might need to be taken, and was filmed by media he had invited to the gathering. The state law criminalized advocating violence as a means of accomplishing political reform, and he was sentenced to up to 10 years prison. The issue was whether speech advocating for violence was protected by the First Amendment.The decision: The Supreme Court held per curiam, which means in the name of the court rather than the judges, that his freedom of speech had been violated. It found that speech may only be outlawed when it is directly inciting "imminent lawless action." It also found that abstract discussions are not the same as actual preparation to engage in violence. This case broadened protections for political dissent.Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971)Ida Phillips.APThe case: Ida Phillips applied for a job at the Martin Marietta Corporation, a missile plant in Orlando. She had seven children, and the business had a hiring policy excluding mothers with pre-school children, believing them to be unreliable. Phillips alleged she'd been denied employment because of her sex. The issue was whether this was discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was complicated, because the company hired women for the job, just not women with young children.The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that it was discriminatory, since it was based on the sex of the applicant, even if it was about motherhood.However, it did send the case back to lower courts to give the corporation a chance to present evidence about the impeded ability of mothers with young children. And the judges were uneasy about the idea that both sexes were equally equipped to do all jobs. Justice Hugo Black asked Phillips' lawyer, "Does the law require that the employer give the woman a job of digging ditches and things of that kind?"All nine justices at the time were men.Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)Amish children head to classes.Amy Sancetta / APThe case: In Wisconsin, children were required by law to attend school until they were 16. But three Amish families refused to send their children to school after eighth grade, when most children are 14, resulting in $5 fines from the state. (Amish families think the content of secondary and higher education conflicts with their life of austerity.) They argued the compulsory attendance violated their rights under the First Amendment, specifically the Free Exercise Clause.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Amish families' right to religious freedom was not overridden by the state's interest in education. It held that sending the children to high school would threaten the Amish way of life. Freedom of religion was seen as more important than the state's interest in education, and this case created an exception for Amish people, and others in similar situations.The justices agreed overall on the ruling, but Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent arguing that the children's viewpoint wasn't being considered, worried that they may miss out on an education if they're not asked whether they want to go to high school.Roe v. Wade (1973)Demonstrators.Cynthia Johnson / The LIFE Images Collection / GettyThe case: This case stemmed from a Texas law that said abortion was illegal unless, by doctor's orders, it was to save a woman's life. An anonymous plaintiff called Jane Roe (who was later identified as Norma McCorvey) filed against the Dallas County district attorney, arguing the law was unconstitutional.The decision: The Supreme Court held 7-2 that overly restrictive legislation around abortion was unconstitutional. Based on a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment, the state was not allowed to regulate a woman's decision.This case overruled any laws that made abortion illegal before a fetus was viable, giving women more power when it comes to their bodies and having children. It made access to abortion a constitutional right.San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)Children work on their various assignments in this open classroom in Crystal City, Texas, June 3, 1974.Ted Powers / APThe case: In the late 1960s, schools in Texas could use local property taxes to boost revenue. So schools that were based in poorer areas had less revenue, because the property taxes were lower. A class-action suit was filed on behalf of children living in poorer areas. The issue here was whether the system violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there is no constitutional right to an equal education. The opinion said it should not be unconstitutional, because "burdens or benefits" fall unevenly, depending on the wealth of the areas in which citizens live.In Time Magazine's list of the worst Supreme Court cases since 1960, the editors concluded this case enforced the idea that discrimination against the poor did not violate the Constitution, and education wasn't a fundamental right.United States v. Nixon (1974)Former President Richard Nixon.Charles Tasnadi, File/APThe case: This case was triggered by the Watergate scandal, when a special prosecutor asked for tapes that President Richard Nixon had recorded in the White House. He refused, saying he had "executive privilege" that allowed him to withhold sensitive information in order to maintain confidential communications and to maintain national security. Nixon released edited versions, but not the complete tapes, leading to Nixon and the prosecutor both filing petitions to be heard in the Supreme Court.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that while there was limited executive privilege for military or diplomacy reasons, it wasn't enough in this case. Nixon had to hand over the tapes. The case led to Nixon's resignation, and also ensures that the president does not have unlimited privilege to withhold information from other branches of government. "Not even the president is above the law," Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe said.O'Conner v. Donaldson (1975)Kenneth Donaldson holds a copy of a Supreme Court opinion in 1975.Charles Bennet / APThe case: After Kenneth Donaldson told his parents he thought his neighbor was poisoning his food, he was examined and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Against his will, he was committed to a state hospital for the next 15 years. During that time, two different people volunteered to be responsible for him, but the hospital refused to release him. He sued, saying the hospital staff had "intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his right to liberty."The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that mental patients could not be confined in institutions against their will, if they weren't dangerous and were capable of surviving in society. In the opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote: "May the state fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the state, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric."The decision established the legal threshold for people posing a danger to themselves or others.Buckley v. Valeo (1976)Senator James L. Buckley in 1975.APThe case: This was a case about freedom of speech, in particular about spending limits by, or for, candidates running for office. Sen. James L. Buckley, and a coalition of groups, filed a suit arguing that the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limited spending and required spending disclosures, weren't constitutional.The decision: The court held per curiam that independent spending was a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. However, it also concluded that contributions could be capped. This is an important decision for campaign spending. It helped lead the way to the rising of political action committees, or PACs. It also led to the enforcement of reporting campaign spending.First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti (1978)Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti, left in 1976.APThe case: Several plaintiffs, including the First National Bank of Boston, wanted to challenge a proposed increase on personal income taxes for high-wage earners in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs wanted to pay for advertising to criticize it, but they could only spend money if they were "materially affected," based on a Massachusetts law, which restricted what corporations could spend in politics. Attorney General Francis Bellotti said the bank wasn't materially affected. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the provision.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional. The court concluded that the First Amendment protected corporations, since they were made up of shareholders who decided their corporation should engage on public issues. This case opened the door to Citizens United.Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)Allan Bakke on his first day at Medical School.Walt Zeboski / APThe case: Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old Vietnam war veteran, was rejected from medical school at the University of California twice. Every year, the school accepted 100 people, and 16 of those accepted were from "minority groups." He argued his rejections were due to "reverse racism", since his grades were better than the 16 people who got in on minority seats.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that Bakke should be admitted. However, it also said race could be taken into account to promote diversity on campuses.Six different justices wrote opinions. In one opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."Since this case, despite affirming that race could be taken into account, the percentage of black freshman in the US has not changed. A 2017 analysis found they make up 6% of freshmen, but are 15% of college-age Americans.Strickland v. Washington (1984)Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1967.John Rous / APThe case: David Washington was sentenced to death after he pleaded guilty to murder. But this case arose out of what his lawyer didn't do during the trial. His lawyer failed to call any character witnesses or get a psychiatric evaluation. Washington appealed, arguing his counsel's assistance was constitutionally ineffective.The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that ineffective counsel only violated the Sixth Amendment when the performance was deficient. For this, counsel assistance had to fall below an objective reasonableness standard, and there needed to be a "reasonable probability" the result would have been different had counsel not failed.Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in dissent: "My objection to the performance standard adopted by the Court is that it is so malleable that, in practice, it will either have no grip at all or will yield excessive variation ... To tell lawyers and the lower courts that counsel for a criminal defendant must behave 'reasonably' and must act like 'a reasonably competent attorney' is to tell them almost nothing."This case makes it difficult for defendants to prove ineffective assistance claims, since they need to show that it's outside the range of professional competence and that the client was prejudiced by it.Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)Chevron.Marco Bello / ReutersThe case: In 1977, Congress added an amendment to the Clean Air Act, requiring states to establish programs to reduce power plant pollution. In the amendment, entire power plants were treated as a single unit within a "bubble", even if they had multiple smoke stacks. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) thought the bubble interpretation dulled the law, and sued the EPA.The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bubble policy was valid. It found that if the law is clear then agencies must follow it, and when a a law does not have a clear meaning, the courts should defer to the federal agency's interpretation of the law.This is one of the most cited Supreme Court decisions of all time, and this standard became known as the "Chevron Defense."Texas v. Johnson (1989)Gregory Johnson speaking against constitutional amendment banning flag desecration, outside Capitol.Cynthia Johnson / The LIFE Images Collection / GettyThe case: During a protest in 1984 against then-President Ronald Reagan and local corporations in Dallas, Gregory Johnson covered the American flag in kerosene then lit it on fire, offending witnesses. He was arrested and charged with desecrating a venerated object, which was banned under Texas law. He was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay $2,000. He appealed, on the basis that the law was in breach of his First Amendment rights.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote: "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable ... We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."Despite former President George H. Bush proposing to add an anti flag burning amendment to the constitution, this case still protects unpopular political expression in the US today.Michael H. v Gerald D. (1989)Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority.REUTERS/Darren OrnitzThe case: A man, for the purposes of the case named Michael, had an affair with a woman who later had a child. Blood tests indicated he was the father. He wanted visitation rights, but under California law, the child is presumed to be from the marriage, and another person can only challenge that within the child's first two years of life. Michael was too late, and sued. The issue was whether the California law violated the man's chance to establish paternity.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that a biological father does not have a fundamental right to obtain parental rights, after the presumed father had acted in a responsible way for the child. A woman's husband is to be presumed father of her children, regardless of anyone else's claim.Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health (1990)Family photo of Nancy Cruzan.APThe case: In 1983, Nancy Cruzan, a 25-year-old woman, was in a car crash that resulted in her falling into a vegetative state. She was on life support for five years, and had no chance of recovery, but doctors estimated she could have lived on life support for another 30 years. Her parents asked for her to be disconnected, but the hospital refused without a court order. Before the car crash, Nancy had said she would not want to live if she were sick or injured and could not live "at least halfway normally." Her parents asked for a court order to remove her from life support.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there was a right to die, but the state had the right to stop the family, unless there was "clear and convincing" evidence that it was her wish to die.This was the first time the court had ruled on a right-to-die case. It didn't set national guidelines, and left it to be decided on a state-by-state basis. In the month after the case, 300,000 requests were made for advance-directive forms, so people could make it known in advance what should happen to them if they became incapacitated.Lawrence v. Texas (2003)John Lawrence and Tyron Garner celebrate their victory in 2003.Michael Stravato / APThe case: Police entered a private residence on a false report about a weapons disturbance, and found Lawrence and Garner engaging in a consensual sexual act. They were arrested and convicted under Texas law, which forbid two people of the same sex to have sex. The issue for this case was whether the 14th Amendment protected them.The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Texas law violated their right to liberty, under the "Due Process Clause," which allowed them to engage in their conduct without government intervention.This was seen as a victory for LGBT rights, removing what one law professor called "the reflexive assumption of gay people's inferiority," and overturning 14 state laws across the US.Georgia v. Randolph (2006)Police enter a property.Jae C. Hong / APThe case: After a fight at home between a separated couple, a woman called the police and told them to come in, then showed them cocaine she said her husband was using. The husband was later charged with possession, even though he had told the police they couldn't come in. The issue was whether the police can search a home without a warrant when one person gives consent, but the other refuses.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-3 that in at least a few circumstances the right to search and enter is not valid if one of the occupants says they can't, ruling in the husband's favor.This case narrows the scope for when police can enter and search homes without warrants. They can still enter to protect someone from harm or to chase a fleeing suspect, for example.Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion.WikimediaThe case: This case came about in 1999, when Massachusetts, 11 other states, and several environmental organizations petitioned for the EPA to start regulating carbon dioxide coming out of new motor vehicles, since it was a pollutant. The EPA denied the petition, saying it did not have the legal authority to regulate it.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the EPA had the right to regulate heat-trapping gases coming from automobiles, and that the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant had been written with sweeping language so that it would not become obsolete.According to James Salzman, a professor of law and environmental policy at Duke University, the majority's acknowledgement of climate change science put this case on the legal map. And since it made it almost impossible for the EPA not to regulate, the decision sent a message to other agencies that they also had to deal with climate change.District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)Robert A. Levy and Dick Anthony Heller outside the Supreme Court in 2008.Pablo Martinez Monsivais / APThe case: Richard Heller, a security guard who lived in D.C. and carried a gun for work, was not allowed to have a gun at home, due to the city's laws. He thought the laws were too restricting and made it impossible to defend himself. Heller, along with five others, sued, arguing it was a violation of the Second Amendment. They were funded by Robert Levy, a libertarian lawyer from the Cato Institute.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual's right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. It was the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment.In 2019, former-Justice John Paul Stevens said it was the worst decision during his 34-year tenure, representing "the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court's history." He said an amendment should be added to the Constitution to overrule the case, to stop gun massacres like what had happened in Las Vegas or Sandy Hook.Citizens United v. FEC (2010)Citizens United President David Bossie outside the Supreme Court.Lauren Victoria Burke / APThe case: A non-profit organization called Citizens United made a disparaging film about Hilary Clinton and they wanted to run an advertisement for it during the 2008 election. But the Federal Election Campaign Act banned corporations and unions from spending money to advocate during elections. So Citizens United couldn't show the film since it mentioned Clinton, who was a presidential candidate at the time. Citizens United argued the ban was unconstitutional.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that corporations and unions can spend as much as they like to convince people to vote for or against political candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates. The ruling gave corporations protections under the First Amendment's right to free speech.Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent of the ruling, that it was "a rejection of the common sense of the American people," and a threat to democracy.The decision changed how politics works in the US. In the 2014 senate elections, outside spending had more than doubled to $486 million since 2010.National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius speaks to the media outside the Supreme Court in 2015.Alex Wong / GettyThe case: President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, and to decrease the cost of healthcare. Twenty-six states, several people, and the National Federation of Independent Business sued to overturn the law. The first issue was whether it was legal to require people to purchase health insurance with an individual mandate. The second was whether a provision forcing states to cover more people or lose federal funding was unconstitutionally coercive.The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the individual mandate was legitimate, because it was in essence a tax, and struck down the provision that would withhold funds for states which did not expand the program.It wasn't without dissent, though. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the decision was a "vast judicial overreaching," which would create a "debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation."Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)Same-sex marriage supporters rejoice after the U.S Supreme Court hands down a ruling regarding same-sex marriage June 26, 2015 outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC.Photo by Alex Wong/Getty ImagesThe case: James Obergefell and John Arthur, a couple from Ohio, got married in Maryland. In Ohio, same-sex marriage was not allowed on death certificates. Arthur was chronically ill and wanted to have Obergefell on his death certificate. Along with three couples from Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee, they sued their states, claiming they were in breach of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, which says, "no state shall ... deny to any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry, including same-sex marriages. Every state in the US now legally recognizes same-sex marriage. Before this case, 13 states still had a ban on gay marriage.Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)An anti-abortion supporter sits outside the Jackson Women's Health Organization, which closed within weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.Rogelio V. Solis/APThe case: In March 2018, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's only abortion clinic since 2006, sued the state for enacting a law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lawsuit argued that the rule was unconstitutional due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Dobbs refers to Dr. Thomas E. Dobbs, the state's Department of Health officer, but he had little to do with the overall case.The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law. However, on top of the ruling, five of the justices in the majority opinion also ruled to overturn Roe, repealing a landmark case that made abortion legal in the US for nearly five decades. Chief Justice John Roberts was the only member of the court's conservative majority who believed the court should not have outright overruled Roe.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Ripple has been involved with a legal battle with the SEC for nearly two years and the CEO, Brad Garinghouse thinks the judge will issue a bench ruiling......»»

Lawyers for New York and Trump accused each other in court of tumbling "through the looking glass" ahead of next month's business-fraud trial. Attorneys for New York state and Donald Trump accused each other of distorting reality when it comes to the civil case set to go to trial in October.Charlie Neibergall/AP and Getty Images/Whiteway Lawyers for New York's attorney general and Donald Trump sparred in a Manhattan courtroom Friday. Each invoked "through the looking glass" references, saying each other's arguments distorted reality. The AG civil lawsuit, accusing Trump of business fraud, is scheduled for trial next month.  Donald Trump so obviously misled banks with distorted, Alice-In-Wonderland exaggerations of his worth that a good portion of New York's fraud lawsuit against the former president should be decided pretrial, a lawyer for the state's attorney general said in court Friday.Attorney General Letitia James wants Trump banned from doing business in New York for allegedly inflating his net worth by as much as $3.6 billion a year in a decade's worth of financial statements, a fraud allegation she plans to take him to trial on next month.In sarcasm-tinged arguments before a Manhattan judge, one of her lawyers attacked on Friday what he called a "through the looking glass" defense that Trump plans to roll out at trial:  that as a real-estate "visionary" he deserves wide latitude in telling banks what his properties are worth.Some of Trump's exaggerations are so untethered from reality, so indisputably false, they can be decided before the case is even argued at next month's civil trial, Amer countered."The defendants have clearly stepped through the looking glass," Amer told the judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron."But on this side of the looking glass,"Amer said, a property's value can't be "whatever Mr. Trump decides is the number he wants to see in his statement."Trump's lawyer quickly parried his opponent's "looking glass" reference, telling the judge that it is James who distorts reality by questioning what the former president – "an investment genius" – believes his properties are worth.Trump is "probably one of the most successful real estate developers in the country," attorney Christopher Kise told the judge, insisting Trump's disputed property valuations "are actually low.""We're through the looking glass here, too," Kise, who Trump has paid a $3 million retainer, promised the judge. "You're going to hear of a very different world."And in the defense's world, Trump is not exaggerating the value of his properties at all.Instead, "President Trump is a master at finding value where others see nothing," Kise argued."I'll tell you this," Kise said of the attorney general's far lower numbers. "If I had money to invest in real estate, I'm not going to ask the attorney general."New York AG Leticia James' lawsuit against Trump will go to trial in October.YUKI IWAMURA/AFP via Getty Images, Mario Tama/Getty ImagesAmer, in asking for an early, partial trial win for the AG's side, walked the judge through what the attorney general says are Trump's most obvious exaggerations of property values, including for 40 Wall Street and the family's Seven Springs estate in upstate New York.First on Amer's list was Trump's triplex penthouse, an apartment atop Trump Tower on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. For five years of his financial statements, from 2012 through 2016, Trump tripled the apartment's square-footage, fraudulently claiming it was 30,000 square feet when it was only 10,996 square feet, the AG alleges.Trump used that inflated square footage to claim the triplex was worth $327 million, a valuation James has called "absurd."But Trump is arguing in court papers that the square-footage error was an innocent mistake, and that even the calculation of square footage can be, somehow, a subjective process, Amer complained to the judge."In the defendant's world, there is no objective truth," Amer told the judge.During his own turn at the podium, Kise doubled down on the subjectivity of real-estate valuations.He also accused James' side of "hyperbole," and brushed aside the significance of that sentence in each of Trump's financial statements that promise, "assets are stated at their estimated current values.""We agree on what the standard is here," Kise said. "We just disagree on how that standard is applied. The judge said he will hand down a decision Tuesday on both sides' requests for pre-trial wins in their favor.He'll also decide Tuesday, he said, on a separate request by the AG for $10,000 sanctions against all 15 defendants and their lawyers – penalties James hopes he'll set for their alleged repetitive filing of "frivolous" arguments in court papers.James hopes to take Trump, the Trump Organization, his two eldest sons, and his senior management to trial in two weeks on a year-old civil lawsuit that seeks to bar them from ever running a company in New York again.She's also asking the judge to ban Trump and Trump Org for five years from buying real estate in the state.Her lawsuit centers on the annual "Statements of Financial Condition," that Trump Organization issued for each year from 2011 to 2021, documents that she says exaggerated the value of his real-estate and golf-resort empire.Each statement promises that "assets are stated at their estimated current values," meaning any of his skyscrapers, or golf courses, or even Mar-a-Lago, could be sold for that value."But his perspective is light years away from what the estimated value really is," Amer told the judge.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

