May 2024 - cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

492 Highlights to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. ____________________
by Gunnar Larson 17 May '24

17 May '24

492 Highlights to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 22-CV-14102-MIDDLEBROOKS DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. HILLARY R. CLINTON, et al., Defendants. ____________________ INTRODUCTION March 24, 2022 158 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zggK7lgptlZ6Qn11EndzbDloqqVxRifv/view?usp=… 1. In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy. Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty. The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data sources - are so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison. 2. Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust. They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would be used to trigger an unfounded federal investigation and ignite a media frenzy. 3. The scheme was conceived, coordinated and carried out by top-level officials at the Clinton Campaign and the DNC—including ‘the candidate’ herself—who attempted to shield her involvement behind a wall of third parties.1 To start, the Clinton Campaign and the DNC enlisted the assistance of their shared counsel, Perkins Coie, a law firm with deep Democrat ties, in the hopes of obscuring their actions under the veil of attorney-client privilege. Perkins Coie was tasked with spearheading the scheme to find—or fabricate—proof of a sinister link between Donald J. Trump and Russia. To do so, Perkins Coie launched parallel operations: on one front, Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition research’ claiming to reveal illicit ties between the Trump Campaign and Russian operatives; on a separate front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann headed a campaign to develop misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ connection between e-mail servers at Trump Tower and a Russian-owned bank. 4. Marc Elias, in his mission to obtain derogatory anti-Trump ‘opposition research,’ commissioned Fusion GPS, an investigative firm, and its co-founders, Peter Fritsch and Glenn Simpson, and directed them to dredge up evidence—actual or otherwise—of collusion between Trump and Russia. Fritsch and Simpson, in turn, enlisted the assistance of Orbis Ltd. and its owner, Christopher Steele, to produce a series of reports purporting to contain proof of the supposed collusion. Of course, the now fully debunked collection of reports, known as the “Steele Dossier,” was riddled with misstatements, misrepresentations and, most of all, flat out lies. In truth, the Steele Dossier was largely based upon information provided to Steele by his primary sub-source, Igor Danchenko, who was subsequently indicted for falsifying his claims. Even more damning, Danchenko had close ties to senior Clinton Campaign official, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., who knowingly provided false information to Danchenko, who relayed it to Steele, who reported it in the Steele Dossier and eagerly fed the deceptions to both the media and the FBI. This duplicitous arrangement existed for a singular self-serving purpose – to discredit Donald J. Trump and his campaign. 5. At the same time, Michael Sussmann, in his hunt for damaging intel against the Trump Campaign, turned to Neustar, Inc., an information technology company, and one of its top executives, Rodney Joffe, a fervent anti-Trumper who had recently been promised a high-ranking position with the Clinton Administration, to exploit their access to non-public data in search of a secret “back channel” connection between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank. When it was discovered that no such channel existed, the Defendants resorted to truly subversive measures – hacking servers at Trump Tower, Trump’s private apartment, and, most alarmingly, the White House. This ill-gotten data was then manipulated to create a misleading “inference” and submitted to law enforcement in an effort to falsely implicate Donald J. Trump and his campaign.2 All of these acts were carried out in coordination with the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, at the behest of certain Democratic “VIPs.”3 6. While their multi-pronged attack was underway, the Defendants seized on the opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown media frenzy. Indeed, the Clinton Campaign and DNC—admittedly on a “mission” to “raise the alarm” about their contrived Trump-Russia link4—repeatedly fed disinformation to the media and shamelessly promoted their false narratives. All the while, Hillary Clinton, Jake Sullivan, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others did their best to proliferate the spread of those dubious and false claims through press releases, social media, and other public statements. 7. The fallout from the Defendants’ actions was not limited to the public denigration of Trump and his campaign. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—relying on the Defendants’ fraudulent evidence—commenced a large-scale investigation and expended precious time, resources and taxpayer dollars looking into the spurious allegation that the Trump Campaign had colluded with the Russian Government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. The effects of this unfounded investigation were prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice and the FBI – James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr. These government officials were willing to abuse their positions of public trust to advance the baseless probe to new levels, including obtaining an extrajudicial FISA warrant and instigating the commencement of an oversight investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. As a result, Donald J. Trump and his campaign were forced to expend tens of millions of dollars in legal fees to defend against these contrived and unwarranted proceedings. Justice would ultimately prevail – following a two-year investigation, Special Counsel Mueller went on to exonerate Donald J. Trump and his campaign with his finding that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia. 8. The full extent of the Defendants’ wrongdoing has been steadily and gradually exposed by Special Counsel John Durham, who has been heading a DOJ investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy. To date, he has already issued indictments to Sussmann and Danchenko, among others, for proffering false statements to law enforcement officials. As outlined below, these ‘speaking’ indictments not only implicate many of the Defendants named herein but also provide a great deal of insight into the inner-workings of the Defendants’ conspiratorial enterprise. Based on recent developments and the overall direction of Durham’s investigation, it seems all but certain that additional indictments are forthcoming. 9. In short, the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton. When their gambit failed, and Donald J. Trump was elected, the Defendants’ efforts continued unabated, merely shifting their focus to undermining his presidential administration. Worse still, the Defendants continue to spread their vicious lies to this day as they unabashedly publicize their thoroughly debunked falsehoods in an effort to ensure that he will never be elected again. The deception, malice, and treachery perpetrated by the Defendants has caused significant harm to the American people, and to the Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, and they must be held accountable for their heinous acts. ____________________ BACKGROUND September 8, 2022 190 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUQtPF8f6ckSRHwLcu3S_joyF5xQoA-A/view?usp=… Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” (DE 177, Am. Compl. ¶ 9). On this general premise, Plaintiff brings a claim for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), predicated on the theft of trade secrets, obstruction of justice, and wire fraud (Count I). He additionally brings claims for: injurious falsehood (Count III); malicious prosecution (Count V); violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) (Count VII); theft of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) (Count VIII); and violations of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) (Count IX). The Amended Complaint also contains counts for various conspiracy charges and theories of agency and vicarious liability. (Counts II, IV, VI, and X–XVI). Plaintiff’s theory of this case, set forth over 527 paragraphs in the first 118 pages of the Amended Complaint, is difficult to summarize in a concise and cohesive manner. It was certainly not presented that way. Nevertheless, I will attempt to distill it here. The short version: Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants “[a]cting in concert . . . maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 1). The Defendants effectuated this alleged conspiracy through two core efforts. “[O]n one front, Perkins Coie partner Mark Elias led an effort to produce spurious ‘opposition research’ claiming to reveal illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.” (Id. ¶ 3). To that end, Defendant Hillary Clinton and her campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and lawyers for the Campaign and the Committee allegedly hired Defendant Fusion GPS to fabricate the Steele Dossier. (Id. ¶ 4). “[O]n a separate front, Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussman headed a campaign to develop misleading evidence of a bogus ‘back channel’ connection between e-mail servers at Trump Tower and a Russian- owned bank.” (Id.). Clinton and her operatives allegedly hired Defendant Rodney Joffe to exploit his access to Domain Name Systems (“DNS”) data, via Defendant Neustar, to investigate and ultimately manufacture a suspicious pattern of activity between Trump-related servers and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin, Alfa Bank. (Id. ¶ 3). As a result of this “fraudulent evidence,” the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) commenced “several large-scale investigations,” which were “prolonged and exacerbated by the presence of a small faction of Clinton loyalists who were well-positioned within the Department of Justice”—Defendants James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, and Bruce Ohr. (Id. ¶ 7). And while this was ongoing, the Defendants allegedly “seized on the opportunity to publicly malign Donald J. Trump by instigating a full-blown media frenzy.” (Id. ¶ 6). As a result of this “multi-pronged attack,” Plaintiff claims to have amassed $24 million in damages.1(Id. ¶ 527). Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint as “a series of disconnected political disputes that Plaintiff has alchemized into a sweeping conspiracy among the many individuals Plaintiff believes to have aggrieved him.” (DE 226 at 1). They argue that dismissal is warranted because Plaintiff’s claims are both “hopelessly stale”—that is, foreclosed by the applicable statutes of limitations—and because they fail on the merits “in multiple independent respects.” (Id. at 2). As they view it, “[w]hatever the utilities of [the Amended Complaint] as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit.” (Id.). I agree. In the discussion that follows, I first address the Amended Complaint’s structural deficiencies. I then turn to subject matter jurisdiction and the personal jurisdiction arguments raised by certain Defendants. Finally, I assess the sufficiency of the allegations as to each of the substantive counts. ____________________ BACKGROUND October 31, 2022 25 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QynNCV7iSPi-8b6dt605jmFTTNSaXtuD/view?usp=… PlaintifP’s pleadings and theories were obviously and fatally defective from the very inceptionof this action. Plaintiff's initial Complaint spanned 108 pages and S08 paragraphs. DE 1 (March 24, 2022). It named 28 individual defendants, as well as 10 John Does and 10 ABC Corporations. /d. Less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary Clinton moved to dismiss it with prejudice. DE 52 (Apr. 20,2022). Defendant Clinton’s motion identified manyofthe fundamentalfactual deficiencies and legal flaws that would ultimately lead this Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint: namely, (1) that Plaintifs claims were untimely on their face, DE 52 at 1-5; (2) that Plaintiff's own tweets confirmed his knowledge ofhis supposed claimsno later than October 2017, DE 52 at 2-3; (3) that Plaintiffs Complaint was replete with inadequate and conclusory allegations, DE 52 at 6; (4) that Plaintiff failed to allege a RICO enterprise, DE 52 at 7; (5) that Plaintiff failed to allege the predicate act of theft of trade secrets based on DNS information, DE 52 at 8-9; (6) thatPlaintifffailedtoallege the predicate act ofobstructionofjustice in part because he identified no “official proceeding,” DE 52 at 9-10; (7) that Plaintiff failed to allege a patter of racketeering activity, DE 52 at 11-12; (8) that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege RICO standing because his supposed injuries were almostentirely undescribed, DE 52.at 12-14; (9) that Plaintiffs injurious falsehood claim was barred by the First Amendment, DE 52 at 15-17; (10) that Plaintiff failed to allege almost every necessary clementof injurious falsehood under Florida law, DE 52 at 17-18; (11) that Plaintiff failed to allege a malicious prosecution claim as to any official proceeding and, in particular, as to the properly predicated Crossfire Hurricane investigation, DE 52 at 19-20; and (12) that Plaintiff failed to allege a claim for “agency” because it is not an independent cause of action under Florida law. In response, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they planned to amend the Complaint. DE 66 (Apr. 21, 2022). Defendant Clinton did not oppose counsel's request for an extension of time in whichto amend. See, e.g., DE 102 (Apr. 27,2022). In the intervening period, other Defendants joined Clinton's motion to dismiss and filed their own motions alertingPlaintiff and his counsel to additional fatal defects in the Complaint. See DE 124 (John Podesta), 139 (Peter Fritsch, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson); 141 (DNC Services Corporation, Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz); 143 (Perkins Coie); 144 (Nellie Ohr); 145 (Robby Mook): 146 (Michael Sussmann); 147 (Mare Elias); 149 (HFACC); 157 (Rodney Joffe); 159 (Igor Danchenko); 160 (Neustar, Inc.); 162 & 163 (Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr.); 165 (Jake Sullivan). With respect to each motion, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that they planned to amend in response to the motions, and Defendants did not oppose extensionsof time to allow them to do so. See DE 153 (May 17,2022). PlaintifP’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint approximately two months after receiving Defendant Clinton’s motion to dismiss and with the benefit of Defendants” additional motions in the interim. DE 177 (June 21, 2022). “But despite this briefing, PlaintifPs Amended Complaint failed to cureanyofthe deficiencies.”DE 267 at 63-64 (Sept. 8, 2022) (“0p.”). “Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims.” Op. at 64. The Amended