A group of youth advocates have sued the state's Department of Transportation over greenhouse-gas emissions. InsiderYouth plaintiffs and supporters hold up signs after the Navahine vs. the Hawaii Department of Transportation court hearing in Honolulu on January 26.Elyse Butler/Earthjustice Hawaiian youth advocates sued the state's transportation department over greenhouse-gas emissions. The lawsuit is part of a growing movement of young people taking climate action in the courts. Extreme weather caused by the climate crisis threatens Hawaii's environment and cultural traditions. This article is part of "Journey Toward Climate Justice," a series exploring the systemic inequities of the climate crisis. For more climate-action news, visit Insider's One Planet hub.  When Taliya Nishida was 10 years old, her home on Hawaii's Big Island was struck by a deluge of flash floods. The roads near her family's off-grid house were washed out under several feet of water, and Nishida sat helplessly in their truck as they tried to get to her aerial-silks practice."I was so scared that I told my mom, 'I don't want to die,'" Nishida, now a sophomore in high school, recalled. "I know that may sound dramatic to some, but it's truly how I felt because I was just that scared of our truck being pushed away from the water."As global temperatures rise, flash floods and other natural disasters have worsened in recent years, and as an island nation, Hawaii is particularly vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather.In August, wildfires devastated parts of Maui, displacing thousands of people and destroying historic sites.Amid the escalating climate crisis, Nishida and 13 other Hawaiian youth advocates sued the Hawaii Department of Transportation in 2022 over transportation-related greenhouse-gas emissions. The lawsuit is part of a growing international movement of young people taking climate action in the courts, including in Montana, where a group of youth plaintiffs won a landmark lawsuit in August that compels the state to take climate change into account when considering fossil-fuel projects.The lawsuit, Navahine F. v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, is scheduled to go to trial next summer."I feel like many things are at risk of being lost, not only physically, but also memories," Nishida told Insider. "Our shorelines are getting lost by rising sea waters, and the time to make memories with the things around us is shortening because we don't know how long it's going to be here for."Taliya Nishida.Courtesy of Taliya NishidaYouth advocates are leading the chargeWhile Hawaii has a number of environmental laws on the books, including ones aimed at curbing pollution and ensuring land protection, greenhouse-gas emissions from the island nation's transportation systems have increased in recent years. Transportation emissions made up the largest share of energy-sector emissions in Hawaii in 2017, according to a 2021 report by the Hawaii Department of Health.The youth plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks to change that."There's a clear problem with respect to how the state is operating its transportation system," Andrea Rodgers, the senior litigation attorney at Our Children's Trust and cocounsel for the youth plaintiffs, said. "The young people are seeking a declaration from the court that not only do they have constitutional rights to a life-sustaining climate system, but the state has an obligation to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions."Because people under 18 can't vote and typically don't have the money to lobby legislators, they have very limited political power, Rodgers said. Many of the youth clients she represents have done "everything in their power" to communicate with policymakers, whether it's through testifying in legislative hearings, meeting with government officials, or putting up signs on street corners, she said."What I think is unique about young people is they're fresh from their civics classes and learning about the role of the government," Rodgers told Insider. "I think why they're turning to the courts is that they're seeing their fundamental rights get infringed upon by their political branches, so they're turning to the courts to protect themselves."Youth plaintiffs gather before the start of the Navahine F. v. the Hawaii Department of Transportation hearing at the First Circuit Environmental Court in Honolulu on January 26. Pictured from left: Kaʻōnohi P.-G., 16, KawahineʻIlikea N., 13, Taliya N., 15, Navahine F., 15, Mesina D.-R., 15, Kalā W., 19, Rylee K., 15, and Kawena F., 10.Elyse Butler/EarthjusticeRelying on natureNishida decided to take action after she saw the devastating effects of the climate crisis firsthand.She and her family live off-grid in Waimea on the Big Island, miles away from the nearest town. That means they rely on solar panels and water catchments for virtually all of their electricity and water. Nishida said her parents chose to live off-grid as a way to "be part of the island and connect to their roots."The family's reliance on natural resources has left them especially vulnerable to extreme weather events. During droughts, there's little water in their catchment, so they've used "drastic methods" to conserve water, like limiting showers to no more than a couple of minutes to flushing toilets with buckets of water they hauled from town, Nishida said.Nishida said things are only getting worse: The island has experienced more droughts and she's seen more trees uprooted by storms and flash floods. Roads were flooded during a flash flood near the Nishidas' home in 2018.Courtesy of Taliya NishidaOne of Nishida's treasured memories is going to the beach with her family. Now she fears those outings are at risk of disappearing."When I was little, I would go to all these different beaches, and there'd be tons of people with lots of space," Nishida said. "But more recently, there have been higher tides, so there's less space on the beach for people to play and have fun with others."When Nishida first heard about the lawsuit against the Department of Transportation from her mother, she knew this was her chance to contribute to a larger cause."I realized I had never done anything prominent to help my climate," she told Insider. "I thought that by joining this, I can be one small voice in a sea of problems."A culture at riskClimate change threatens not only Hawaii's natural environment but also its Native Hawaiian culture, which has endured existential threats from European colonization and the United States' annexation of its islands in 1898.Extreme weather like heavy rains and droughts have damaged traditional kalo, or taro, farming practices, which, in turn, jeopardizes food security on the islands. Hawaii's coral reefs have shrunk by up to 50% in recent years, leading to degraded coastal protection that threatens traditional diets.Navahine F., the lead youth plaintiff, at the taro patch that her family has farmed for over 10 generations.Elyse Butler/EarthjusticeRising sea levels eat away at what limited land there is in Hawaii to use for farming and encroach upon cultural traditions. For example, higher tides are washing out traditional burial sites along the coast, leaving both emotional and physical damage in their wake.In the face of the threats to their homes, Nishida and the other youth advocates are fighting to preserve their culture and ways of life."The climate on this island is what feeds us," Nishida said. "There's a Hawaiian saying that translates to, 'Land is chief, man is servant.' Everything that humans need to survive, it all comes from nature. Without nature, then humans as a society, we have nothing."Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Franklin Resources (BEN) joins BlackRock (BLK), WisdomTree (WT) and Invesco (IVZ), among other companies, in the Bitcoin ETF Race. Franklin Resources, Inc. BEN, which together with its subsidiaries is referred to as Franklin Templeton, is one of the world’s largest and most well-known asset managers with $1.4 trillion in assets under management. The global investment behemoth filed for a spot in Bitcoin ETF on Tuesday, joining the ETF race for Bitcoin (BTC). The company applied to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for approval of "The Franklin Bitcoin ETF" as part of the Franklin Templeton Digital Holdings Trust.In recent weeks, the major development in this next-stage crypto move has been the Court of Appeals siding with Grayscale in its lawsuit against the SEC. Previously, the SEC had denied Grayscale’s application to convert its popular Grayscale Bitcoin Trust GBTC to an ETF. The SEC now has 45 days to appeal the judge’s opinion that it had failed to provide a coherent explanation for its denial. Failure to do that will pave the way for companies like Franklin Templeton that are waiting for the SEC’s approval.The SEC is currently reviewing applications from major investment companies like WisdomTree, Inc. WT, BlackRock, Inc. BLK and Fidelity Investments. These are some of the biggest names in the traditional marketplace that have decided to explore the crypto space in recent months. BlackRock and WisdomTree currently carry a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.Franklin’s expected earnings growth rate for the current year is -34.4%. However, it expects to grow at the rate of 10.5% in 2024. BEN currently carries a Zacks Rank #3.Per the application, the Franklin Bitcoin ETF's shares would be listed and traded on the Cboe BZX Exchange. Also, the other Bitcoin ETF candidates have chosen Coinbase Global, Inc. (COIN) as the fund's custodian.The race to launch a Bitcoin ETF has been getting a lot of eyeballs as it would give a regulated and orderly way for retail and institutional investors to obtain exposure to Bitcoin price swings without actually owning the cryptocurrency. The SEC has moved to buy some more time by delaying passing a verdict on these applications till Oct 16. Franklin’s application, however, reinforces the theory that the authorities might only be trying to delay the inevitable. Top 5 ChatGPT Stocks Revealed Zacks Senior Stock Strategist, Kevin Cook names 5 hand-picked stocks with sky-high growth potential in a brilliant sector of Artificial Intelligence. By 2030, the AI industry is predicted to have an internet and iPhone-scale economic impact of $15.7 Trillion. Today you can invest in the wave of the future, an automation that answers follow-up questions … admits mistakes … challenges incorrect premises … rejects inappropriate requests. As one of the selected companies puts it, “Automation frees people from the mundane so they can accomplish the miraculous.”Download Free ChatGPT Stock Report Right Now >>Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Franklin Resources, Inc. (BEN): Free Stock Analysis Report BlackRock, Inc. (BLK): Free Stock Analysis Report Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC): ETF Research Reports WisdomTree, Inc. (WT): Free Stock Analysis ReportTo read this article on Zacks.com click here.Zacks Investment Research.....»»

Wells Fargo (WFC) has agreed to pay $1 billion to settle claims of the class action suit in May 2023. The deal has now been approved by the U.S. District Judge. Wells Fargo & Company’s WFC agreement to pay $1 billion pursuant to the class action lawsuit related to overstating progress on resolving 2016 fake account scandal has been approved by the federal judge, per a Bloomberg article.The settlement has been authorized after more than three months of the deal.The federal judges’ authorization has not yet been confirmed by the court records.Since 2018, WFC has been under orders from Federal Reserve and two other financial regulators to improve its governance and oversight. The bank’s shareholders alleged that Wells Fargo and its past management misinformed them about how swiftly it was addressing governance issues and risk-management systems due to which it opened millions of fake accounts.Accordingly, when these shortcomings surfaced, the bank's market value fell by more than $54 billion over two years ending in March 2020. However, Wells Fargo denied any wrongdoing and decided to settle to eliminate further litigation expenses. It agreed to pay $1 billion in May 2023 to settle the claims.The settlement amount paid by Wells Fargo will be given to the investors who had bought the stock from Feb 2, 2018 through Mar 12, 2020.WFC has a long list of pending legal cases and remains under close supervision of the regulatory authorities. Last month, it agreed to pay a civil penalty of $35 million to settle Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) claimfor overcharging advisory fees of more than $26.8 million in over 10,900 investment advisory accounts.Further, in the first quarter of 2023, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $300 million, settling a class action suit claiming that the bank had pushed unnecessary insurance on auto loan customers. These affect operational efficiency of the bank as well as increases cost, thereby hindering its bottom-line growth.Wells Fargo’s shares have gained 7.6% over the past six months compared with the industry’s growth of 2.7%.Image Source: Zacks Investment ResearchWFC presently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You cansee the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 (Strong Buy) Rank stocks here.Misconduct by Other FirmsLast month, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. GS was charged with a civil penalty of $5.5 million, per Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) order. Further, the order requires GS to cease and desist from committing future violations of Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC’s record-keeping provisions.Per CFTC’s findings, GS violated the provisions of a previous order, and also failed to appropriately record and retain certain audio files.Citigroup Inc. C had consented to SEC’s cease-and-desist order last month, levying a civil penalty of $2.9 million on the bank. The bank’s broker-dealer unit had been charged for intentionally violating record-keeping requirements with respect to expenses incurred in its underwriting business.C neither denied nor admitted the alleged claims of SEC’s findings. Free Report: Top EV Battery Stocks to Buy Now Just-released report reveals 5 stocks to profit as millions of EV batteries are made. Elon Musk tweeted that lithium prices have gone to "insane levels," and they're likely to keep climbing. As a result, a handful of lithium battery stocks are set to skyrocket. Access this report to discover which battery stocks to buy and which to avoid.Download free today.Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS): Free Stock Analysis Report Wells Fargo & Company (WFC): Free Stock Analysis Report Citigroup Inc. (C): Free Stock Analysis ReportTo read this article on Zacks.com click here.Zacks Investment Research.....»»

Google's lawsuit with the Department of Justice over alleged anticompetitive practices heads to trial. Google CEO Sundar PichaiGettyGoogle and the Department of Justice are heading to court in a blockbuster antitrust case.It revolves around how Google pays partners to promote its search engine on their products.A law expert said the DOJ has a "pretty strong" case but has big hurdles to prove Google is liable.Almost three years after the Department of Justice sued Google for allegedly maintaining a monopoly in search, the tech giant is headed to trial to defend its position.The DOJ filed a lawsuit against Google in October 2020 that accused it of using "anticompetitive and exclusionary practices" to maintain its online search dominance.The case has morphed in the three years since. When the trial kicks off Tuesday, it will focus on how Google sparked deals with Apple and other device manufacturers to be their default search engines – and whether doing so was illegal.This is the most significant trial against a tech giant since the government sued Microsoft in the 1990s, and although Google fought tooth and nail to keep much of its submitted evidence redacted and under seal, there could be explosive revelations over the ten weeks.Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School who focuses on antitrust, said he believes the DOJ has a "pretty strong" case against Google, but there will be big hurdles to proving liability."This is a backwards-looking case at a time of unprecedented innovation, including breakthroughs in AI, new apps and new services, all of which are creating more competition and more options for people than ever before," said Google's President of Global Affairs Kent Walker in a statement.What will the trial focus on?The trial will center on whether Google quashed competition by paying Apple (an estimated $8 billion to $12 billion a year) and other companies to be the default search provider on their devices and deterred users from accessing rival services in the process.It also accuses Google of illegally requiring its Android device partners to pre-install other Google apps, such as Maps and Gmail, something the company has denied.The case could have been broader. In December 2020, 38 states and districts filed a follow-on lawsuit to the DOJ's that made additional accusations of anticompetitive behavior, including that Google disadvantages rivals like Yelp and Tripadvisor by lowering their visibility in search results. That was eventually merged with the DOJ suit.Last month, Judge Amit Mehta, who is overseeing the case, threw out some key claims brought by the states, including those around how Google's design of search results harms rivals.Two core claims will proceed: that Google harmed competitors through "exclusionary" agreements with Apple and other device partners, and that it acted anticompetitively with its search ad tool Search Ads 360.Did Google make exclusive deals?Much of the trial's outcome will be predicated on whether the deals Google made to promote its search engine excluded healthy competition.Google has said its deals with partners like Apple are not exclusive and argues users have the choice to switch from the default search engine to a competitor."People don't use Google because they have to – they use it because they want to. It's easy to switch your default search engine – we're long past the era of dial-up internet and CD-ROMs," Google's Walker said in a statement.The judge is interested in whether Google is the "de facto exclusive," or whether it made certain choices that reduced the number of users switching from Google to other search providers, even if they could switch.Google will need to go further than proving competition is a few clicks away."A key point of discussion will be to what degree of choice users actually have, and is the pattern of choice that sends them to Google in large numbers denying them functionality of other products, or simply a reflection of superior performance?" said William E. Kovacic, professor of law and policy and George Washington University.Several antitrust experts said that even if it's simple for users to switch to another engine, if most users don't, that could give strength to the government's case."It is easy to switch, but if 90% of people just never ever switch, never think about it, then I think the government has a decent argument that paying for default can be considered paying for exclusivity," said David Olson, an associate professor at Boston College focusing on antitrust law. "Then it looks just like Microsoft. And then I think the government could win."How do the AI wars impact this?The online search landscape has shifted since 2020 thanks to AI.While Google has publicly played down the threat of OpenAI and Microsoft on its business, don't be surprised if you hear Google singing a different tune in court, as it points out how the AI boom proves the existence of fierce competition.Still, recent data suggests even an AI-turbocharged Bing has barely dented Google's search stronghold.Who could testify in court?Judge Mehta recently denied Apple's bid to not have its executives wheeled in for testimony, Reuters reported. Eddy Cue (Apple's senior vice president of services), John Giannandrea (senior vice president of machine learning and AI strategy) and Adrian Perica (vice president of corporate development) may now be called to testify in court.As for Google, we expect to see some top chiefs called forward, including CEO Sundar Pichai and some senior vice presidents.What happens if Google loses?This is one area where there's a big question mark.A win for the DOJ could force Google to change its contracts with Apple. It could also mirror a European Union decision to make Google give Android users a choice of search engine when they first set up their devices.Some experts floated a worst-case scenario for Google where it's banned from bidding for the default position on devices, while competitors still can, potentially resulting in increased market share of those rivals.A structural breakup of Google could be a bit extreme given the scope of the case, but it could apply to the search advertising component of the case, said Olson. The company offered to spin off parts of its ads-tech business into a separate company in response to a different DOJ lawsuit, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.Can I watch or listen to the trial?Unfortunately not. Judge Mehta denied a public audio feed of the trial. Those who wish to listen must attend in person.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

In the latest fusillade of court filings in New York Attorney General Letitia James' war on Trump Organization, she tips her hand on more alleged fraud. Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has sued the former president and his real-estate company over allegations of persistent fraud in official financial filings.Left, Brandon Bell/Getty Images. Right, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images More than 100 motions, exhibits were filed Friday in NY's civil business-fraud case against Trump and his company. Attorney General Letitia James is now alleging Trump's net-worth exaggerations topped $3.6 billion a year. Each side is opposing the other's requests to limit, in their own favor, an October 2 fraud trial. Donald Trump's routine exaggerations of his net worth in official banking filings were far worse than New York officials have previously claimed, totaling some $3.6 billion in a single year, a new filing by the state attorney general alleges.And that $3.6 billion overstatement "is still a conservative estimate of the extent of the inflation," lawyers for Attorney General Letitia James claim in the filing. That figure exceeds — by a long stretch — the $2.2 billion that James' office used just last week as an example of how much Trump could exaggerate the value of his empire in annual statements of net worth.The New York attorney general alleges that Donald Trump and senior Trump Organization management inflated his net worth in annual financial filings by $3.6 billion a year.New York attorney general's officeThis latest detailing of what James has called Trump's "egregious" and self-serving overstatements of wealth was revealed Friday morning in a 97-page document that was itself part of a 100-document fusillade of filings, including motions, responses to motions, affidavits in support of and in opposition to motions, and scores of supporting exhibits.Both sides are attempting to limit, in their own favor, the issues to be decided at a $250 million civil fraud lawsuit, filed by James a year ago, that will go to trial in Manhattan on October 2.They are also fighting over James' request that the trial judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron fine Trump, his Manhattan-based company, his senior managemnt, and their lawyers $10,000 each for allegedly making repeatedly failed "frivolous" arguments in court documents.At the October 2 trial, James will ask Engoron to bar Trump and his top management, including sons Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump, from ever running a New York corporation again and from buying any property in the state for five years.  James is accusing Trump of falsely inflating the value of his real-estate and golf-resort holdings in order to lower the interest rates on some $450 million in bank loans. Trump's lies, set down in annual statements of worth over the course of a decade, also convinced insurers and tax officials to cut him millions in additional breaks, she alleges. On Trump's side, the heftiest document lobbed as part of Friday's filing barrage is a 252-page behemoth, loaded with legal citations, arguing against James' request for summary judgement in the state's favor and accusing her of "coercive" deposition tactics, among other things.Trump also countered that the attorney general's allegations, because they involve a decade of banking statements, are beyond the relevant statutes of limitation, an argument that earlier this year succeeded in winning Ivanka Trump's removal from the lawsuit.They also fought James' use of the term "Trump Organization" throughout her filings, saying she "improperly groups all entity Defendants together without regard for the discrete legal entity of each Defendant," a cavil, repeated throughout Friday's 252 pages, that reprises one rejected by the judge in January.The pre-trial motions are expected to be argued, and possibly decided, at a hearing scheduled for September 22.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

California School To Pay $100,000 Settlement For Keeping 11-Year-Old's Gender Transition Secret Authored by Brad Jones via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), A California school district that was sued over allegations teachers and staff at Buena Vista Middle School in Salinas, Calif., coached an 11-year-old girl to socially transition to a male gender identity settled with the girl and her mother for $100,000. Jessica Konen (R) and her daughter Alicia will receive a $100,000 settlement in a landmark case against Spreckels Union School District in Salinas, California. (Courtesy of Jessica Konen) The lawsuit, filed on June 14 last year, named Spreckels Union School District, the principal at the school, and two teachers as defendants. Jessica Konen, the child’s mother, came forward after a leaked audio recording revealed the two teachers telling other educators about how they secretly recruited students into the school’s LGBT club at a California Teachers Association weekend conference in Palm Springs in October 2021. The CTA event was billed as the “2021 LGBTQ+ Issues Conference, Beyond the Binary: Identity & Imagining Possibilities.” The two teachers were later suspended and no longer work in the district. Ms. Konen told The Epoch Times she’s relieved that a settlement has finally been reached. “It’s a massive victory across America for myself, for my daughter, and for other parents experiencing similar situations,” she said. “Our voices made a difference.” While she is grateful to the Center for American Liberty for taking on the pro-bono case, she said the battle for parental rights has only begun. “I just feel social transitioning done in secrecy is the real evil. We need to get rid of it, period. So, the fight must continue,” she said. Her daughter, Alicia Konen, who is now 16, echoed her mom’s sentiments, saying she’s ready to put the experience, which she described as “evil” and “horrible,” behind her. According to the Center for American Liberty and allegations in the lawsuit, Alicia was recruited to join an “Equality Club,” where she was taught about bisexuality, transgender identities, and other LGBT concepts when she was in the sixth grade. Alicia began to use a male name and pronouns and wore a chest binder under boy’s clothes. School staff finally called a meeting the last day before winter break during Alicia's seventh grade year and demanded that Ms. Konen refer to her daughter by a male name and male pronouns, she said. “I was definitely intimidated,” she said. Ms. Konen recalls feeling awkward and stressed when she was tagging Alicia’s Christmas gifts. She wanted to be supportive to her daughter but wasn’t ready to call her by a male name and pronouns, so she wrote “Baby” and “Sweetheart” instead. “I was an emotional wreck trying to process everything. I was scared to mess up or to use the wrong pronouns,” she said. “I never used the male pronouns, and I never used the name.” Ms. Konen warned parents to “be vigilant,” talk to teachers, and pay attention to what’s happening at local school board meetings. Jessica Konen, the mother of a child who was allegedly coached into a transgender identity at school in Salinas, Calif. (Courtesy of Trevor Lewis) “Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to show your values and your opinions,” she said. She also urged parents to get more engaged in their children’s lives. “We need to fight for our kids, because if we don't fight for our kids, they’ll fight for our kids,” she said. “Be close to your child, because somebody wants to get closer.” 'I Wanted to Tell My Mom' Alicia’s social gender transition began when she went to see a school counselor because she was feeling depressed, she told The Epoch Times. “I was told by the counselor—it was brought up that I was sad because I wasn’t who I was supposed to be, and that’s kind of where it all started,” she said. Alicia was “pulled away” from her schoolwork, and the counselor who she said was working with the school to “socially transition kids,” put her on a Gender Support Plan, known as a GSP, which required school staff to use a male name and pronouns when referring to her, and to allow her to use the unisex teachers’ restroom instead of the girl’s facilities. “I was advised by the school not to tell my mom, and I was given articles on how to hide a social transition from my mom,” she said. “I was extremely confused, and honestly very scared. I wanted to tell my mom, and continually said I wanted to tell her, but I was encouraged to keep it a secret. ... The school said that my mother wouldn’t support me.” But, throughout the ordeal which lasted for more than a year, Alicia believed her mom would support her no matter what. A pedestrian sign outside of an elementary school in Costa Mesa, Calif., on Aug. 21, 2023. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times) Alicia said she has felt better about herself since she left middle school and entered high school where she is “actually able to focus on my academics.” And she is comfortable with her gender. “I am 1,000 percent a girl. I am Alicia. That is who I am, and no one can ever change that,” she said. “I feel free finally. I feel like I’m not under control by anybody. I can finally move forward with my life and be happy.” The Konens hope their high-profile case will draw attention and encourage other families to challenge state and local school board policies that exclude parents from their children’s lives. “I think that throughout the country there will be a lot more coming forward, realizing that they were never alone,” Ms. Konen said. “There are people out there who are hurt.” The settlement means they’re both able to talk more freely about their experience and have considered writing a book. “It is a complete passion of mine to continue to spread awareness,” she said. Alicia said she feels “extremely bad,” for other children who were socially transitioned at school. “That’s one of the main reasons I wanted to come out and speak about this case, because I want to be a voice for the people who feel like they don’t have a voice.” Ms. Konen said the school staff took advantage of her daughter’s young mind and vulnerable state, which she called “a form of brainwashing,” and didn’t tell her that Alicia was having suicidal thoughts. If parents are kept in the dark about their children’s problems, they won’t be able to help support them or get them the therapy they need, she said. “It’s extremely dangerous,” Ms. Konen said, “What if something happens that is irreversible? ... If a child only has the support of schools, what happens when they go home? What happens when they have those bad days? What happens when they're confused at home?” The best way to prevent youth suicides is for school staff and parents to work together, Ms. Konen said. “If everyone’s included, then that is in the best interest of the child—not hiding it,” she said. “The secret stuff has to go.” A spokesperson for the Spreckels Union School District was not immediately available for comment. About 200 parental rights demonstrators marched through downtown Los Angeles to protest secret gender transitions in California public schools on Aug. 22, 2023. (Courtesy of Hasmik Bezirdshyan) 'Hard to Put a Dollar Value on It' Eric Sell, a civil rights attorney at the Center for American Liberty who represented the Konens, told The Epoch Times the school district settled the case based on the underlying allegations in the lawsuit but hasn’t admitted any fault or liability. “What happened to Alicia, Jessica is hard to quantify. It’s hard to put a dollar value on it,” he said. But the $100,000 settlement will serve as a deterrent for other school districts that continue “to propagate these policies and keep parents in the dark,” Mr. Sell said. “As far as we are aware, this is the first time a school district has had to pay a family money for secretly transitioning their kid behind their backs.” The Center for American liberty is interested in such cases because it has seen a systematic erosion of parental rights, “particularly by government actors and schools,” he said. The problem is “really apparent” in California in public schools where gender ideology is “infecting schools” and “pushing kids towards dangerous decisions and dangerous life paths,” he said. Children, who may or may not fully weigh all the consequences of their actions, are making decisions that can potentially lead to medicalization or surgery and irreversible damage to their own bodies, he said. “We’re seeing so much of this that ... the Center for American Liberty has decided to focus some of its time and resources on combating this specific problem,” Mr. Sell said. He said "it's absurd" that California Attorney General Rob Bonta has sued Chino Valley Unified School District over its parental notification policy requiring school staff to inform parents within a few days if their child changes his or her gender identity at school. “The Supreme Court has consistently held that parents have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children,” states the Center for American Liberty on its website. “This includes the right to have a say in whether their children’s school socially transitions them to a different gender. Parents are denied that right when schools think they know better than parents how to raise their children and intentionally hide information from moms and dads.” Tyler Durden Wed, 09/06/2023 - 20:25.....»»

BlackRock (BLK) and Invesco (IVZ) are two asset managers that are directly affected by the SEC's delay in passing the verdict on Bitcoin ETF applications. The last week of August brought some cheer to crypto investors in an otherwise dull month, with The U.S. Court of Appeals siding with Grayscale in its lawsuit against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Earlier, the SEC had denied Grayscale’s application to convert its popular Grayscale Bitcoin Trust GBTC to an ETF.A judge informed the SEC that its denial of Grayscale’s spot Bitcoin ETF application would have to be reviewed because it failed to provide a coherent explanation for its denial. It must be noted that the court ruling isn't the same as an approval, and the securities regulator still has 45 days to appeal the judge's opinion. So even as the court’s stance is a positive development from a crypto investors’ perspective with respect to crypto getting further mainstream acceptance, resistance from the regulatory institutions remains.In fact, in an almost retaliatory move, the SEC pushed back on the other existing Bitcoin ETF applications, saying it needs a longer period to evaluate these applications. According to its filings, it'll need until at least Oct 17 to decide whether to approve or reject most of the applications. Bitcoin (BTC) prices fell after these SEC delays were reported and have since hovered below the $27000 mark.One must track some of the major Bitcoin ETF applicants at this current juncture to understand the impact the SEC’s hawkish stance might have on them. These are some of the biggest names in the traditional marketplace that have decided to explore the crypto space in recent months. These companies are also directly impacted by the SEC’s announced delay in passing the verdict.BlackRock, Inc. BLK: This enterprise risk management and fixed-income institutional asset manager applied to launch a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund in June. BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager. BlackRock’s expected earnings growth rate for the current year is 0.3%. However, it expects to grow at the rate of 13.2% in 2024. BLK currently carries a Zacks Rank #3. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.Invesco Ltd. IVZ: This investment management company had first filed for a Bitcoin ETF in 2021 but dropped it in October of the same year. However, in June of 2023, it joined the race to be the first investment industry giant to launch a Bitcoin ETF. Invesco’s expected earnings growth rate for the current year is -8.9%. However, it expects to grow at the rate of 23.3% in 2024. IVZ currently carries a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell).Also affected is Boston-based Fidelity Investments, one of the largest asset managers in the world. Fidelity had also applied to launch a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund in late June 2023.(We are reissuing this article to correct a mistake. The original article, issued on September 4, 2023, should no longer be relied upon.) The New Gold Rush: How Lithium Batteries Will Make Millionaires As the electric vehicle revolution expands, investors have a chance to target huge gains. Millions of lithium batteries are being made & demand is expected to increase 889%.Download the brand-new FREE report revealing 5 EV battery stocks set to soar.Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report BlackRock, Inc. (BLK): Free Stock Analysis Report Invesco Ltd. (IVZ): Free Stock Analysis Report Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC): ETF Research ReportsTo read this article on Zacks.com click here.Zacks Investment Research.....»»

Cross-accusations of frivolity are turning the latest skirmish in New York's war on Trump Org into an almost dainty legal mud-fest. Donald Trump, again, wants a trial delayed.Photo by Diane Bondareff/Invision/AP In 26 days, Trump, his sons, and his real-estate empire are scheduled in a civil fraud trial in New York. NY Attorney General Letitia James seeks to permanently banish Trump Org from the state. On Wednesday, a judge rejected Trump's bid to delay the trial as "completely without merit."  A Manhattan judge has given an unequivocal response to Donald Trump's latest bid to delay his upcoming civil business-fraud trial, calling the effort "completely without merit" in a terse, handwritten order on Wednesday.The decision follows legal filings in which New York's attorney general seeks to fine Trump and his co-defendants $10,000 each for trying to delay the trial through "frivolous conduct."Trump's response to Attorney General Letitia James? Filed late Tuesday, it boiled down to this: No, you're being frivolous by staging a "side show" for "media attention."A Manhattan judge's handwritten response to Donald Trump's latest bid to delay his October 2, 2023, civil business-fraud trial.InsiderThese cross-accusations of frivolity, and the judge's denial of Trump's delay request, are the latest news in New York's four-year fight against what James has called persistent fraud at the Manhattan-based Trump Organization. The $250 million civil trial is set for October 2.James is hoping to permanently banish Trump Org – the ex-president's real-estate and golf-resort empire – from New York. She argues its executives routinely exaggerated the value of company assets, sometimes by as much as $2.2 billion a year, in official banking documents.It's no surprise that the judge who will preside at the trial, and decide if that banishment happens, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, did not take kindly to any request for a delay.He has said more than once that the trial will kick off on the October 2 date, set a year ago, come "hell or high water." Wednesday's no-delay decision puts an end, for now, to the bulk of Trump's portion of a hill of paperwork filed by both sides in the past week.On September 30, hundreds of files were added to the case's already straining online docket as lawyers on both sides asked the judge for major, pre-trial decisions.Team Trump wanted the whole case thrown out. Their lawyers filed more than 40 documents and exhibits toward that end, an effort now mooted by Wednesday's decision.Meanwhile, Team James wants at least part of the case decided early and in her favor.Her side has so far won that particular war of words, at least by volume, filing some 230 documents and exhibits, including a 500-page transcript from Trump's April deposition before the AG's office, in which he laid out his fraud defense.Again, this total of nearly 300 legal fillings – thousands of pages in all – was filed on a single day in opposing efforts to kill the trial or decide it early.Which brings us to now, a week later, when both sides called each other frivolous in a new, mini-avalanche of filings that dropped throughout the day on Tuesday.James' side filed three documents, all seeking to fine the Trump defendants and their lawyers $10,000 each over "frivolous conduct" in his asking the trial be tossed. A decision on this sanctions request is still pending. Then Trump's side, just before midnight, filed nine documents countering that it's the AG who is being frivolous. These include a "Demand to Withdraw Frivolous Motion" that accuses James of using the court to "garner media attention.""As set forth more fully below, the Motion is itself frivolous," it reads, referring to James' request for $10,000 frivolity penalties, all around, for Trump, his two eldest sons, his executives and all of their lawyers.The Trump defendants are being thorough, not frivolous, in repeatedly attacking James' lawsuit, even if that involves recycling the same, valid arguments at different stages in the litigation, Trump's team had argued Tuesday night.Those arguments include that the disputed business documents have a disclaimer that renders them immune from accusations of fraud, and that James does not have standing or capacity to sue because any alleged frauds were victimless."Indeed, the Motion is nothing more than an obvious attempt to garner media headlines in order to distract attention away from the major substantive flaws in the NYAG's case," Trump's filing said of James' request for frivolity penalties.Attorneys for Trump and his company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Engoron's decision.The judge has set September 27 as the final pre-trial hearing date. His decisions on the attorney general's request for $10,000 sanctions, and on her request for at least a partial trial victory, are pending.This story was updated to reflect the judge's decision.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Fidelity (FNF), BlackRock (BLK), and Invesco (IVZ) are three asset managers that are directly affected by the SEC's delay in passing the verdict on Bitcoin ETF applications. The last week of August brought some cheer to crypto investors in an otherwise dull month, with The U.S. Court of Appeals siding with Grayscale in its lawsuit against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Earlier, the SEC had denied Grayscale’s application to convert its popular Grayscale Bitcoin Trust GBTC to an ETF.A judge informed the SEC that its denial of Grayscale’s spot Bitcoin ETF application would have to be reviewed because it failed to provide a coherent explanation for its denial. It must be noted that the court ruling isn't the same as an approval, and the securities regulator still has 45 days to appeal the judge's opinion. So even as the court’s stance is a positive development from a crypto investors’ perspective with respect to crypto getting further mainstream acceptance, resistance from the regulatory institutions remains.In fact, in an almost retaliatory move, the SEC pushed back on the other existing Bitcoin ETF applications, saying it needs a longer period to evaluate these applications. According to its filings, it'll need until at least Oct 17 to decide whether to approve or reject most of the applications. Bitcoin (BTC) prices fell after these SEC delays were reported and have since hovered below the $27000 mark.One must track some of the major Bitcoin ETF applicants at this current juncture to understand the impact the SEC’s hawkish stance might have on them. These are some of the biggest names in the traditional marketplace that have decided to explore the crypto space in recent months. These companies are also directly impacted by the SEC’s announced delay in passing the verdict.Fidelity National Financial, Inc. FNF: This insurance, financial technology, and transaction services company applied to launch a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund in late June 2023. Fidelity’s expected earnings growth rate for the current year is -31%. However, it is expected to grow at a rate of 33.9% in 2024. FNF currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).BlackRock, Inc. BLK: This enterprise risk management and fixed-income institutional asset manager also applied to launch a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund in June. BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager. BlackRock’s expected earnings growth rate for the current year is 0.3%. However, it expects to grow at the rate of 13.2% in 2024. BLK currently carries a Zacks Rank #3. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.Invesco Ltd. IVZ: This investment management company had first filed for a Bitcoin ETF in 2021 but dropped it in October of the same year. However, in June of 2023, it joined the race to be the first investment industry giant to launch a Bitcoin ETF. Invesco’s expected earnings growth rate for the current year is -8.9%. However, it expects to grow at the rate of 23.3% in 2024. IVZ currently carries a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell). 4 Oil Stocks with Massive Upsides Global demand for oil is through the roof... and oil producers are struggling to keep up. So even though oil prices are well off their recent highs, you can expect big profits from the companies that supply the world with "black gold."  Zacks Investment Research has just released an urgent special report to help you bank on this trend.  In Oil Market on Fire, you'll discover 4 unexpected oil and gas stocks positioned for big gains in the coming weeks and months. You don't want to miss these recommendations. Download your free report now to see them.Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report BlackRock, Inc. (BLK): Free Stock Analysis Report Invesco Ltd. (IVZ): Free Stock Analysis Report Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF): Free Stock Analysis Report Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC): ETF Research ReportsTo read this article on Zacks.com click here.Zacks Investment Research.....»»

DeSantis Super PAC Halts Voter Canvassing In 4 States To Refocus Resources Elsewhere Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times, A super PAC backing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's 2024 run for the White House said it's pausing voter canvassing in four states and investing some of the freed-up field resources into three early-voting states. Never Back Down, the PAC supporting Mr. DeSantis's presidential bid, is suspending door-knocking operations in Nevada, California, Texas, and North Carolina, The Epoch Times has learned. Instead, the PAC will be refocusing its efforts and investing some of those field resources into Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina—three early-voting states. "We want to reinvest in the first three, we see real opportunities," PAC spokeswoman Erin Perrine told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement, referring to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. "The first three are going to set the conditions for the March states,” she added. California, North Carolina, and Texas hold their primaries in March 2024, according to the GOP primary calendar, while Nevada, an early-voting state, holds its primary in February. However, Nevada faces what Ms. Perrine described as a volatile situation, where the state Republican Party has announced plans to hold its own party-run presidential caucus in addition to a statewide primary. "When you have that kind of uncertainty about how the election's going to be conducted, that becomes a pretty unstable environment to be investing the kind of resources that we're investing," Ms. Perrine said. "Nevada is heading to a lawsuit," she added. Turbulence in California, Nevada Nevada Republicans insist on holding their own caucus despite a new state law calling for a primary election. Some say that the competing contests could confuse some voters and it seems that the Republican primary wouldn't count as the party-run caucus plans to decide which candidate will receive the state's delegates. While it's not yet clear when the Nevada caucus will take place, reports suggest it will be around the same time as the Feb. 6, 2024, primary, which falls after the Iowa caucus and primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Ms. Perrine told The Epoch Times that the Nevada GOP's move is meant to favor former President Donald Trump's chances at winning in 2024. Other officials at Never Back Down have made similar comments. “The situation in Nevada is very clear. They’re eliminating important grassroots processes which doesn’t benefit voters, but it does benefit one person: Donald Trump," Jess Szymanski, deputy communications director of Never Back Down, told the Washington Examiner. "Nevada Republicans continue to lose elections with Trump at the top of the ticket, yet state GOP leaders are so obsessed with appeasing Trump that they’ve rigged their primary to prioritize Trump above their own voters," Ms. Szymanski added. Nevada Republican Party Chairman Michael McDonald, who was heavily involved in the process of maintaining the state's GOP caucus, told ABC News that it's a long-standing tradition that is "bigger than Gov. DeSantis" or "anybody that's running for office." Ms. Perrine told The Epoch Times that the situation with the primaries in California is similar to what's happening in Nevada. “A similar situation in California, where they eliminated the California Republicans’ say in their own primary as well as making grassroots involvement impossible," she said. "Now the central committee will have a convention and a vote at the end of September, which could alter that. But that was a Trump-inspired rigging as well,” Ms. Perrine added. In July, California Republicans changed delegate rules (pdf) in a way that a number of political pundits have said makes it less competitive and benefits President Trump. Under the new rules, a Republican presidential candidate who receives over 50 percent of the vote in the state's primary election will be awarded all 169 of the state's delegates. The old rules let Republican presidential candidates win three delegates in each congressional district, letting them target specific areas rather than focusing on expensive statewide campaigns, while allowing multiple candidates to get at least some delegates. “When they changed it to a proportional, statewide winner-take-all, that completely eliminated the opportunity for grassroots campaigning," Ms. Perrine said. "Literally a landmark decision they made with breathtaking speed.” “And so with neither state having a fair process, the door knockers that were in Nevada and California, we decided to make them kind of refocus into the first three,” she explained. By contrast, California GOP Chairwoman Jessica Patterson argued that the new rules would encourage candidates to campaign more extensively and put forward their proposal to a broader swathe of voters. “Republican presidential candidates will not only be encouraged to spend real time campaigning in our state and making their case to voters, but Republican voters will equally be encouraged to turn out to support their chosen candidate to help them win delegates,” Ms. Patterson said in a statement. 'Scam' PAC Closes Elsewhere, Mr. DeSantis’s presidential campaign said recently that the closure of the Ron to the Rescue super PAC was “welcome news,” while calling the PAC a "scam." “We’ve made clear from the beginning that this was a scam PAC looking to grift off Ron DeSantis, and it comes as welcome news they are no longer attempting to fleece our donors,” Andrew Romeo, communications director for the campaign, said in a statement. “Ron DeSantis outraised both [President Joe] Biden and [former President Donald] Trump last quarter, and we look forward to continuing our fundraising success as we capitalize on his strong debate performance and momentum in the early states,” Mr. Romeo added. Republican strategist John Thomas launched the Ron to the Rescue super PAC last fall to urge Mr. DeSantis to enter the 2024 presidential race. In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Mr. Thomas said he and the committee’s donors had become disenchanted with the governor following his botched campaign launch on Twitter, now X. “We were hoping to do like a formal TV campaign of air support when DeSantis officially launched,” he told the outlet. “But the problem with that is, with the Twitter Spaces blunder, like almost from the get-go, all of our major donors said, ‘Let’s just see how this plays out.’” According to Federal Election Commission filings, the Ron to the Rescue PAC raised just over $1,600, of which more than $1,200 was disbursed to Mr. Thomas’s political consulting firm, Thomas Partners Strategies, for “PAC strategy consulting.” Now, Mr. Thomas said he and his donor network intend to shift their support to President Donald Trump, who had surprised him with “a level of campaign savvy and discipline” that he had not previously seen from him. “We’re going to see, after the reporting period of Sept. 30, how Trump’s cash on hand is, and then we’re going to try to determine where we can fill in gaps, if it’s needed.” Since announcing his third presidential bid, President Trump has maintained his position as the clear frontrunner in the primary contest, with Mr. DeSantis consistently polling in second place. According to the latest RealClearPolitics average of polls, the 45th president holds a commanding 39-point lead over Mr. DeSantis and is supported by 53.6 percent of Republicans. Tyler Durden Sun, 09/03/2023 - 20:30.....»»