Complaint is “193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs,” and “contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 “John Does” described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 *ABC Corporations’ identified as fictitious and unknown entities.” Op. at 4. ____________________ BACKGROUND November 10, 2022 66 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ppCsJe6sSJKIionWtII4rI4qRMbKzBn3/view?usp=… The Complaint. In March 2022, Charles Dolan was among 29 defendants initially sued by Mr. Trump. (DE 1). He was identified as a former chairman of the DNC, a senior official in the Clinton Campaign, and a close associate of and advisor to Hillary Clinton. The Complaint alleged that in April 2016, Mr. Dolan participated in discussions about the creation of a “dossier” to smear Mr. Trump and disseminate false accusations to the media (Compl. ¶ 79), and at the direction of Ms. Clinton assisted in preparation of the dossier (Compl. ¶ 81). According to the Complaint, an allegation contained within the dossier that Mr. Trump engaged in salacious sexual activity in a Moscow hotel was derived from Mr. Dolan. (Compl. ¶ 91). Mr. Dolan was sued for RICO conspiracy (Count II), conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood (Count IV), and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution (Count VI). The Warning Letter. On May 31, 2022, counsel for Mr. Dolan wrote the attorneys for Mr. Trump. They warned: 1. That Mr. Dolan had no role in any conspiracy related to the Steele dossier. 2. That Mr. Dolan was not a source for the allegations of sexual activity. 3. That Mr. Dolan had not been in contact with any defendant other than Igor Danchenko, and that Mr. Dolan’s contacts with Mr. Danchenko involved business interests and help for a conference in Moscow. 4. That Mr. Dolan had never been chairman of the DNC. 5. That Ms. Clinton was on record through a spokesperson as stating she had no recollection of Mr. Dolan. (DE 268-1). The letter requested that Mr. Dolan not be named as a defendant in any forthcoming Amended Complaint. The letter further warned that if he were to be named, or if he was not dropped from the original Complaint, Rule 11 sanctions would be sought. The Amended Complaint. On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, as had been expected. It ballooned to 193 pages, 819 paragraphs and 31 defendants. With respect to Mr. Dolan, the allegations remained essentially the same. But in the Amended Complaint, Mr. Dolan was identified somewhat more vaguely as the former chairman of a “national Democratic political organization.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). Elsewhere, he was described as a “senior Clinton Campaign Official.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 4). Moreover, and somewhat inexplicably, Mr. Dolan was identified in the Amended Complaint as a citizen and resident of New York, despite a declaration that Mr. Dolan had provided to Plaintiff’s lawyers explaining that Mr. Dolan was a resident of Virginia. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20; DE 268-2). The Sanctions Motion and Memorandum. On July 15, 2022, Mr. Dolan served on Mr. Trump’s lawyers a motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. The motion pointed out that the change in Mr. Dolan’s purported title from “former chairman of the DNC” in the original Complaint to “former chairman of a national Democratic political organization,” in the Amended Complaint did not solve the problems identified in the warning letter because Mr. Dolan had never been the chairman of any such organization. The motion further explained that Mr. Dolan’s role in the Clinton Campaign was limited to knocking on doors as a volunteer. The motion also stated that Mr. Dolan had never been a resident of New York, that Mr. Dolan had told Plaintiff’s lawyers so, and that the allegations of the Amended Complaint to that effect demonstrated a lack of diligence over something easily checked. Mr. Dolan’s motion for sanctions went on to place the Trump lawyers on notice of a critical failure in their claims, warning them that the Danchenko Indictment referenced throughout the Amended Complaint not only failed to support their allegations against Mr. Dolan but contradicted them. That warning continues to be unheeded. ____________________ BACKGROUND January 19, 2023 53 Highlights: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sf0y-bIBdwaa1PO0Y3hKWhhImoXXCfbR/view?usp=… Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 24, 2022, alleging that “the Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hope of destroying his life, his political career, and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.” (DE 1 ¶ 9). The next day, Alina Habba, Mr. Trump’s lead counsel told Fox News’ Sean Hannity: You can’t make this up. You literally cannot make a story like this up . . . and President Trump is just not going to take it anymore. If you are going to make up lies, if you are going to try to take him down, he is going to fight you back. And that is what this is, this is the beginning of all that.1 She then explained on