Burger King Must Defend Misleading Whopper Lawsuit, Judge Rules Fast food chain Burger King finds itself in a flame-broiled fiasco. A U.S. judge ruled this week that a lawsuit alleging the company cheated its customers by misrepresenting the size of its Whopper sandwiches, would not be dismissed, per the chain's request.  The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Miami, Reuters reported this week. The lawsuit alleges that Whopper sandwiches on menu boards in stores mislead customers, creating a breach of contract. The suit is also pursuing negligence-based and unjust enrichment claims, Reuters reports.  The class action lawsuit alleges that the burgers appear 35% larger on menu boards, with ingredients that "overflow over the bun". The suit also alleges that the burgers on the menu boards have "more than double" the meat that the chain actually serves.  In its response the fast food chain argued that it didn't need to serve up food that looked "exactly like the picture". Altman, however, ultimately decided that it would be up to a jury to "tell us what reasonable people think." In a statement, Burger King said: "The plaintiffs' claims are false. The flame-grilled beef patties portrayed in our advertising are the same patties used in the millions of Whopper sandwiches we serve to guests nationwide." For those looking to follow along with the action at home, the docket is "Coleman et al v Burger King Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 22-20925". In Brooklyn, New York federal court, both McDonald's and Wendy's face similar suits, Reuters noted.  Tyler Durden Sat, 09/02/2023 - 20:00.....»»

An Important Lesson From Chicago On Confronting The Enemies Of Free Speech Submitted by Mark Glennon of Wirepoints The modern left’s assault on free speech is perhaps the most terrifying element of the madness we have succumbed to for the simple reason that democracy is meaningless without it. The assault has been largely successful. Voices that should be heard are muzzled and, more insidiously, countless other voices are frightened into silence. We see that suppression routinely. Too often, readers here tell us of being intimidated into silence by the cancel mob, a mob now controlling much of our government. The iron boot of government on one’s throat is no small matter: Fear of the cost of litigating against a government intent on suppressing free speech is particularly intimidating. That intimidation must come to an end. Help is often available – a resource you should prize. A number of law firms specializing in free speech are now available, pro bono – free or at reduced cost. And they are winning, thanks to federal courts that still recognize the First Amendment right to free speech. A Chicago company’s free speech case is an illustration. Townstone Financial is a smallish, Chicago-based home mortgage originator. It marketed itself primarily through a weekly one-hour show on AM 560 called The Townstone Financial Show. They discussed issues of interest to homebuyers and offered advice to listeners and callers, sometimes getting into topics like crime, policing, movies and the like. In 2020, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued Townstone claiming that the company violated a fair lending law by discriminating against African-Americans. However, the CFPB never alleged any case of Townstone discriminating on mortgage applications. Instead, the CFPB said Townstone discriminated through its marketing in its radio show by “discouraging” applications from Blacks. The CFPB’s evidence was a handful of comments on the show made over a four-year period representing perhaps 10 minutes of air time out of about 10,000 minutes. Some of those comments might be regarded as offensive or in bad taste. They referred to a particular Jewel food store at Clark and Division Streets in Chicago as “Jungle Jewel” and included talk of certain Black areas having “hoodlum weekend” and approaching “a real war zone” or as “crazy” and places “to be driven through quickly” while avoiding eye contact. But the CFPB did not produce even one example of anybody being discouraged from applying with Townstone. Nor, according to Townstone’s lawyers, has the company ever received any complaint about its show. The comments from the show cited by the CFPB were taken out of context and meant little, Townstone believed. For example, the “Jungle Jewel” was commonly called that by people in the area, and referred to as such even by a Black blogger, who called it “a socioeconomic nightmare and a haven for street crazies.” As Towntone’s lawyers later argued, if speech like Townstone’s is illegal, what wouldn’t violate the law? “Are creditors permitted to talk about crime at all? Education? Homelessness? Welfare? Poverty? Income distribution? Are they permitted to criticize the Black Lives Matter movement? Support the police? Criticize the Catholic Church about child abuse scandals? Support the BDS movement? Criticize the BDS movement? Support abortion rights? Oppose immigration?” The lawsuit threatened to entirely destroy Townstone. Its owner decided to fight. But how do you fight against the government, which has unlimited resources? Enter the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit with free speech expertise, which represented the company. A federal court in Chicago threw out the CFPB’s lawsuit in February. However, the ruling was based mostly on the court’s conclusion that the CFPB had authority only to regulate actual discrimination in lending, not marketing conduct that might be deemed “discouraging.” The court therefore didn’t need to get to the First Amendment defense. However, the CFPB has now appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, so the free speech defense is being raised again, and Townstone is getting still more help. Among the other firms filing amicus — friend of the court — briefs are Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, America’s Future, Free Speech Coalition, Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund. Lawyers from one of those firms, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, were guests on our podcast last year discussing legal issues with the University of Illinois’ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies and Gov. Pritzker’s gas tax signage law. It’s amicus brief in Townstone’s case summarizes it nicely: “Congress has not deputized CFPB as the ‘Tasteful Joke Police,’ nor would the First Amendment permit that delegation…. By conflating candid discussions of crime with the disparagement of African-American communities, CFPB seeks to do just that. Under the First Amendment, it cannot.” If you think Townstone’s case or other First Amendment cases you’ve heard about are isolated examples, you are dangerously uninformed. The assault on free speech is massive. Much of the government, social media and the press are partners in the Censorship Industrial Complex. That term was coined by Michael Shellenberger, who laid out 56 pages of evidence in congressional testimony last year. The Missouri v Biden case, now on appeal and likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, is already blowing the lid off much of the unholy alliance. Read about the massive evidence of record, discussed in the trial court’s Independence Day order. And if you think the assault on free speech isn’t ongoing in Illinois, you are again dangerously uninformed. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul essentially thumbed his nose at the First Amendment when he personally drafted the Illinois law targeting alleged pro-life “misinformation” given out by crisis pregnancy groups near abortion clinics. A federal judge ridiculed it and enjoined its enforcement earlier this month. Chalk up that victory to another of the pro bono law firms available to help on First Amendment issues, the Thomas More Society. Gov. JB Pritzker “is gaining a reputation as a hard-left culture warrior who is happy to silence political opponents,” as the Wall Street Journal recently said. “Pritzker apparently thinks that invoking the name Trump is a justification to get away with saying or doing anything. Not under the U.S. Constitution,” wrote the Journal. He told CNN, “There ought to be a private right of action for anybody that’s dissuaded or told something that’s false, that’s the important thing.” That would be flagrantly unconstitutional. Under the guise of banning book bans, the General assembly passed and Pritzker signed a bill delegating control over what books libraries carry to a group run by an open Marxist. Most recently, they passed an “anti-doxing” law that flies in the face of textbook First Amendment law, as we explained here. Illinois Senators Durbin and Duckworth have been among the progressives jawboning tech platforms to do more censorship. And Illinois Congressman Sean Casten introduced a bill to strip courts of the power of judicial review — their power to declare laws invalid as violations of the First Amendment, or anything else. Do not stand silent when your right to free speech is suppressed. Know that quality legal firms are often available for free. There are more beyond those I’ve mentioned here. The assault on free speech must be defeated at all cost. Do your part. Tyler Durden Wed, 08/30/2023 - 18:20.....»»

Corizon Health, facing mounting debt, executed a controversial bankruptcy maneuver. Hundreds of prisoner's medical malpractice claims were left in limbo. William Kelly, of Saginaw, Michigan, struggles with constant pain from kidney cancer that progressed from stage 1 to stage 4 while he was under the care of Corizon Health in a Michigan prison. He's one of at least 475 people with active suits against Corizon claiming negligent care. All are now stayed.Sylvia Jarrus for Insider In a lawsuit, a former Corizon CEO describes the company's maneuver as "an old-fashioned bankruptcy fraud scheme." Hundreds of malpractice cases have now been stayed.Hector Garcia, a father of four, collapsed three days into his six-day sentence at the Doña Ana County Detention Center, in Las Cruces, New Mexico. When a corrections officer found him, the former baker was crawling on the floor, vomiting, and moaning in pain. His requests for medical care were ignored.The next day Garcia collapsed again. "Help me!" he yelled, describing his pain as a 10 out of 10. Video footage obtained by Insider shows him wriggling on the ground in agony before corrections officers and medical staff assist him into a wheelchair. The nurse practitioner on duty that day was employed by Corizon Health, Inc., one of the nation's largest private prison healthcare providers.She examined Garcia for five minutes and attributed his symptoms to constipation, even though, as a lawsuit later filed by the family alleges, he had a history of peptic ulcers and had been at the jail multiple times. Later that day, medical records show, the nurse noted that his abdomen was distended, that he was in severe pain, and that he was vomiting a dark brown or orange bile substance, a possible sign of internal bleeding. Instead of sending Garcia to the hospital, medical staff suggested that he be placed in an observation cell in the facility's Medical Housing Area. There, he succumbed to hallucinations.The Doña Ana County Detention Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico, where Hector Garcia spent his final days.Adria Malcom for InsiderEarly the following morning, Corizon staff finally sent Garcia to the hospital. Even then, they didn't call an ambulance but instead loaded him into a security van. Bryan Baker, who was named director of the jail a year after Garcia's death, said all decisions related to the use of ambulances are handled by medical staff — who, at Doña Ana, are employed by Corizon.Sometime during that ride, shackled in the back seat, Garcia went into cardiac arrest, according to medical records and the civil complaint. The next day, he was dead. Garcia's family filed their lawsuit in 2021, joining what, as of July, was at least 475 active suits alleging medical negligence over Corizon's provision of healthcare at jails and prisons across the country. But the Garcias' lawsuit and all the others have now been stayed, as the company split and filed for bankruptcy in a controversial maneuver designed to wall off its assets from such claims. The bankruptcy has also stayed claims against some codefendants.If Corizon prevails, the malpractice suits against the company could be settled for pennies on the dollar, along with 44 employment-law suits over allegations including discrimination, wage theft, and wrongful termination, and at least $88 million in claims such as unpaid invoices from medical providers, according to bankruptcy filings.The jilted vendors include the University of Missouri Health Care system and a local hospital, which say the company owes them $12 million in unpaid invoices for providing prisoners with hospital care, and the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry, which says it's spent up to $2 million on legal costs defending lawsuits the department claims Corizon should have handled. Garcia's family, from left, Daniel Jimenez, his son; Gina Macias, his ex-wife; Belen Lowery, his sister; and his son Hector Garcia, Jr. outside of Jimenez's house in Las Cruces.Adria Malcom for InsiderThe cast of characters behind the bankruptcy stretches from Houston to the exurbs of New York's Rockland County, sweeping up a hedge fund debt specialist and a group of closely connected Orthodox Jewish business partners, who have left a trail of lawsuits and bankruptcies in their wake.The tactic they deployed with Corizon has been dubbed the Texas Two-Step.Johnson & Johnson deployed the novel tactic two years ago in an attempt to minimize a wave of costly legal claims that its talcum powder caused cancer. The Two-Step involves splitting a company into parts — one with most of the assets and the other with the bulk of the liabilities — and then filing the debt-laden company into bankruptcy. J&J's bankruptcy was shot down this year by a federal court. For now, the legitimacy of the Two-Step remains an open question. No court has clearly established its legality.In Corizon's case, a group of investors bought out the company in 2021 and within months created a new company called YesCare, home to most of Corizon's valuable assets — including hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded contracts with prisons and jails. The liability-laden Corizon was renamed Tehum and, in February of this year, filed for bankruptcy. Tehum has transferred tens of millions of dollars to entities some of its investors control, according to a financial statement the company filed in the bankruptcy case. "It's outrageous that investors' profits could have greater legal protections than incarcerated patients and their families," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement to Insider. "I've been fighting in the Senate to close the Texas Two Step loophole and this legal maneuver should be an alarming red flag."The goal of Corizon's Two-Step may have been laid bare in a recent civil complaint. It describes an alleged meeting in which a Tehum director, a man named Isaac Lefkowitz, says the Texas Two-Step can be used to "force plaintiffs into accepting lower settlements."A former Corizon CEO, James Hyman, who sued YesCare over his 2021 ouster from the company, describes the planned Two-Step in his lawsuit as "an old-fashioned bankruptcy fraud scheme." YesCare, in a March filing, denied the claim of fraud.It's taken relentless questioning by civil-rights attorneys representing incarcerated people and their families, like the Garcias, to partially uncover the identities of Corizon's new owners. And their identities still have not been disclosed to state and county agencies that have signed seven-, eight-, or nine-figure contracts for the company's healthcare services.Through leaked documents, business filings, public-records requests, voluminous court filings, and interviews with inside sources, Insider has been able to identify many of the players who led Corizon into the Two-Step. Three of them have had leadership roles in companies on both sides of the Two-Step.In taking over and restructuring Corizon, they have extended that strategy to something as sensitive as the life or death of prisoners — a unique set of patients who have no ability to seek second opinions or outside care. In December 2022, James Hyman, a former CEO of Corizon, sued the company over the terms of his 2021 ouster, describing Corizon’s plan to execute a Texas Two-Step as “an old-fashioned bankruptcy fraud scheme.”US District Court for the Middle District of TennesseeTehum's representatives are sitting down with Corizon creditors today in an effort to negotiate a global settlement — one that could allow Corizon's buyers to profit at the expense of doctors, universities, prison systems, and the hundreds of inmates allegedly injured or killed by Corizon's negligence.In June, several creditors filed a motion asking the court to appoint an independent trustee, arguing that Corizon and Tehum had engaged in self-dealing tantamount to a "fraudulent transfer" of assets outside the reach of creditors. And Insider has uncovered indications that Lefkowitz, the Tehum director, may have made at least one false representation under oath during a creditor call.Under federal law, a bankruptcy judge may respond to evidence of self-dealing or perjury by appointing a trustee to take control of the bankrupt company, bankruptcy experts told Insider.If successful, Corizon's Two-Step would avoid a much wider range of liabilities than previous companies who've used it — not just injury lawsuits, like J&J, but the routine debts to vendors that companies rack up every day. If the company succeeds, it provides a "roadmap for eliminating virtually any unsecured liability owed by any corporate entity, regardless of whether that entity is solvent," Ian Cross, a Michigan civil-rights attorney who represents multiple prisoners who have sued Corizon, wrote in a procedural objection in April."People wouldn't for a minute accept it if they understood it," Lynn LoPucki, a corporate-law professor at the University of Florida, said of the divisional merger law that makes the Two-Step possible."If this law is read literally and people take advantage of it, it will completely change the American economy." A deadly six-day sentenceThe quality of Corizon's care has been a subject of contention for many years. Corizon contracts were canceled in Virginia and New York in the wake of prisoner deaths. Multiple localities have investigated Corizon, finding care deficiencies in Oregon and hiring standards in New York so lax that "serious red flags" were missed. And thousands of prisoners or their families have filed lawsuits over the years alleging that medical neglect by Corizon harmed or killed them, some resulting in massive judgments.Hector Garcia, Jr., wears a T-shirt memorializing his father.Adria Malcom for InsiderTracey Grissom filed a complaint in 2019 saying she was forced to live in her own feces for four months after Corizon contractors at the Alabama prison where she was held failed to provide a properly fitted ostomy bag. Adree Edmo, a transgender prisoner, filed a claim in 2017 saying she attempted suicide after Corizon providers in an Idaho prison denied her gender-affirming care. William Kelly, one of Cross' clients, struggles with constant pain from kidney cancer that progressed from stage 1 to stage 4 while he was incarcerated in Michigan prisons.There, he said in a 2022 civil complaint, Corizon failed to provide appropriate treatment. "I was deteriorating fast and I was really weak. I knew something was wrong, was extremely wrong with me," Kelly told Insider. "But they don't give you any kind of understanding of what's going on with you."Corizon disputed all three claims in court. All are now stayed.For Garcia, 55, a few days under Corizon's care at the detention facility in New Mexico proved fatal.Garcia always stood out in his family as a kid, with his dirty blond hair and a wide smile. He was an avid basketball player who also had a knack for the arts, and in his late teens he found work at a local bakery, where he whipped up fresh, sugary doughnuts and pastries he'd bring home to his family.As Garcia and his wife built their family, it also became clear that he was struggling with drug addiction, something family members said had landed him in jail and prison countless times over the years.When Garcia saw two of his sons for what would ultimately be the last time in August of 2019, he had just been released from jail. He walked a mile to the home of his son Hector Garcia Jr. to say how sorry he was.For two hours that day, Garcia sat down over pizza with Hector Jr. and his younger brother Ricky as he apologized for his years of addiction and the ways it had disrupted their lives. When Hector Jr. dropped his dad at his grandma's house that evening, Garcia said that he loved him. When Garcia's family heard that he was back, three weeks later, at the Doña Ana County Detention Center, they didn't think much of it. One of his friends was pulled over while driving and, during the stop, law-enforcement officers discovered that Garcia, in the passenger's seat, had an outstanding warrant stemming from a shoplifting charge. Unable to afford the $242 fine, he was booked for a six-day sentence. "We figured he's going to stay there for a few days and pay his fine," said his sister, Belen Lowery, "because he wasn't going to ask us for money." That weekend she bought a futon for her brother so he'd have a place to sleep in their mother's new house following his release. He never got to sleep on it.An August 2019 incident report from the Doña Ana County Detention Center documents Hector Garcia's collapse.Doña Ana County, New MexicoHector Jr. will never forget finding his spirited father unconscious in a hospital bed, hooked up to multiple tubes. He died a couple of hours later.As Hector Jr. was absorbing the news, he said, a hospital nurse approached him to say she found the detention center's treatment of his father suspicious and suggested that the family hire a lawyer. Two years later, he filed a lawsuit on behalf of the family against Corizon, the warden, and other defendants claiming that medical workers employed by Corizon had violated Garcia's Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care. Lawsuits against prisons and jails are extremely difficult to win, but, in this case, the family's attorney, Matt Coyte, thought he had an ironclad case. Medical personnel had admitted in depositions that they violated standard of care when treating Garcia, and Coyte had obtained surveillance video that he said documented extreme forms of medical negligence. Corizon has denied the Garcias' allegations. But Coyte told Insider he expected to win millions of dollars in damages at an August trial.Just six months before the Garcia family was scheduled to have their day in court, Corizon filed for bankruptcy. Their lawsuit, along with hundreds of others, was indefinitely stayed.A debt specialist is put in charge of prisoner careHealthcare in correctional institutions began to be widely outsourced and privatized in the 1980s. In recent years the field has been dominated by a few major firms, Corizon among them. Founded in 1978 as Prison Health Services, Inc., the company changed its name to Corizon in 2011 after merging with a competitor, making it the country's largest private prison healthcare provider.In 2013, Corizon told a Florida news outlet the company had been a defendant in 660 malpractice lawsuits over the previous five years. In 2015, Corizon lost a $154 million contract with New York City; four years later it lost a $200 million contract with Arizona. A New York state panel found Corizon's treatment "so incompetent and inadequate as to shock the conscience."The revenue instability resulted in a series of ownership changes.As of 2014, Corizon had 14,000 employees, and the company brought in $1.5 billion the following year. But by June 2020, payroll had dropped to 5,000 employees responsible for annual revenue of about $800 million, according to a Nashville business journal. That's when investment firm BlueMountain Capital Management sold Corizon for an undisclosed sum to a small Florida investor called Flacks Group. In late 2021 the company lost its two largest remaining contracts, with corrections departments in Michigan and Missouri, worth more than $400 million in annual revenue. Revenue would shrink to roughly $600 million that year, and keep falling.In December 2021, Flacks Group offloaded Corizon to the unidentified buyers who would execute the Texas Two-Step. Even Hyman, then Corizon's CEO, didn't know who the buyers were, according to the lawsuit he filed against YesCare and other parties over his severance; the lawsuit was dismissed in July. He refers to them in the suit as "one or more persons or entities whose identities are unknown" and the "unknown buyer." Either sale could have been a chance to turn the beleaguered correctional healthcare company around and provide quality care to its tens of thousands of incarcerated patients. (As of January, according to a YesCare slide deck, the company provided care to 72,000 prisoners nationwide.) But instead of bringing on an experienced healthcare administrator to clean up the delivery of care, the new owners hired a distressed-debt specialist named Sara Tirschwell with a background in turning around troubled businesses.Sara Tirschwell was named CEO of Corizon in late 2021.Kholood Eid for the New York TimesCorizon's headquarters are in Brentwood, Tennessee. But under Tirschwell, Corizon quickly moved its incorporation from Delaware, where it had long been incorporated, to Texas, one of only a few states that allow something called a divisional merger, which provides wide freedoms for companies to split and divide up their assets and liabilities.Once registered in Texas, Tirschwell and the new owners split the company in two. One company, called Tehum Care Services, Inc., they saddled with liabilities and eventually filed into bankruptcy. The other, called CHS TX, Inc., got the old Corizon's C-suite and more than $300 million in public contracts. It would conduct business under the name YesCare. Tirschwell was named CEO of YesCare, where she quickly got to work reaching out to the state and county agencies whose contracts with Corizon had suddenly moved to the new company. YesCare did not respond to detailed queries. Jason S. Brookner, an attorney for Tehum, provided a brief statement. "We are proceeding with court-ordered mediation," he said, "where substantially all of these issues will be addressed. We have no further comment."A mysterious 'healthcare conglomerate'Okaloosa County, a midsize county in Florida's panhandle, has been working with Corizon for decades. In May 2022, the director of corrections there received an email from a Corizon staffer sharing an announcement from Tirschwell that described YesCare as a new partnership."Monday morning, we will be announcing that the dedicated employees of Corizon Health have teamed up with a healthcare conglomerate to create YesCare, launching our new vision for correctional healthcare nationwide," she wrote.But she left the agencies in the dark about who, exactly, they were now doing business with. YesCare Holdings LLC — the majority owner of YesCare's parent company — had been set up only two days before the email was sent. The message didn't name the "healthcare conglomerate," and two contracting agencies, including Doña Ana County, told Insider they were not made aware of the conglomerate's identity.Subsequent emails mention the new ownership. But in referencing a "Corizon rebranding" and "our announcement on our name change," YesCare employees led Okaloosa officials to believe the change was a rebrand, not a change in ownership.A June 2022 email from YesCare to an Okaloosa County corrections official mentions Corizon's new ownership but refers to it as a "name change" and a rebrand.Okaloosa County, FloridaAt one point, Okaloosa officials expressed confusion. The name "YesCare" didn't show up in the state's online business portal — an indication that it wasn't registered to do business in Florida."Can you please take care of that and provide me an email confirmation when complete?" a senior contracts and lease coordinator for the county emailed the YesCare staffer."We will address," the YesCare staffer replied. "Many thanks."Nick Tomecek, a spokesperson for Okaloosa County, told Insider in a statement that despite any organization changes, "we have the same staff and providers that we have worked with for years" and their contract was subject to "meticulous scrutiny" and "protects the County's interests."Similar communications mentioning a name change went out to other public agencies that were doing business with Corizon, such as the Wyoming Department of Corrections and counties in Florida and New Mexico. But experts said the divisional merger signaled a change in control that should have triggered more robust disclosure."If you've made differences in arrangements that go to the concept of 'Who am I working with on this contract?' then that's not a name change," Christopher Atkinson, an associate professor in the public-administration program at the University of West Florida, told Insider.Insider obtained contracts or correspondence from 19 county and state agencies with an active Corizon contract that moved over to YesCare. At least four contracts, all in Florida, specify that the agency can immediately terminate if the company files for bankruptcy. Yet some public officials running agencies with multimillion-dollar Corizon contracts weren't aware at the time that an ownership change had taken place — or that one Corizon entity, renamed Tehum, later filed for bankruptcy.In June 2022, for example, a month after the divisional merger, a Wyoming Department of Corrections contract manager, Wendy McGee, was still under the impression that Corizon had simply changed its name. She had no idea then that YesCare was a new company, according to her response to an Insider records request.The agency had agreed just a year earlier to a two-year, $33 million contract with Corizon. McGee said in April that the company had yet to alert her about its February bankruptcy filing. She found out by reading an article online. While Wyoming's 2021 contract with Corizon requires the company to provide notice of any "sale, transfer, merger, or consolidation of assets," an agency spokesperson, Stephanie Kiger, said in a statement that there was "no way for the department to enforce that prior to a sale or transfer being completed.""Terminating the contract would have resulted in a large gap in necessary medical services for WDOC inmates," she said.In other words, there was no plan B for providing prisoners with medical care.She said Wyoming was rebidding the medical contract this month.Bryan Baker became director of the Doña Ana County Detention Center a year after Garcia's death. The facility has an active contract with YesCare.Adria Malcom for InsiderPublic officials in two other states told Insider that substantial contracts with YesCare would not be renewed — one for $3.6 million in Shawnee County, Kansas, and another for $14.5 million in Bernalillo County, New Mexico.Bryan Baker, the current director of the Doña Ana County Detention Center, where Corizon was responsible for Garcia's care in the days before his death, also received a June 2022 email from YesCare. That email, from YesCare's vice president of operations, said YesCare had acquired all the active business of Corizon — and said no additional agency steps were required."Because CHS was split from Corizon through a merger transaction, your contract has not been assigned or transferred and no other action with respect to the contract is necessary," she wrote. Anita Skipper, a spokesperson for Doña Ana County, said the county discussed the change and determined that "the contracted services being provided and the Corizon staff providing the services were not changing, for the County's purpose the only change is their name." In an October 2022 proposal to the Alabama Department of Corrections for a $1 billion health care contract, YesCare emphasizes its continuity with Corizon.Alabama Department of CorrectionsInsider obtained another document through a public records request, a proposal that YesCare submitted last year to the Alabama Department of Corrections in an effort to win a multiyear contract. In the 736-page document, YesCare relies on Corizon's "years of experience" in correctional healthcare to prove its bona fides, noting that the company "includes most of the former Corizon Health employees" and "holds the former Corizon Health correctional health contracts."It's a 180 from the stance that YesCare has taken in court, where the company has insisted on "corporate separateness" from Corizon, rebranded as Tehum.Atkinson, the University of West Florida public-policy expert, finds that troubling. "It sounds like for certain purposes they're a different company, and for other purposes they're the same company," he said. "They can't have it both ways."And if YesCare and Corizon are effectively the same company, then why should YesCare's assets be off limits to prisoners and their families? A director is evasive under oathOn May 12, more than a dozen people dialed into a conference call hosted by the US Trustee's office, which is overseeing the Corizon bankruptcy. It was one of a series of so-called 341 meetings — a chance for creditors owed money by a bankrupt company to get their questions answered. Representing Tehum, the company now saddled with Corizon's debts, were the chief restructuring officer and Tehum's director, Isaac Lefkowitz, who would speak under oath.Civil rights and bankruptcy attorneys, lawyers for a committee of the unsecured creditors, including the University of Missouri, and two Insider reporters were on the three-hour call, as Lefkowitz explained why bankruptcy was Corizon's best option.Before entering correctional healthcare, Lefkowitz dabbled over the decades in real estate, oncology, medical practice management — even the sale of mixed nuts. In many business endeavors, records show, he has been sued; he also once landed in trouble with regulators. He's been involved in at least six bankruptcies — including four as an owner or manager — and has also been accused in court filings of fraud or bad-faith conduct on multiple occasions that have resulted in settlements. A brief filed in the bankruptcy case describes Lefkowitz as a "prolific filer of Chapter 11 petitions" who often leverages the bankruptcy process to "avoid unsatisfactory outcomes."He was once sued by the son of a close friend, who claimed in a lawsuit that Lefkowitz swindled the son's late father out of millions of dollars while advising on his US real-estate portfolio. The son, Simche Steinberger, told Insider that Lefkowitz showed off his wealth like "the Queen of England" and convinced Steinberger's dad he'd be lucky to invest. Lefkowitz and the father shared "unconditional trust," the complaint said, as "they knew and socialized with each other and came from an extraordinarily insular and exceptionally close-knit religious community." The complaint also accuses Lefkowitz of fraud, deceit, embezzlement, and purloining funds. "This guy's a crook," Steinberger said. "He knows how to play around with laws." The case was dismissed for lack of standing.Michael Flacks, the chairman and CEO of Flacks Group, which sold Corizon to the new buyers, confirmed that Lefkowitz has enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, telling Insider Lefkowitz has vacationed for years on Fisher Island, an exclusive Florida island that is home to the country's richest ZIP code. Lefkowitz appears to have had no previous experience with prisons and jails before landing director roles first at Corizon and then at Tehum and YesCare. He's also a director for a company called M2 HoldCo, the company that owns Tehum, and M2 LoanCo, which put more than $39 million into Tehum — under the condition, awaiting court approval, that Tehum not seek funds from YesCare to pay its creditors.During the May creditors meeting, Lefkowitz couldn't answer such basic questions as why he changed Corizon's name to Tehum, and he casually informed attendees that the company's records — potentially including thousands of pages of prisoner healthcare files — were stored on his email or in a Dropbox account. Kelly with his attorney, Ian Cross, who asked the court to appoint an independent trustee to handle claims against Corizon.Sylvia Jarrus for InsiderIan Cross, the civil-rights attorney, had joined the call on behalf of several prisoners who had active claims against Corizon when the company, rebranded as Tehum, filed for bankruptcy. One of them is William Kelly, the Michigan man who is now living with late-stage cancer. In June 2022, with a couple of his cases headed for trial, Cross discovered that Corizon, the defendant, no longer existed.Cross and the other attorneys who dialed into the call that day were mostly met with evasion. After Lefkowitz shared, for the first time, the name of Tehum's parent company, a limited-liability company called Perigrove 1018, Cross pressed.Lefkowitz reluctantly acknowledged that he had an ownership interest in Perigrove 1018, revealing only after further questioning that he "was part of the group that formed it." When Cross pushed on who else was in the group, Lefkowitz said just, "A large group of investors." The stonewalling was so extreme that in June, lawyers for the unsecured creditors filed a procedural objection complaining that they had been "met with hostility and withholding of information" by numerous parties.Insider sent detailed queries to Lefkowitz at Perigrove, a private-equity firm where he's a director. He responded from a YesCare email, saying, "Our policy is not to comment during pending company litigation."He later followed up from a Perigrove email, saying, "The subject companies in your proposed write-up provide a vital service to the incarcerated because we believe healthcare is a basic human right that should be afforded to everyone, regardless of past mistakes.""The adverse accusations in your proposed piece are sourced from allegations in public filings that are riddled with false accusations and inaccurate information," he added. "The Corizon bankruptcy is presently in a court ordered mediation, and we are seeking a global resolution for all the parties involved."A Lefkowitz deposition filed in court in June revealed that he had a 5% stake in Perigrove 1018. He also finally named two others in the group of investors: David Gefner and Abraham Goldberger.Lawsuits that claim fraud, embezzlementLike Lefkowitz, Gefner and Goldberger are associated with multiple business that have filed for bankruptcy or faced allegations of fraud.Gefner, who turns 30 this month, says on LinkedIn he founded Perigrove, the private equity firm, in 2012, while he was still a teenager. Since then, documents show, he has spun out more than a dozen Perigrove entities, registered in his name at the same address in Suffern, a New York suburb in Rockland County. Among them, Perigrove 1018.Perigrove was a central player in the purchase of Corizon from Flacks Group, according to Flacks and the lawsuit filed by Hyman, Corizon's former CEO.Gefner's LinkedIn profile describes him as a "visionary entrepreneur" who has closed several merger-and-acquisition transactions across real estate and healthcare. It says that in 2009, when he would have been in high school, he served as an acquisitions specialist "for an exclusive network of family offices and ultra-high net worth investors." Gefner also says on LinkedIn that he's a board member at Consulate Health Care, once the country's sixth-largest nursing-home chain. Consulate gained notoriety after a federal civil jury found in 2017 that the company had defrauded taxpayers with inflated billings for resident care. That case was nearing a settlement in March 2021 when Consulate, in a surprise move, filed for bankruptcy. The Justice Department ultimately agreed to settle the $256 million civil fraud judgment for just $4.5 million. Consulate's CEO and Gefner's attorney, Terrence A. Oved, did not respond to queries seeking confirmation of Gefner's claim.As recently as March of this year, a pair of companies Gefner set up faced a fraud lawsuit over claims they'd failed to repay millions of dollars in loans intended to develop a boutique Brooklyn hotel; Gefner personally settled before the suit was filed, according to the complaint.Oved responded to queries on Gefner's behalf with a statement saying, "David Gefner has never personally filed for bankruptcy or been involved in a litigation where he has been accused of fraud; nor does he control any company that has filed for bankruptcy. The attempt to tarnish his reputation by association and implication is regrettable."Gefner has been on both sides of the Corizon Two-Step. He was for a time listed as a director for Tehum. And incorporation records show he's the organizer for YesCare Holdings LLC — the holding company with a 95% ownership stake in YesCare Corp., which in turn owns YesCare, the company with Corizon's active contracts.He's also listed in a December 2022 business filing as YesCare Corp.'s president.The other investor Lefkowitz named, Goldberger, has an equally tumultuous business background — and his name is also associated with a range of Corizon-related companies.Goldberger, who, like Lefkowitz and Gefner, has a Perigrove email address, was once listed in business filings as a director and officer of Corizon and as a director of Tehum. He's listed too as the authorized person for M2 HoldCo and M2 LoanCo, the company that gave Tehum $39 million.Goldberger has a history of suing his business partners — and being sued by contractors over failure to pay. In 2013 he was accused in court of embezzling funds from a charter-jet company, a case that was settled for an undisclosed sum. He's now CEO of a temporary-staffing agency called United Staffing Solutions that, as of 2019, had revenue of roughly $34 million and describes itself, in a wild exaggeration, as "one of the largest privately-owned businesses in America." In 2022, shortly after Goldberger became an officer for Corizon, his family formed a slew of staffing services entities with names like "Corizon Health Charlotte, Inc." associated with locations where Corizon does business. Each company was registered to the same Manhattan address as that of United Staffing Solutions. Days later, those entities were dissolved to make way for a new slate of businesses, with the names slightly tweaked: Now they echoed CHS TX, the company that does business as YesCare, such as "CHS Okaloosa, Inc." and "CHS Dana Anna, Inc."These new companies list Goldberger; his wife, Faigy; and their children — including a 21-year-old daughter — as presidents. The same year the Goldbergers formed those companies, Corizon awarded United Staffing Solutions a contract, for an unknown amount, to staff nurses in their facilities across the country, according to a list of contracts in the company's divisional merger plan.Goldberger's company got that contract while he was serving as a director on Corizon's board.Now, according to the October 2022 YesCare proposal to the Alabama Department of Corrections, United Staffing Solutions is doing business with YesCare, too."Our exclusive staffing relationships create synergies for our clients that no other company in the industry can match," the proposal says. The document does not disclose the conflict of interest.An office above an auto-parts shopTwo people with knowledge of the Flacks Group sale of Corizon place Lefkowitz, Gefner, and Goldberger at the heart of the deal.One of them, Michael Flacks, who sold the company to the new owners, said Gefner and Lefkowitz handled the purchase on behalf of Perigrove, something Hyman also says in his civil complaint. Flacks said Perigrove invested on behalf of high-net-worth individuals including Goldberger, who, he said, "was deeply involved in driving the transaction to a successful conclusion."Flacks called Goldberger "Mr. Moneyman."He also named Joel Landau, someone with a background in skilled nursing facilities, as a minority investor.Goldberger's attorney, Joseph Haspel, responded to queries with a statement saying that "Mr. Goldberger is a passive investor" in Corizon, Tehum, YesCare, Perigrove, and Perigrove 1018. "He takes the position that it is for the Courts to address legal issues," Haspel said.But Landau's attorney, Andrew Levander, said in a statement that any "suggestion that Mr. Landau has ever had an ownership interest or investment in YesCare, Tehum or M2 is false.""Mr. Landau has no direct or indirect ownership interest in any of those entities."The buyers conducted a couple of weeks of diligence, Flacks said. A Corizon source who was present on early calls to discuss the sale in December 2021 said the talks moved quickly. Lefkowitz and Goldberger were initially interested in exploring a purchase of Corizon's pharmacy-management subsidiary, Pharmacorr, the source said. Within the week, they had decided to buy the entire company."We were able to successfully negotiate a corporate downsizing as well as the spinoff of the pharmacy business," Flacks said. "We believe this was the best outcome for the employees and the patients."When Lefkowitz gathered with Corizon executives the following Sunday, the executives had already drafted a press release to announce the sale, the Corizon source said. Lefkowitz shut down the discussion, saying he worked with partners who ran nursing homes, who didn't want their patients to know they were also getting into prison healthcare.In a December 2021 email from James Hyman, then Corizon's CEO, filed as an exhibit in a lawsuit he filed over his severance, Hyman asks Isaac Lefkowitz what he can say about the new ownership group.US District Court for the Middle District of TennesseeIn a December 2021 email to Lefkowitz, filed as an exhibit in former CEO James Hyman's lawsuit, Hyman asks: "When we talk to customers and say 'we've been bought, the financial guys are gone, the new guys are committed to healthcare, etc.' and the customer asks, 'so who are they?', what do you want us to say?"Besides their multiple associations with Lefkowitz, Gefner, and Goldberger, a few of the companies associated with Corizon have something else in common.YesCare Holdings and Perigrove share the same address, the 46th floor of 7 World Trade Center, a sparkling high-rise in Manhattan's downtown financial district. Multiple businesses associated with Isaac Lefkowitz and David Gefner list their address as 7 World Trade Center, right. A receptionist could find only one in the directory.InsiderAn Insider reporter recently visited the office's lobby, curious about the ties between these entities that appear to occupy the same space. A receptionist said Perigrove was listed as having a virtual office there, but didn't find YesCare or their other related businesses in the directory.While Perigrove holds itself out as a sleek, Manhattan-based financial company, the company doesn't have any filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that would suggest it had raised significant money. Incorporation records and a report from the short-seller Hindenburg Research show the company's office isn't even in Manhattan but rather an hour's drive away in Rockland County, above a Suffern auto-parts shop. A paper sign with "Perigrove" in big letters was taped on the glass door of the two-story brick building, layered over another signed that read "Perigove LLC" — without the "R".An Insider reporter asked an auto-parts employee at the building whether Gefner was often at the office. "You here to give him a summons?" the man replied, in between bites of lunch. When asked whether that happened a lot, he responded with a laugh, "No comment." A paper sign on a door to an auto-parts shop indicates the office of Perigrove, the firm that arranged Corizon's sale, in Suffern, New York.InsiderPerigrove shares the Suffern address with numerous other companies. Incorporation records list Gefner as the organizer for dozens of Perigrove-related entities, with names like "Perigrove 1021A LLC" and "Perigrove 1028 LLC," all registered at the office above the auto-parts store. The unassuming office space near a Kosher grocery store and an Orthodox synagogue is also the home of Perigrove 1018 LLC, the ultimate parent company of Tehum. Gefner is listed as the company's organizer.Potential signs of perjuryThe Alabama Department of Corrections proposal that YesCare submitted last year contained another pivotal detail about the company's backing, one Lefkowitz avoided revealing under intense questioning in May.YesCare says it is managed and financially supported by a company called Geneva Consulting LLC, "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Genesis Healthcare group of companies." Geneva Consulting was incorporated in 2021 with Gefner as general partner and registered to the same 7 World Trade Center address.A month after Geneva was formed, Hyman discovered something that alarmed him: Lefkowitz, as a representative of Corizon's new owners, had signed off on a $3 million payment to Geneva for future services described only as "corporate restructuring." Hyman asked Lefkowitz about the transaction, he said in his lawsuit, and was immediately terminated. Lefkowitz later explained, on a creditors call in June, that Geneva served as an intermediary between M2 LoanCo, the lender, and Tehum, the company Corizon saddled with its debts, making payments on behalf of Tehum to various vendors. He said it was his job to review invoices before Geneva sent payments from its accounts.But he said he held no official title with Geneva nor received any compensation. And Lefkowitz said under oath on the June creditor's call that he didn't know the identity of Geneva's principals. That sworn testimony may be false.According to a motion in the $12 million lawsuit filed against Tehum by the University of Missouri Health Care system and the local hospital over nonpayment, Lefkowitz had a controlling interest in Geneva. In a motion filed in June to force compliance with a subpoena, lawyers for the unsecured creditors committee cite Geneva's attorney saying his "client contact" there was Lefkowitz. According to an attachment in Geneva's exhibit list, Lefkowitz has just one of 11 email addresses at Geneva. He is listed on a company website as a director of Genesis Healthcare, Geneva's owner.When asked about Genesis on the May creditors call, Lefkowitz said, "It's possible, I'm not 100 percent certain" that the company has an investment in Perigrove 1018.Genesis Healthcare is one of the biggest nursing-home systems in the United States, with more than 200 facilities in 21 states. It's also another deeply troubled company: In 2021, after several years of poor financial performance, Genesis was taken over and delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. According to a Genesis press release, the money for the purchase came from an affiliate of a private-equity firm called Pinta Capital Partners that was founded in 2012 by David Harrington and Landau — the investor who Flacks said was part of the group who purchased Corizon. Landau was later described by The American Prospect as a "serial liar with a history of conning his way into nursing home takeovers."Landau gained notoriety several years ago for his role in a scandal during the Bill de Blasio administration. That's when another Landau company purchased a former 219-bed Lower East Side nursing home called Rivington House. City officials lifted deed restrictions on the property after Landau made a commitment to local officials that there'd be no changes for residents. But he quickly reneged and sold the property to developers, netting $72 million.Landau has ties with both Lefkowitz and Gefner. According to the Hindenburg report, Gefner once worked for Pinta Capital. An archived 2009 video shows Lefkowitz and Landau shaking hands and smiling with then New York Gov. David Paterson.A strategy 'to benefit insider individuals'The complex web of business relationships appears to have led to self-dealing. There were Corizon and YesCare's contracts with the Goldberger-controlled United Staffing Solutions. There was the $3 million consultancy between Corizon and Geneva whose discovery may have gotten Hyman fired. The Alabama proposal document says YesCare also entered into an agreement with Geneva, paying Geneva to provide administrative support services, capital financing, and bonding requirements.Insider's analysis of financial records filed by Tehum in bankruptcy court shows that since the new buyers purchased Corizon, the company has transferred more than $48 million to entities controlled by Lefkowitz and Gefner, potentially limiting the pool of funds available for settling claims with creditors like the Garcias.For example, Corizon gave Perigrove $6 million from April to June 2022, the period in which the company became Tehum. And Corizon sent $7.5 million to another Gefner company, DG Realty, in December 2021.(A footnote indicates Tehum has also received $24 million from five parties, but it doesn't break down the payments.) "The most egregious form of the Two-Step is the kind of thing that bankruptcy is designed to prevent," Mark Roe, a professor at Harvard Law School who teaches bankruptcy and corporate law, told Insider. "A transfer of assets to our friends or ourselves, and to avoid paying liabilities."Oved, Gefner's attorney, said in the statement, "Corizon was on the verge of filing bankruptcy when it was acquired" and that "Corizon has done nothing wrong by availing itself of the same laws and protections afforded every other company in this country and any implication to the contrary is false."The ACLU, Public Justice, and other civil-rights organizations filed an amicus brief in May on behalf of pro se incarcerated plaintiffs. In it, they argue that the level of self-dealing among the principals has weakened the ability of creditors to repossess assets that may have been wrongly moved out of their reach. Lawyers for the unsecured creditors also argued, in a June filing opposing Tehum's attempts to draw out the timeline, that "this bankruptcy process is serving to benefit insider individuals and affiliated entities."LoPucki, the University of Florida scholar, said that the case, if it's resolved in favor of Tehum's owners, could signal "a fundamental change in the law governing debt," effectively rewriting the rules of the bankruptcy code laid down by Congress over a century ago. "As this case shows, corporations will keep trying to manipulate bankruptcy to game the justice system unless Congress puts a stop to it," Sen. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Insider.In January 2022, just a few months before the divisional merger that created YesCare, Lefkowitz was trying another maneuver to siphon money out of the cash-strapped Corizon. According to allegations in a 2022 lawsuit, he and two business partners, including someone identified on a wire transfer as "DAVID," planned to purchase hundreds of thousands of COVID test kits from a company called Seven Trade, registered to the same World Trade Center address and organized by Gefner. Lefkowitz and Gefner describe themselves in legal documents as its director and sole member, respectively.The complaint, filed by Seven Trade against the test-kit supplier, says they planned to resell the tests to Corizon at a 57% markup. If the deal hadn't fallen through, it would have netted them almost $1.2 million; Seven Trade won a $2.9 million judgment.In June, Cross, the civil-rights attorney, joined other creditors in filing a motion for the court to appoint an independent trustee, arguing that the Seven Trade episode "is perhaps the clearest available evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz is unlikely to act as a responsible fiduciary." (In an objection, attorneys for Tehum said the company "disputes the implications or the specific allegations.")"The Debtor's directors," the motion said of Tehum, "engaged and attempted to engage in various self-dealing transactions while the Debtor was insolvent," including the Seven Trade deal and Tehum's "payment of millions of dollars to Geneva Consulting LLC, a newly-formed entity controlled by insiders."In June of this year, Corizon creditors filed a motion asking the court to appoint an independent trustee, arguing that Tehum’s directors engaged in “self-dealing.”US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of TexasIn May 2022, just three months after Seven Trade filed suit and right around the time of the divisional merger, Tirschwell, YesCare's founding CEO, was looking to sign up new business. YesCare had its eyes on one particularly lucrative call for bids: the one from the state of Alabama. The Alabama Department of Corrections is one of the most notorious prison systems in the country. The department has been the subject of a federal investigation since 2016 over horrific conditions and pervasive violence, and it's still fighting a class-action lawsuit filed in 2014 by the Southern Poverty Law Center over claims of inadequate healthcare. The stakes were high for whoever would come in to handle medical care for the system's more than 18,000 prisoners.After reviewing five bids, the state awarded a billion-dollar contract to YesCare, a company that had been established only a couple of months earlier. The decision was shrouded in controversy. A corrections department attorney acknowledged a potential conflict of interest. And Wexford, a competitor for the massive bid, alleged in a letter to the governor obtained by Insider that YesCare's CEO — then Tirschwell — violated a "cone of silence" period by having dinner with the department's top corrections official during the bidding process. Alabama rebid the contract, but YesCare prevailed again.There was another striking revelation in YesCare's proposal — one that hints at why the group of investors wanted to take over Corizon in the first place.YesCare and Geneva Consulting, the proposal explains, intend to create a prison-to-nursing-home pipeline.They say YesCare plans to develop and manage skilled nursing facilities to house medically fragile older people on medical furlough from prison, on parole, or who recently finished their sentence, creating a direct path from the prisons to their centers. The proposal lists 11 facilities across Alabama, nine of them run by Genesis, that collectively can house more than 700 people."In more cases than not, releasing patients are denied access to nursing homes due to their history of violence or their infectious disease status," the proposal says, referencing a chart of the Genesis facilities. "YesCare has access to the facilities below to assist the ADOC with nursing home placements."The proposal describes the arrangement as "an innovative means to transfer significant healthcare costs away from State budgets." Seven of the nine Genesis facilities listed, according to ProPublica's nursing-home database, received "D," "E" , "F", "J", and "K" ratings from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, on a scale of A to L. Insider found at least 80 documented deficiencies over the past five years in which these facilities failed to meet care requirements, resulting in over $44,000 in fines. Bankruptcy was in her playbookAfter the new owners quietly took over Corizon, they appointed someone as CEO with no prior experience in corrections.Sara Tirschwell, a Texas native with piercing hazel eyes, spent much of her career at Davidson Kempner, the distressed-debt pioneer. There, she served as interim CFO for an addiction-treatment center in Maine, sat on the board of a cannabis transport company, and helped to restructure an Israeli automotive supplier. She went on to become a managing director at Quest Turnaround Advisors, a firm specializing in managing flailing businesses.Then, before joining Corizon, she decided to run for New York City mayor.By all accounts, it was a spectacular debacle. She failed even to collect enough signatures to get onto the Republican primary ballot. And yet she may have violated campaign-finance laws, according to a July 2022 complaint submitted to the city's Campaign Finance Board, by failing to properly report expenditures and in-kind contributions. When a board employee had contacted her some months earlier with questions about outstanding liabilities owed by her campaign, according to notes of the call, Tirschwell responded that she "would simply file for bankruptcy at the federal level to ensure the CFB could not come after her." (A spokesperson for the CFB, Tim Hunter, declined to comment on whether the board opened an investigation.)That instinct may have presaged what came next.After Tirschwell's failed 2021 bid for New York City mayor, a Campaign Finance Board staffer contacted her with questions. The staffer's writeup from February 10, 2022, notes Tirschwell saying if the board came after her, she'd file for bankruptcy.New York City Campaign Finance BoardAbout six months after Tirschwell dropped out of the race, she sold her Manhattan condo for $2.6 million, rented an apartment on the 29th floor of a high-rise building in Houston, and embarked on another adventure in bankruptcy, Corizon's Texas Two-Step. That apartment was more than her personal residence: Incorporation records show that Tirschwell listed her apartment as the business address for YesCare Corp., the company that owns YesCare.During her short tenure at Corizon, and then YesCare, Tirschwell bid for new business, including in Alabama, and reached out to corrections officials to reassure them about the transfer of ownership. Bryan Baker, the director of the New Mexico jail where Hector Garcia's health catastrophically collapsed, recalled an in-person visit Tirschwell made to the facility, some three years after Garcia died, where they briefly discussed the business.But it seems clear in retrospect that Tirschwell was brought on to accomplish one thing.Bankruptcy was in Tirschwell's playbook. Her Quest profile says she "has been a guest lecturer on the subject of bankruptcy investing." Back in 2004, after many companies with asbestos tort liabilities had been driven into bankruptcy, she joined with other hedge funds in meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the idea of establishing a trust fund to pay those claims. A decade later, companies with asbestos claims were the first to deploy the Texas Two-Step.She was the only Corizon leader based in Texas, where the Two-Step is legal, and the timeline suggests she may have been brought on specifically to oversee the company's legal maneuvers in Texas. She was referred to as part of the company's "transitional leadership team" in a February email sent from a YesCare administrator to a county agency in Michigan. Three days after the bankruptcy, Tirschwell was out the door, with Corizon's long-standing CFO Jeff Sholey taking the company's reins. Sholey did not respond to detailed requests for comment.Though she was CEO for just 15 months, she was rewarded with a 5% ownership stake in YesCare Corp. Despite the bankruptcy, Tirschwell writes of YesCare on her LinkedIn page that she executed the "successful turnaround of a 45 year old correctional healthcare company."Steven Storch, Tirschwell's attorney, declined to comment on her behalf, citing pending litigation, and did not respond to detailed follow-up questions. But he said she "has long been a passionate advocate for improvements to the prison healthcare system."A hallway inside the Doña Ana County Detention Center.Adria Malcom for InsiderIn June, an Insider reporter stopped by the Doña Ana County Detention Center, the low-slung facility in Las Cruces, on the edge of the Chihuahuan Desert, that Tirschwell had visited a year before — the place where Hector Garcia spent his final days. In the facility's nursing station, where Garcia's family said in a civil complaint that he'd received "inadequate medical care," YesCare and Corizon posters are now plastered side-by-side. The hallway's fluorescent lights added a harshness to the already desolate environment. The prison gave off a musty, almost putrid smell and in the cells, men lay on their metal bunks, turned to the wall. This facility is where Garcia collapsed just three days into his six-day sentence; where a corrections officer found him crawling on the floor and moaning; where a nurse practitioner from Corizon responded to his severe pain, distended abdomen, and his vomiting of dark brown bile by putting him in a medical observation cell.According to the family's lawsuit, emergency rooms frequently encounter perforated ulcers and a routine surgery can treat the condition. Left untreated, however, the condition can be fatal. Time matters, and Corizon staffers waited until early in the morning on August 6 — two days after the onset of Garcia's symptoms — to send him to the hospital. A photo of Hector Garcia with his family sits by a window at his son Daniel's house in Las Cruces.Adria Malcom for InsiderHe was already unconscious by the time his family arrived at his bedside, after his sister received a call from a nurse at the hospital. To this day, no one from the detention facility or from Corizon has sent condolences to the family, or contacted them at all."How can our system allow this to people?" Hector Garcia Jr. said in an interview. "It's not like he had a chance to call an ambulance himself." The Garcias may never get a chance to make the case that his death could have been prevented. If Tehum's owners get their way during the settlement negotiations scheduled for this week, they could skirt accountability not just for Hector Garcia's death, but for the for hundreds of vulnerable prisoners who say they experienced serious harm at the hands of a company paid hundreds of millions of dollars to keep them safe.CreditsReporters: Nicole Einbinder, Dakin Campbell, Hannah Beckler, Katherine Long, Jack Newsham Editors: Esther Kaplan, Jeffrey Cane, John CookVisuals: Kazi Awal, Isabel Fernandez-Pujol, Annie Fu, Rebecca ZisserVideo: Erica Domena, Havovi Cooper Photography: Sylvia Jarrus, Adria Malcolm Research: Narimes ParakulCopy Editor: Kevin Kaplan  Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