Newsmax: What the real goal [of the suit] is, is democracy, is continuing to make sure that our elections, continuing to make sure our justice system is not obstructed by political enemies. That cannot happen. And that’s exactly what happened. They obstructed justice. They continued the false narrative . . . This grand scheme, that you could not make up, to take down an opponent. That is un-American.2 On April 20, 2022, less than a month after the Complaint was filed, Hillary Clinton moved for dismissal with prejudice. Her motion identified substantial and fundamental factual and legal flaws. Each of the other Defendants followed suit, pointing to specific problems with the claims against them. The problems in the Complaint were obvious from the start. They were identified by the Defendants not once but twice, and Mr. Trump persisted anyway. Despite this briefing and the promise “to cure any deficiencies,” Plaintiff’s counsel filed the Amended Complaint on June 21, 2022. (DE 177). The Amended Complaint failed to cure any of the defects. See DE 267, Order of Dismissal (September 8, 2022). Instead, Plaintiff added eighty new pages of largely irrelevant allegations that did nothing to salvage the legal sufficiency of his claims. (DE 267 at 64). The Amended Complaint is 193 pages in length, with 819 numbered paragraphs, and contains 14 counts, names 31 defendants, 10 John Does described as fictitious and unknown persons, and 10 ABC Corporations identified as fictitious and unknown entities. On July 14, 2022, the United States moved pursuant to the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(i), to substitute itself as Defendant for James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Kevin Clinesmith. (DE 224). On July 21, 2022, I granted the motion to substitute. (DE 234). On September 8, 2022, I dismissed the case with prejudice as to all Defendants except for the United States. 3 I issued a detailed and lengthy Order, which I incorporate by reference here. (DE 267). I found that fatal substantive defects which had been clearly laid out in the first round of briefing, precluded the Plaintiff from proceeding under any of the theories presented. I found that the Amended Complaint was a quintessential shotgun pleading, that its claims were foreclosed by existing precedent, and its factual allegations were undermined and contradicted by the public reports and filings upon which it purported to rely. I reserved jurisdiction to adjudicate issues pertaining to sanctions. Undeterred by my Order and two rounds of briefing by multiple defendants, Ms. Habba continued to advance Plaintiff’s claims. In a September 10, 2022, interview with Sean Hannity, the host asked her “Why isn’t [Hillary Clinton] being held accountable for what she did?” Ms. Habba’s response reiterated misrepresentations on which this lawsuit was based: Because when you have a Clinton judge as we did here, Judge Middlebrooks who I had asked to recuse himself but insisted that he didn’t need to, he was going to be impartial, and then proceeds to write a 65-page scathing order where he basically ignored every factual basis which was backed up by indictments, by investigations, the Mueller report, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, not to mention Durham, and all the testimony we heard there, we get dismissed. Not only do we get dismissed, he says that this is not the proper place for recourse for Donald Trump. He has no legal ramifications. Where what [sic] is the proper place for him? Because the FBI won’t help when you can do anything, obstruct justice, blatantly lie to the FBI, Sussmann’s out, he gets acquitted, where do you go? That’s the concern for me, where do you get that -- that recourse?4 She also indicated that, while Mr. Trump doubted the suit would succeed, she nevertheless “fought” to pursue it: You know, I have to share with you a story, Sean, that I have not shared with anybody. The recourse that I have at this point is obviously to appeal this to the 11th Circuit as Gregg said. But when I brought this case and we were assigned you know, this judge and we went through the recusal process, we lost five magistrates, including Reinhart [sic] who’s dealing with the boxes as we know. The former president looked at me and he told me, you know what Alina. You’re not going to win. You can’t win, just get rid of it, don’t do the case. And I said, no, we have to fight. It’s not right what happened. And you know, he was right, and it’s a sad day for me personally because I fought him on [it] and I should have listened, but I don’t want to lose hope in our system. I don’t. So, you know I’m deciding whether we’re going to appeal it.5 Defendants now move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and/or this Court’s inherent power. (DE 280 at 1). In Part II, I find that a sanction under this Court’s inherent power is appropriate. I do so by examining Plaintiff’s (and his lawyers’) conduct throughout this litigation. In Part III, I look to Plaintiff’s conduct in other cases. And in Part IV, I determine the reasonableness of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