There are numerous court cases open against Trump, including a new criminal indictment on RICO charges in Georgia. Here's a list of his legal issues. Former President Donald Trump is facing legal battles across the country.Drew Angerer/Getty Images Trump and his businesses are tangled in an array of state and federal investigations and lawsuits. Georgia's RICO indictment for election interference is from the last known criminal investigation into him. His trial troubles in criminal and civil cases overlap with his 2024 presidential campaign. The lawsuits and prosecutions involving Donald Trump are piling up. The ex-president — who is the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — now is indicted in four separate prosecutions, the first former White House occupant to ever be charged. He faces 91 criminal counts overall.In Atlanta, he and 18 co-defendants were charged in a sprawling RICO case for trying to overturn the election results in Georgia. The Justice Department brought a separate case against him in Washington, DC, for his election challenges. In Florida, the Justice Department brought 37 counts against him for his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. And in New York, he stands charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.Meanwhile, Trump is set to face a second defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll — the magazine writer who won a civil trial against Trump for sexual assault and defamation this past May.And he faces a grab-bag of additional lawsuits that could financially harm him and his international real estate and golf resort empire.Keep up to date on the latest of Trump's legal travails with this guide to the ever-evolving Trump docket.Indictments against TrumpFulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis investigated Trump's interference in the 2020 election.AP Photo/Ben Gray, FileThe Georgia RICO caseThe parties: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Trump, and his Republican associates The issues: In August, Willis brought a sprawling RICO case against Trump and 18 co-defendants, accusing them of forming an enterprise to illegally try to keep him in power even though he lost the 2020 election.The indictment brings charges over campaigns from Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and other top Trump allies to pressure state officials to overturn the election results. It also brings charges against state Republican officials who acted as false electors and submitted fake documents to Congress.What's next: The case is the most complicated one pending against Trump and will likely be the last to go to trial. With 19 defendants overall — many of them lawyers — there are numerous legal issues to sort out. But with a potential 20-year sentence on RICO charges and no prospect of a preemptive pardon, the case is Trump's biggest legal threat.Trump has been investigated for his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.Jon Cherry/Getty ImagesThe Justice Department's investigation into 2020 election interferenceThe parties: Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith brought an indictment against Trump in Washington, DC federal court.The issues: The indictment alleges Trump and a group of yet-unindicted co-conspirators conspired to stop Congress from doing its duty to certify now-President Joe Biden's electoral victory in the 2020 election and rob Americans of their lawful votes.Smith's indictment includes few details that weren't already uncovered by reporters and from the congressional investigation into the pro-Trump riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The congressional committee recommended bringing charges against Trump that largely line up with the indictment Smith ultimately brought.Like Willis's indictment, the case includes the false elector scheme. In addition to Georgia, the indictment includes activity in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and other states where Trump lost and tried to overturn the results.What's next: A trial date hasn't yet been set, but the case is being overseen by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has overseen numerous criminal trials of January 6 rioters.People walking outside Mar-a-Lago in March 2017Darren SamuelsohnThe Justice Department's investigation into classified documentsThe parties: Smith brought an indictment against Trump and his aide Waltine Nauta in a Florida federal court in June. He later slapped Trump with a superseding indictment that added Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira as a co-defendant. They've all pleaded not guilty in the case, which is expected to go to trial in mid-2024.The issues: Early in 2022, Trump turned over 15 boxes of documents — including some marked as classified and "top secret" — to the National Archives. But federal investigators scrutinizing the former president's handling of records reportedly grew suspicious that Trump or people close to him still retained some key records. The FBI seized about a dozen boxes of additional documents during a raid of Mar-a-Lago last summer.The Mar-a-Lago case and a separate January 6 investigation are both being overseen by special prosecutor Jack Smith, whom US Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed in November. Smith's team has been collecting evidence that would help support a case that Trump knowingly retained the records sought by the government, and obstructed efforts to return them.According to the indictment — which brings 37 criminal counts against Trump — Trump violated the Espionage Act 31 times by illegally holding on to sensitive national-security documents, conspired to obstruct justice, lied to law enforcement, and violated three different statutes related to withholding and concealing government records.Nauta and De Oliviera often at Trump's direction, helped hide documents, the indictment says. Nauta also lied to law enforcement about his actions, according to prosecutors.What's next: US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who previously made rulings sympathetic to him, is presiding over the case. Because it involves complicated legal issues related to classified documents and presidential powers, the case may be delayed until after the 2024 election.Former President Donald Trump, left. adult film star Stormy Daniels, center. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, right.Alex Brandon/AP, left. Markus Schreiber/AP, center. Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AP, right.The Manhattan DA's indictment over the hush-money settlement to Stormy DanielsThe parties: District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg and Donald Trump.The issues: Bragg's office investigated whether Trump violated campaign finance laws in connection to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. A grand jury voted to bring criminal charges against Trump in the case.Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer and personal lawyer, is a key witness. He has testified under oath that he made the payments to Daniels at Trump's direction, and pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations in connection with the payments in 2018. What's next: Trump was arrested in Manhattan criminal court on April 4 and was arraigned. He is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.The judge scheduled a March 2024 trial.Trump with his former CFO Allen Weisselberg at Trump Tower.Evan Vucci/APThe Trump Organization Payroll Case The Parties: The Trump Organization was found guilty of 17 tax fraud counts on December 6, 2022 in a speedy, slam-dunk conviction in New York state court.The Issues: A four-woman, eight-man, mostly working-class jury held Trump's real estate and golf resort business criminally liable for a 2005-2018 tax-dodge scheme admittedly run by the company's two top financial executives.The two, former CFO Allen Weisselberg and top payroll executive Jeffrey McConney, helped themselves and a half-dozen other company execs cheat on their income taxes by paying them in part with pricey perks and benefits — including free use of luxury cars and apartments — that were never reported to tax authorities.What's next: Potential repercussions include a heightened hesitancy among banks to lend to a company with felony status and an energized Trump probe in the Manhattan district attorney's office. Government corruption watchdogs also have renewed reason to urge the federal government to cease doing business with the former president.Civil lawsuits against TrumpThe front page of the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing former President Donald Trump, his family and his business of a decade of padding his net worth to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans and tax breaks.Jon Elswick/APThe NY AG's civil case against the Trump family and Trump OrganizationThe parties: New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization.The issues: James says she has uncovered a decade-long pattern of financial wrongdoing at Trump's multi-billion-dollar real-estate and golf resort empire.She alleges Trump inflated the values of his properties by billions of dollars in financial filings used to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans. She also alleges he low-balled his properties' worth for tax breaks. Trump has derided the AG's efforts as a politically motivated witch hunt.The 220-page lawsuit arose from a three-year investigation and seeks multiple, corporation-crippling demands that will be decided by a Manhattan judge in October.James wants the company to pay back the $250 million Trump allegedly pocketed through misleading banks. She also seeks to ban Trump and his three eldest children — Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump, who have all served as Trump Organization executives — from ever running a company in New York state again.Perhaps most extremely, her lawsuit seeks to pull the Trump Organization's New York papers of incorporation. That charter lets Trump draw revenue from his New York properties, including the lucrative commercial rents at his Manhattan skyscrapers. These measures would run Trump's corporate headquarters out of New York and could put the Trump Organization out of business entirely. What's next: New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron has warned Trump's side that the trial will start on time — on Monday, October 2, 2023 — "come hell or high water." Supporters of then-President Donald Trump protest inside the US Capitol.Brent Stirton/Getty ImagesLawsuits alleging 'incitement' on January 6The Parties: House Democrats and two Capitol police officers accused Trump of inciting the violent mob on January 6.The Issues: Trump's lawyers have argued that his time as president grants him immunity that shields him from civil liability in connection with his January 6 address at the Ellipse, where he urged supporters to "fight like hell."A federal judge rejected Trump's bid to dismiss the civil lawsuits, ruling that his rhetoric on January 6 was "akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer's home."US District Judge Amit Mehta said Trump later displayed a tacit agreement with the mob minutes after rioters breached the Capitol when he sent a tweet admonishing then-Vice President Mike Pence for lacking the "courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country."What's Next: Trump has appealed Mehta's ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. His lawyers have argued that the immunity afforded to the former president cannot be "undercut if the presidential act in question is unpopular among the judiciary." The Justice Department says Trump's actions aren't covered by presidential immunity. The appeals court heard oral arguments in December but hasn't yet issued a decision. Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is suing Trump for rape and defamation.Seth Wenig/APE. Jean Carroll's rape and defamation case against TrumpThe Parties: Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is suing Trump for defamation, battery, and emotional distress in federal court in Manhattan.  The Issues: Carroll filed two lawsuits against Trump.Both lawsuits allege Trump defamed her after she publicly accused him of raping her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the mid-90s. Trump responded to Carroll's rape claim by saying it was untrue and that she was "not my type." Trump also denied ever meeting Carroll, despite a photo to the contrary.The first lawsuit was filed in 2019, while Trump was in office, and has been tangled up over legal questions of whether Trump disparaged Carroll as part of his presidential duties, which would make him immune to the lawsuit.After Trump made more disparaging remarks about Carroll last fall, she filed a second defamation lawsuit against him. That lawsuit also included a rape allegation following the passage of a New York law that gave sexual assault accusers a new window to file civil cases regardless of when the alleged incident occurred.The second lawsuit went to trial in April. A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million.What's next: After Trump lost the trial, he repeated the same insults against Carroll. Carroll added new defamation claims to her first lawsuit. In July, the Justice Department dropped its argument that Trump disparaged Carroll as part of his presidential duties, paving the way for a second trial to be held in January. Donald Trump, right, sits with his children, from left, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump during a groundbreaking ceremony for the Trump International Hotel in Washington.Evan Vucci/APThe 'multi-level marketing' pyramid scheme caseThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Catherine McKoy and three others sued Trump, his business, and his three eldest children, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump, in 2018 in federal court in Manhattan.The Issues: Donald Trump is accused of promoting a scam multi-level marketing scheme on "The Celebrity Apprentice." The lawsuit alleges Trump pocketed $8.8 million from the scheme — but that they lost thousands of dollars. Trump's side has complained that the lawsuit is a politically motivated attack. What's Next: The case is scheduled to go to trial in January 2024.Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, has claimed Trump sent him to prison to silence him.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesMichael Cohen's 'imprisonment' caseThe Parties: Michael Cohen sued Donald Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and more than a dozen federal prison officials and employees, in federal court in Manhattan in 2021.The Issues: The president's former personal attorney is seeking $20 million in damages relating to the time he spent in prison for financial crimes and lying to Congress about Trump's dealings in Congress. Cohen claimed he had been moved to home confinement for three months in the spring of 2020 due to the pandemic but was then vindictively thrown into solitary confinement when he refused to stop speaking to the press and writing a tell-all book about his former boss. A judge ordered him released after 16 days.What's Next: The case was dismissed in November, but Cohen filed an appeal.Singer Eddy Grant sued Trump for copyright infringement.Andrew Winning/ReutersThe Electric Avenue copyright caseThe Parties: Eddy Grant, the composer/performer behind the 80s disco-reggae mega-hit "Electric Avenue," sued Donald Trump and his campaign in federal court in Manhattan in 2020.The Issues: Grant is seeking $300,000 for copyright infringement. He claims Trump made unauthorized use of the 1983 dance floor staple during the 2020 campaign. About 40 seconds of the song played in the background of a Biden-bashing animation that Trump posted to his Twitter account. The animation was viewed 13 million times before being taken down a month later. Trump has countered that the animation was political satire and so is exempt from copyright infringement claims. He's also said that the campaign merely reposted the animation and that he has no idea where it came from.Trump was deposed last year, but it's unclear where or when exactly. Lawyers for Trump and Grant have agreed to a strict gag order in the case and have repeatedly declined to comment. What's Next: The case is slowly winding its way toward trial; an April 24 deadline has been set for the sides to exchange evidence.Lawsuits brought by Trump Donald Trump's niece Mary Trump.MSNBCDonald Trump v. Mary Trump and the New York TimesThe Parties: The former president counter-sued his niece Mary Trump — and the New York Times — in 2021 in New York state court.The Issues: Mary Trump, the Times, and three of its reporters "maliciously conspired" against him, Trump alleged, by collaborating with the Times on its expose of and breaching the confidentiality of the family's 2001 settlement of the estate of Mary Trump's father, Fred Trump Sr.What's Next: A judge tossed the claims against the New York Times and its reporters but hasn't yet ruled on Mary Trump's motion to dismiss the case.A judge called Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton "frivolous."Photo by: Mike Smith/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty ImagesDonald Trump v. Hillary ClintonThe Parties: Trump sued Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and prominent Democrats including former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in a federal court in southern Florida in March 2022.The Issues:  Trump alleged that Clinton and her campaign staff conspired to harm his 2016 run for president by promoting a "contrived Trump-Russia link." A judge tossed the massive lawsuit in September, calling it "a two-hundred-page political manifesto" in which Trump detailed "his grievances against those that have opposed him." He ordered Trump and his attorney to pay nearly $1 million in sanctions in January.What's Next: Trump promised to appeal the dismissal, but it's unlikely he'll be successful given the sanctions he's faced in this case.Camila DeChalus and C. Ryan Barber contributed to a previous version of this story.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Trump is entangled in many legal cases, including now federal charges about his handling of classified documents. Here's a summary of the major ones. Former President Donald Trump is facing legal battles across the country.Drew Angerer/Getty Images Trump and his businesses are tangled in an array of state and federal investigations and lawsuits. Georgia's RICO indictment for election interference is from the last known criminal investigation into him. His trial troubles in criminal and civil cases overlap with his 2024 presidential campaign. The lawsuits and prosecutions involving Donald Trump are piling up. The ex-president — who is the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — now is indicted in four separate prosecutions, the first former White House occupant to ever be charged. He faces 91 criminal counts overall.In Atlanta, he and 18 co-defendants were charged in a sprawling RICO case for trying to overturn the election results in Georgia. The Justice Department brought a separate case against him in Washington, DC, for his election challenges. In Florida, the Justice Department brought 37 counts against him for his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. And in New York, he stands charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.Meanwhile, Trump is set to face a second defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll — the magazine writer who won a civil trial against Trump for sexual assault and defamation this past May.And he faces a grab-bag of additional lawsuits that could financially harm him and his international real estate and golf resort empire.Keep up to date on the latest of Trump's legal travails with this guide to the ever-evolving Trump docket.Indictments Fulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis investigated Trump's interference in the 2020 election.AP Photo/Ben Gray, FileThe Georgia RICO caseThe parties: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, Trump, and his Republican associates The issues: In August, Willis brought a sprawling RICO case against Trump and 18 co-defendants, accusing them of forming an enterprise to illegally try to keep him in power even though he lost the 2020 election.The indictment brings charges over campaigns from Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and other top Trump allies to pressure state officials to overturn the election results. It also brings charges against state Republican officials who acted as false electors and submitted fake documents to Congress.What's next: The case is the most complicated one pending against Trump and will likely be the last to go to trial. With 19 defendants overall — many of them lawyers — there are numerous legal issues to sort out. But with a potential 20-year sentence on RICO charges and no prospect of a preemptive pardon, the case is Trump's biggest legal threat.Trump has been investigated for his role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.Jon Cherry/Getty ImagesThe Justice Department's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 electionThe parties: Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith brought an indictment against Trump in Washington, DC federal court.The issues: The indictment alleges Trump and a group of yet-unindicted co-conspirators conspired to stop Congress from doing its duty to certify now-President Joe Biden's electoral victory in the 2020 election and rob Americans of their lawful votes.Smith's indictment includes few details that weren't already uncovered by reporters and from the congressional investigation into the pro-Trump riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The congressional committee recommended bringing charges against Trump that largely line up with the indictment Smith ultimately brought.Like Willis's indictment, the case includes the false elector scheme. In addition to Georgia, the indictment includes activity in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and other states where Trump lost and tried to overturn the results.What's next: A trial date hasn't yet been set, but the case is being overseen by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has overseen numerous criminal trials of January 6 rioters.People walking outside Mar-a-Lago in March 2017Darren SamuelsohnThe Justice Department's investigation into classified documentsThe parties: Smith brought an indictment against Trump and his aide Waltine Nauta in a Florida federal court in June. He later slapped Trump with a superseding indictment that added Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira as a co-defendant. They've all pleaded not guilty in the case, which is expected to go to trial in mid-2024.The issues: Early in 2022, Trump turned over 15 boxes of documents — including some marked as classified and "top secret" — to the National Archives. But federal investigators scrutinizing the former president's handling of records reportedly grew suspicious that Trump or people close to him still retained some key records. The FBI seized about a dozen boxes of additional documents during a raid of Mar-a-Lago last summer.The Mar-a-Lago case and a separate January 6 investigation are both being overseen by special prosecutor Jack Smith, whom US Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed in November. Smith's team has been collecting evidence that would help support a case that Trump knowingly retained the records sought by the government, and obstructed efforts to return them.According to the indictment — which brings 37 criminal counts against Trump — Trump violated the Espionage Act 31 times by illegally holding on to sensitive national-security documents, conspired to obstruct justice, lied to law enforcement, and violated three different statutes related to withholding and concealing government records.Nauta and De Oliviera often at Trump's direction, helped hide documents, the indictment says. Nauta also lied to law enforcement about his actions, according to prosecutors.What's next: US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who previously made rulings sympathetic to him, is presiding over the case. Because it involves complicated legal issues related to classified documents and presidential powers, the case may be delayed until after the 2024 election.Former President Donald Trump, left. adult film star Stormy Daniels, center. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, right.Alex Brandon/AP, left. Markus Schreiber/AP, center. Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AP, right.The Manhattan DA's indictment over the hush-money settlement to Stormy DanielsThe parties: District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg and Donald Trump.The issues: Bragg's office investigated whether Trump violated campaign finance laws in connection to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. A grand jury voted to bring criminal charges against Trump in the case.Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer and personal lawyer, is a key witness. He has testified under oath that he made the payments to Daniels at Trump's direction, and pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance violations in connection with the payments in 2018. What's next: Trump was arrested in Manhattan criminal court on April 4 and was arraigned. He is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.The judge scheduled a March 2024 trial.Trump with his former CFO Allen Weisselberg at Trump Tower.Evan Vucci/APThe Trump Organization Payroll Case The Parties: The Trump Organization was found guilty of 17 tax fraud counts on December 6, 2022 in a speedy, slam-dunk conviction in New York state court.The Issues: A four-woman, eight-man, mostly working-class jury held Trump's real estate and golf resort business criminally liable for a 2005-2018 tax-dodge scheme admittedly run by the company's two top financial executives.The two, former CFO Allen Weisselberg and top payroll executive Jeffrey McConney, helped themselves and a half-dozen other company execs cheat on their income taxes by paying them in part with pricey perks and benefits — including free use of luxury cars and apartments — that were never reported to tax authorities.What's next: Potential repercussions include a heightened hesitancy among banks to lend to a company with felony status and an energized Trump probe in the Manhattan district attorney's office. Government corruption watchdogs also have renewed reason to urge the federal government to cease doing business with the former president.Civil lawsuits against TrumpThe front page of the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing former President Donald Trump, his family and his business of a decade of padding his net worth to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans and tax breaks.Jon Elswick/APThe NY AG's civil filing against the Trump family and Trump OrganizationThe parties: New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization.The issues: James says she has uncovered a decade-long pattern of financial wrongdoing at Trump's multi-billion-dollar real-estate and golf resort empire.She alleges Trump inflated the values of his properties by billions of dollars in financial filings used to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in bank loans. She also alleges he low-balled his properties' worth for tax breaks. Trump has derided the AG's efforts as a politically motivated witch hunt.The 220-page lawsuit arose from a three-year investigation and seeks multiple, corporation-crippling demands that will be decided by a Manhattan judge in October.James wants the company to pay back the $250 million Trump allegedly pocketed through misleading banks. She also seeks to ban Trump and his three eldest children — Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump, who have all served as Trump Organization executives — from ever running a company in New York state again.Perhaps most extremely, her lawsuit seeks to pull the Trump Organization's New York papers of incorporation. That charter lets Trump draw revenue from his New York properties, including the lucrative commercial rents at his Manhattan skyscrapers. These measures would run Trump's corporate headquarters out of New York and could put the Trump Organization out of business entirely. What's next: New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron has warned Trump's side that the trial will start on time — on Monday, October 2, 2023 — "come hell or high water." Supporters of then-President Donald Trump protest inside the US Capitol.Brent Stirton/Getty ImagesLawsuits alleging 'incitement' on January 6The Parties: House Democrats and two Capitol police officers accused Trump of inciting the violent mob on January 6.The Issues: Trump's lawyers have argued that his time as president grants him immunity that shields him from civil liability in connection with his January 6 address at the Ellipse, where he urged supporters to "fight like hell."A federal judge rejected Trump's bid to dismiss the civil lawsuits, ruling that his rhetoric on January 6 was "akin to telling an excited mob that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-dealer's home."US District Judge Amit Mehta said Trump later displayed a tacit agreement with the mob minutes after rioters breached the Capitol when he sent a tweet admonishing then-Vice President Mike Pence for lacking the "courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country."What's Next: Trump has appealed Mehta's ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. His lawyers have argued that the immunity afforded to the former president cannot be "undercut if the presidential act in question is unpopular among the judiciary." The Justice Department says Trump's actions aren't covered by presidential immunity. The appeals court heard oral arguments in December but hasn't yet issued a decision. Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is suing Trump for rape and defamation.Seth Wenig/APE. Jean Carroll's rape and defamation case against TrumpThe Parties: Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll is suing Trump for defamation, battery, and emotional distress in federal court in Manhattan.  The Issues: Carroll filed two lawsuits against Trump.Both lawsuits allege Trump defamed her after she publicly accused him of raping her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in the mid-90s. Trump responded to Carroll's rape claim by saying it was untrue and that she was "not my type." Trump also denied ever meeting Carroll, despite a photo to the contrary.The first lawsuit was filed in 2019, while Trump was in office, and has been tangled up over legal questions of whether Trump disparaged Carroll as part of his presidential duties, which would make him immune to the lawsuit.After Trump made more disparaging remarks about Carroll last fall, she filed a second defamation lawsuit against him. That lawsuit also included a rape allegation following the passage of a New York law that gave sexual assault accusers a new window to file civil cases regardless of when the alleged incident occurred.The second lawsuit went to trial in April. A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million.What's next: After Trump lost the trial, he repeated the same insults against Carroll. Carroll added new defamation claims to her first lawsuit. In July, the Justice Department dropped its argument that Trump disparaged Carroll as part of his presidential duties, paving the way for a second trial to be held in January. Donald Trump, right, sits with his children, from left, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump during a groundbreaking ceremony for the Trump International Hotel in Washington.Evan Vucci/APThe 'multi-level marketing' pyramid scheme caseThe Parties: Lead plaintiff Catherine McKoy and three others sued Trump, his business, and his three eldest children, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump, in 2018 in federal court in Manhattan.The Issues: Donald Trump is accused of promoting a scam multi-level marketing scheme on "The Celebrity Apprentice." The lawsuit alleges Trump pocketed $8.8 million from the scheme — but that they lost thousands of dollars. Trump's side has complained that the lawsuit is a politically motivated attack. What's Next: The case is scheduled to go to trial in January 2024.Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, has claimed Trump sent him to prison to silence him.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesMichael Cohen's 'imprisonment' caseThe Parties: Michael Cohen sued Donald Trump, former Attorney General Bill Barr, and more than a dozen federal prison officials and employees, in federal court in Manhattan in 2021.The Issues: The president's former personal attorney is seeking $20 million in damages relating to the time he spent in prison for financial crimes and lying to Congress about Trump's dealings in Congress. Cohen claimed he had been moved to home confinement for three months in the spring of 2020 due to the pandemic but was then vindictively thrown into solitary confinement when he refused to stop speaking to the press and writing a tell-all book about his former boss. A judge ordered him released after 16 days.What's Next: The case was dismissed in November, but Cohen filed an appeal.Singer Eddy Grant sued Trump for copyright infringement.Andrew Winning/ReutersThe Electric Avenue copyright caseThe Parties: Eddy Grant, the composer/performer behind the 80s disco-reggae mega-hit "Electric Avenue," sued Donald Trump and his campaign in federal court in Manhattan in 2020.The Issues: Grant is seeking $300,000 for copyright infringement. He claims Trump made unauthorized use of the 1983 dance floor staple during the 2020 campaign. About 40 seconds of the song played in the background of a Biden-bashing animation that Trump posted to his Twitter account. The animation was viewed 13 million times before being taken down a month later. Trump has countered that the animation was political satire and so is exempt from copyright infringement claims. He's also said that the campaign merely reposted the animation and that he has no idea where it came from.Trump was deposed last year, but it's unclear where or when exactly. Lawyers for Trump and Grant have agreed to a strict gag order in the case and have repeatedly declined to comment. What's Next: The case is slowly winding its way toward trial; an April 24 deadline has been set for the sides to exchange evidence.Lawsuits brought by Trump Donald Trump's niece Mary Trump.MSNBCDonald Trump v. Mary Trump and the New York TimesThe Parties: The former president counter-sued his niece Mary Trump — and the New York Times — in 2021 in New York state court.The Issues: Mary Trump, the Times, and three of its reporters "maliciously conspired" against him, Trump alleged, by collaborating with the Times on its expose of and breaching the confidentiality of the family's 2001 settlement of the estate of Mary Trump's father, Fred Trump Sr.What's Next: A judge tossed the claims against the New York Times and its reporters but hasn't yet ruled on Mary Trump's motion to dismiss the case.A judge called Trump's lawsuit against Hillary Clinton "frivolous."Photo by: Mike Smith/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty ImagesDonald Trump v. Hillary ClintonThe Parties: Trump sued Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and prominent Democrats including former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in a federal court in southern Florida in March 2022.The Issues:  Trump alleged that Clinton and her campaign staff conspired to harm his 2016 run for president by promoting a "contrived Trump-Russia link." A judge tossed the massive lawsuit in September, calling it "a two-hundred-page political manifesto" in which Trump detailed "his grievances against those that have opposed him." He ordered Trump and his attorney to pay nearly $1 million in sanctions in January.What's Next: Trump promised to appeal the dismissal, but it's unlikely he'll be successful given the sanctions he's faced in this case.Camila DeChalus and C. Ryan Barber contributed to a previous version of this story.Read the original article on Business Insider.....»»

Liquidia Corporation (NASDAQ:LQDA) Q2 2023 Earnings Call Transcript August 10, 2023 Liquidia Corporation misses on earnings expectations. Reported EPS is $-0.36 EPS, expectations were $-0.17. Operator: Good morning, and welcome everyone to the Liquidia Corporation Second Quarter 2023 Financial Results and Corporate Update Conference Call. My name is Livia, and I will be your conference […] Liquidia Corporation (NASDAQ:LQDA) Q2 2023 Earnings Call Transcript August 10, 2023 Liquidia Corporation misses on earnings expectations. Reported EPS is $-0.36 EPS, expectations were $-0.17. Operator: Good morning, and welcome everyone to the Liquidia Corporation Second Quarter 2023 Financial Results and Corporate Update Conference Call. My name is Livia, and I will be your conference operator today. Currently, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be provided at that time for you to queue up for questions. I would like to remind everyone that this conference call is being recorded. I will now hand the conference call over to Jason Adair, Chief Business Officer. Jason Adair: Thank you, Livia. It’s my pleasure to welcome everyone to Liquidia’s second quarter 2023 financial results and corporate update conference call. Joining the call today are Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Roger Jeffs; Chief Financial Officer, Michael Kaseta; General Counsel, Rusty Schundler; and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Rajeev Saggar. Before we begin, please note that today’s conference call will contain forward-looking statements, including those statements regarding future results, unaudited and forward-looking financial information as well as the company’s future performance and/or achievements. These statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause our actual results or performance to be materially different from any future results or performance expressed or implied on this call. For additional information, including a detailed discussion of our risk factors, please refer to the company’s documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which can be accessed on our website. I would now like to turn the call over to Roger for our prepared remarks, after which, he will open-up the call up for your questions. Roger Jeffs: Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us. In our opening remarks. Today, we’re going to take a very focused approach to address the issue that is most top of mind for our company, our employees, and our shareholders, specifically the path forward as we see it, to the successful resolution after litigation and launch of YUTREPIA for both PAH and PH-ILD. I will note, however that in addition to the significant legal derisk and Rusty will talk about shortly, we also achieved other major and important milestones in the quarter, most notably the license of L606 a Phase 3 clinical program for twice-daily liposomal formulation of inhaled treprostinil. That position us with the best-in-class portfolio of inhaled treprostinil products to best address patient needs, not only today, but also in the future. As mentioned, the bulk of our prepared remarks will focus on the recent legal and regulatory actions related to the ongoing litigation. I have asked Rusty to elaborate on four specific points. First, the favorable affirmation by the Federal Circuit that we do not infringe any valid claims of the 066 patent. Second, our confidence that United’s attempt to overturn the PTAB decision on the 793 patent will fail. Third, the positive impact in submitting an amendment to add the PH-ILD indication to YUTREPIA label. And lastly, our confidence in why we feel that the recently allowed patent claims to United Therapeutics related to the treatment of PH-ILD will not be an impediment to YUTREPIA. Rusty? Rusty Schundler: Thank you, Roger. As a reminder, Liquidia has been party to two separate appeal proceedings at the Federal Circuit that are relevant to the launch of YUTREPIA. Broadly speaking, the appeals relates two patents asserted against Liquidia, the 066 patent, which describes a way of making and storing treprostinil and the 793 patent, which describes the method of use to treat patients with pulmonary hypertension. Before walking through the recent decisions and activities, I would like to point out that our guidance over the last 12 months is still the same. We believe the ongoing litigation will be concluded between the end of 2023 and the middle of 2024, clearing the path to final approval and launch of YUTREPIA. Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash The only thing that has changed in the last year is our increased confidence in our guidance with each legal decision. Now moving to the recent decision. On July 24th, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision from last August in the Hatch-Waxman litigation. The outcome of the appeal was in line with our expectations, meaning 506 claims, the 066 patent were affirmed as obvious unpatentable and thus invalid, and that YUTREPIA does not infringe the single valid 066 patent claim that was asserted against us. The Federal Circuit also affirmed that YUTREPIA infringes the asserted claims of the 793 patent and that based solely on the arguments presented in the Hatch-Waxman litigation, the 793 patent is valid. However, the court also commented in the written decision that the court is aware that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, has found all of the claims of the 793 patent to be un patentable and that the PTAB decision is on appeal, which I will discuss shortly. As we’ve noted previously, should the PTAB decision be affirmed on appeal, the 793 patent would be completely invalidated and all previous rulings related to the alleged infringement of the 793 patent would be dissolved. Liquidia would then be free to seek final approval from the FDA for YUTREPIA. As next steps with respect to this Federal Circuit ruling, it is possible that one or both parties could seek a rehearing by this three judge panel and/or a hearing on bank [ph] in front of the full Federal Circuit. One or both parties could also file for CAFC with the United States Supreme Court. However, we see nothing in the Federal Circuit’s decision regarding the 066 patent that we believe is likely to lead to any further rehearing or CAFC being granted. Even if a rehearing or CAFC is granted, it is important to remember that all four judges who have ruled on the 066 patent between the District Court and Federal Circuit have found the 066 patent claims to be invalid or not infringed. Regardless, our ability to seek final approval for YUTREPIA is not contingent on the conclusion of rehearing or appeal of the affirmed Hatch-Waxman decision. The proceeding that is currently limiting our ability to seek final approval for YUTREPIA is United’s appeal of the PTAB’s decision which invalidates the 793 patent, which I mentioned briefly earlier. To summarize, all of the 793 patent claims have been ruled by the PTAB to be on patent. Their first ruling was in July, 2022. The merits of liquidity’s arguments were further reinforced in February, 2023 when the PTAB denied United’s request for a rehearing and reaffirmed that all of the claims are obvious over publicly accessible prior art. In April, United appealed the PTAB’s decision to the Federal Circuit and briefings should be completed in the fourth quarter of this year. Once briefing is completed, the Federal Circuit has ordered oral arguments to be scheduled on the next available date in its calendar, which we expect to be in the late fourth quarter 2023 to early 2024. Once heard, the Federal Circuit could issue its ruling by one of two procedures. First, the court could issue a simple summary affirmance of the PTAB’s decision within a few days after oral argument. Or second, the court could issue a full written opinion, in which case we would anticipate likely receiving the decision within a few months after oral argument similar to the timing of the Hatch-Waxman appeal decision. We’ll not predict which of these decision passes is unlikely. However, whenever a favorable decision is issued, Liquidia will immediately seek final regulatory approval for YUTREPIA. With these timeframes in mind, we continue to believe that the ongoing litigation will be concluded sometime between late 2023 and early 2024. I’d like to turn now to the amended NDA that Liquidia submitted to request the addition of the PH-ILD indication to the proposed label for YUTREPIA. The amendment was filed on July 24, the same day that we received the decision in the Hatch-Waxman appeal. Due to the nature of the amendment, we were required to issue a second Paragraph IV notice that certified as of the date of the submission that the 6 patents listed for Tyvaso in the Orange Book are invalid and/or not infringed by YUTREPIA. Three of those patents, the 066, 901 and 793 patents, are the same three patents that have been litigated over the last several years and has been found to be invalid or not infringed by YUTREPIA. The other three patents in the Orange Book for Tyvaso are directed specifically to the nebulized delivery of treprostinil are completely unrelated to YUTREPIA, and we’re not asserted against the liquidity in the original Hatch-Waxman litigation. Although, it is possible that United could file a new Hatch-Waxman lawsuit based on this amended NDA. The existing Federal Circuit decisions on this 066 and 901 patents and the future favorable affirmance of the PTAB’s invalidation of the 793 patent would be binding once finalized on appeal. Under well-settled legal principles, United cannot maintain a second lawsuit for infringement of the same old patents against the same YUTREPIA products. Even if a new lawsuit is filed and a new 30-month stay is at the FDA is triggered, that lawsuit would effectively end upon completion of the 793 appeal because all issues in the new lawsuit would’ve been decided and in binding at that time. Thus, although it’s possible that the amended NDA could trigger further litigation from United, we do not anticipate any material change to our timeline. Finally, I want to address the new patent claims allowed to United at the end of June, which covered the treatment of PH-ILD patients with inhaled treprostinil. We expect the patent will issue in the coming weeks and likely be added to the Orange Book for Tyvaso. Two main questions we have received have been A, how do these claims impact the FDA’s approval of YUTREPIA for PH-ILD? And B, How could the USPTO grant these claims given the unpatentability of the 793 claims to treat patients with all forms of pulmonary hypertension? I will address each of these in turn. As the first question is important to note that because the new patent was not listed in the Orange Book at the time we submitted our NDA amendment, there will be no 30-month stay at the FDA that attaches to this new patent. While we expect United may file a lawsuit alleging that a liquidity infringes this new patent, we would not automatically be delayed in our ability to seek final approval for the PH-ILD indication. Instead, the burden would be on United to seek and prevail on obtaining a preliminary injunction. To do so, the burden would be on United to demonstrate among other things that they are substantially likely to prevail on the merits of the case. Historically, the courts have generally declined to grant preliminary injunctions in situations where there are substantial questions as to the validity of the patented issue. This brings us to the second question. How could the USPTO grant these claims given the unpatentability of the 793 claims to treat all of pulmonary hypertension? As you know, we cannot reveal the details of our legal positions. That being said, we strongly believe that this new patent will be found to be invalid because of substantial prior art that predates the priority date of this new patent application and fully anticipates all of these new patent claims. For example, the 793 patent itself, which was filed in 2007 and predates this new patent implication by more than 10 years, already covers and closes the same treatment of inhaled treprostinil to patients with all groups of pulmonary hypertension, including PH-ILD as United itself has argued in court. In addition, over the last 10 to 15 years, many physicians have conducted and published studies and analyses regarding the treatment of PH-ILD patients with treprostinil including inhaled treprostinil. In fact, our own Chief Medical Officer, Rajeev Saggar, explored these of treprostinil to treat PH-ILD patients almost 15 years ago, measuring the same basic endpoints that are identified in this new set of patent claims. A great many of these publications predate United’s new patent application by a number of years and constitute prior art to the new patent. Ultimately, this new patent will likely be litigated, but is fundamental to patent law that a patent that is not novel and covers methods of treatment that were already widely known will not be valid. Accordingly, we strongly believe this new patent will not affect Liquidia’s ability to commercialize YUTREPIA. In summary, the merits of Liquidia’s arguments remain sound and if affirmed will open the door to treating patients in the near future, and we do not view this new patent as having any impact on that result. I’ll now pass the call on to Mike to briefly address our financial reporting. Mike? Mike Kaseta: Thank you, Rusty and good morning, everyone. Our second quarter 2023 financial results can be found in the press release and the 10-Q filed this morning. Broadly speaking, the company continues to execute and manage its business activity with financial discipline in mind. We ended the second quarter with $88.2 million in cash, equating to a net burn of only $5.1 million over the first six months of this year. During the quarter, revenue from treprostinil injection increased $0.9 million compared to the same quarter last year due to favorable gross to net charge back and rebate adjustments, while cost of sales remained flat at $0.7 million. R&D expenses in the quarter increased $12.5 million compared to second quarter 2022, primarily due to the $10 million upfront payment tied to licensing North American rights to L606 from Pharmosa Biopharma and expense which has been offset by the [Technical Difficulty]. Overall, the company remains well-positioned financially through the key value-creating milestones tied to the resolution of the litigation. We are preparing to launch YUTREPIA with speed, building a pipeline with new product and remain opportunistic in our ability to create value going forward. With that, I’d like to now turn the call back over to Roger. Roger Jeffs: Thank you, Mike and thank you, Rusty, for clearly articulating why the merits of our case give us great confidence. And importantly, while we anticipate our timeline for legal clarity to remain as we have been saying, specifically between the end of 2023 and of 2024. With that, I would now like to open the call for questions. Operator, first question, please. See also Top 12 Undervalued Tech Stocks According to Analysts and 10 Metals Stocks with Insider Buying. Q&A Session Follow Liquidia Technologies Inc (NASDAQ:LQDA) Follow Liquidia Technologies Inc (NASDAQ:LQDA) We may use your email to send marketing emails about our services. Click here to read our privacy policy. Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question coming from the line of Greg Harrison with Bank of America. Your line is open. Mary Kate: Good morning. This is Mary Kate on for Greg. Thank you so much for taking our question. I guess, looking at L606 here, where do you see this fitting into the treatment paradigm for PAH and PH-ILD? And do you think there are certain patients who will likely prefer this to a DPI? Thank you. Roger Jeffs: Yeah. Thank you. Good morning. We appreciate the question. Rajeev, if you would, please answer that. Rajeev Saggar: Yeah. Thank you, Mary Kate. Good morning. So, a few things about L606. Remember, this is a liposomal formulation of treprostinil that has been purposely designed to have extended pharmacokinetic plasma levels over a course of 12 hours. Because of these attributes, it’s also purposely designed to show a lower Cmax by relative to 8 times lower than Tyvaso. So, we believe this is very important because we believe this negates some of the core side effects that we see with peak plasma exposures with Tyvaso, but still maintaining a similar AUC. So, essentially, what this allows for is a very sort of consistent, stable 24-hour exposure with twice a day dosing, which we believe is — if you understand the last since 2009, Tyvaso is delivered 4 times a day. And remember, dosing is not provided during usually the sleeping hours. So, we provide a complete 24-hour coverage. We anticipate that as we run through the clinical studies, this will be really taken up both in PAH and PH-ILD as a best in choice process. I think because of these clinical attributes. Roger? Roger Jeffs: Next question? Operator: One moment for our next question. And our next question coming from the line of Julian Harrison with BTIG. Your line is open. Julian Harrison: Hi. Good morning. Thank you for taking my questions and congrats on all the progress. First, just to confirm some of your prepared remarks, United’s new PH-ILD patent does not preclude your ability to seek final FDA approval for YUTREPIA and PH-ILD. Did I understand that correctly? Roger Jeffs: Russ, do you want to address that? Rusty Schundler: Sure. So, I think there are — that’s correct, unless United was to obtain a preliminary injunction. So, I think, as I commented on previously, there would be no 30-month stay that would attach to the sleep patent. And so, we would not be automatically prevented from obtaining approval for PHLV. Instead, the burden would be on United to obtain a preliminary injunction. And for the reasons noted during the prepared remarks, we think they’ll have a hurdle to overcome to obtain that preliminary injunction. Julian Harrison: Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying that. And then, can you just remind us of your clinical development plan in PH-ILD? You don’t need clinical data for approval here, but I’m curious what data points you think would be most helpful to characterize for the medical community and generally speaking, are you able to comment on the timeline there? Roger Jeffs: Yeah. So, it’s correct, Julian. I’ll answer the first part. We do not need any additional data to add PH-ILD to the label. And Rajeev, if you want talk about the Phase 4 type like studies that we’re doing, if you will, to better inform the community about the use of YUTREPIA and PH-ILD patients......»»

Judge Lets Starbucks Keep Its Race-Based Hiring Quotas Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times, A judge in Washington state has ruled against a conservative group that sued Starbucks over the coffee chain's race-based hiring practices that allegedly "flagrantly" violate various state and federal laws. Chief U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian on Friday ruled against the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), dismissing a lawsuit the conservative nonprofit brought against Starbucks over so-called "affirmative action" policies that included awarding contracts to "diverse" suppliers and advertisers and tying executive pay to allegedly racist hiring quotas. In a complaint (pdf) that was filed on Aug. 30, 2022, at the State of Washington Spokane County Superior Court, the nonprofit accused Starbucks of adopting a total of seven policies that between them required Starbucks to actively discriminate based on race in its compensation and employment decisions (including hiring, firing, and promotions), and in its contracting processes with vendors. "Starbucks, acting through its officers and directors, crafted and publicized these policies with fanfare, preening over the supposed moral virtue their adoption signaled," NCPPR wrote in the complaint. "The individual Defendants took these actions despite knowing of a glaring, inconvenient fact: the policies they so trumpeted flagrantly violate a wide array of state and federal civil rights laws," the group continued. The Starbucks policies that are the subject of the lawsuit include the goal of at least 30 percent of its U.S. corporate workforce being black, indigenous, or people of color by 2025 while pegging executive pay to workforce diversity quotas. More Details Before filing its lawsuit, the group, which holds around $6,000 worth of Starbucks shares, warned Starbucks that its race-based policies were illegal and that their adoption posed a litigation risk for other Starbucks shareholders. NCPPR asked Starbucks to take action to address these risks and publicly retract the policies. Starbucks responded in July 2022 that it would "take no relevant action to correct course and reduce the exposure they had created for it and its shareholders," per the NCPPR complaint, prompting the group to sue. In its complaint, NCPPR alleged that, by failing to rescind the policies in question, Starbucks endangered the interests of all its shareholders and violated their fiduciary obligations. "Why do they do so? Because it benefits them personally to pose as virtuous advocates of 'Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity,' even if it harms the company and its owners—a classic example of (admittedly non-pecuniary) self-dealing," the group alleged in the complaint. However, Judge Bastian rejected these allegations and on Aug. 11 dismissed the case with prejudice, according to a court filing (pdf), meaning that NCPPR is barred from refiling the lawsuit. The judge said that the lawsuit centered on public policy questions that are for lawmakers and corporations to decide, not the courts. "If the plaintiff doesn't want to be invested in 'woke' corporate America, perhaps it should seek other investment opportunities rather than wasting this court's time," the judge said. Starbucks said it was pleased with the decision and said it remains committed to "creating a culture of warmth and belonging." NCPPR spokesperson Scott Shepard called the judge's comments "surprising and disappointing." "We will continue to pursue relief from illegal discrimination on behalf of shareholders and employees," he said. In a statement one day before the unfavorable ruling, NCPPR expressed hope that, in light of the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling that barred race-based recruitment policies at colleges, it might prevail in its lawsuit, which would have the "potential to influence change in companies that have trumpeted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs that are both racist and illegal." Supreme Court Bans Race-Based Admissions In a 6–3 decision on July 29, the Supreme Court struck down the use of racially discriminatory admissions policies and American colleges, ending the use of so-called affirmative action programs in higher education. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote (pdf) for the court that, for too long, universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin." "Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice," he wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing that the majority decision “rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.” “It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits,” the justice wrote. “In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter,” she wrote. Following the Supreme Court ruling, state attorneys general from Tennessee, Kansas, and 11 other states put 100 of America’s largest corporations on notice "of the illegality of racial quotas and race-based preferences in employment and contracting practices" and urged the firms to put an immediate halt to such policies. In a July 13 letter to CEOs of Fortune 100 companies, the AGs wrote that the Supreme Court ruling "definitively" ends the legal use of race-based hiring and contracting practices. “If your company previously resorted to racial preferences or naked quotas to offset its bigotry, that discriminatory path is now definitively closed,” the letter reads. “Your company must overcome its underlying bias and treat all employees, all applicants, and all contractors equally, without regard for race.” According to a Harvard Business Review 2022 survey, more than 60 percent of U.S. companies had a race or gender-based diversity, equity, and inclusion program. Tyler Durden Sat, 08/12/2023 - 17:30.....»»