1 0

BREAKING: Justices Say CFPB Is Constitutionally Funded
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

BREAKING: Justices Say CFPB Is Constitutionally Funded <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1793178?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…> By Jon Hill The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is constitutionally funded, rejecting a payday lender-backed challenge that threatened to incapacitate the agency and throw a wrench in the Biden administration's financial regulatory agenda. Opinion attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1793178?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1793178?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…>

1 0

Pissed Off,' 'You Need To Go': Reps Rip FDIC's Gruenberg
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

Pissed Off,' 'You Need To Go': Reps Rip FDIC's Gruenberg <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1837693?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…> By Jon Hill Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Martin Gruenberg took withering, bipartisan criticism over his agency's workplace misconduct scandal at a House hearing on Wednesday, although no new Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in directly calling for his resignation. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1837693?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1837693?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…>

1 0

Florida Judicial Ethics Panel Split Over Personal Fundraising
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

Florida Judicial Ethics Panel Split Over Personal Fundraising <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1837419?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> By Madison Arnold A judicial candidate may distribute business cards and other campaign materials with a web address for his campaign site that includes an option to donate but cannot post a cover photo with that same URL on the candidate's personal Facebook page, the majority of Florida's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has found. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1837419?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1837419?nl_pk=153d4a8a-6fb9-4a5…>

1 0

Uber Files' Scandal Can't Prop Up Investor Suit, Judge Says
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

Uber Files' Scandal Can't Prop Up Investor Suit, Judge Says <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1837484?nl_pk=abe82add-2a33-…> By Katryna Perera Uber Technologies has beaten back a proposed class action alleging that a trove of leaked internal records harmed shareholders by revealing corporate misconduct, with a California federal judge saying plaintiffs failed to prove that any of Uber's statements about the leak were false. Order attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1837484?nl_pk=abe82add-2a33-…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1837484?nl_pk=abe82add-2a33-…>

1 0

Paul Weiss Establishes Center To Combat Hate
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

Paul Weiss Establishes Center To Combat Hate <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1837503?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…> By Lynn LaRowe Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP announced Wednesday that it has launched the Center to Combat Hate, an organization that will partner with civil rights groups and educational institutions to use litigation in tackling violence and intimidation driven by hate. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1837503?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1837503?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…>

1 0

3rd Circ. Says Pa. City Isn't Covered In Cop's Employment Suit
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

3rd Circ. Says Pa. City Isn't Covered In Cop's Employment Suit <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1837705?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…> By Elizabeth Daley A Pennsylvania city cannot obtain coverage for underlying litigation brought by a police officer who has repeatedly sued the city, as his present suit is related to previous ones and is therefore excluded by the policy, the Third Circuit said Wednesday. Opinion attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1837705?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1837705?nl_pk=8f2e5a76-bb66-462b-a…>

1 0

Womble Bond Names 'Fearless Leader' As Chair, CEO-Elect
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

Womble Bond Names 'Fearless Leader' As Chair, CEO-Elect <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1837399?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> By Tracey Read Womble Bond Dickinson announced Wednesday that global finance partner Merrick Benn has been elected U.S. chair and CEO, for a three-year term effective Jan. 1. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1837399?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1837399?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…>

1 0

Keep It Short, And Other Advice From Fed. Circ. Judges
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

Keep It Short, And Other Advice From Fed. Circ. Judges <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1836807?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…> By Dani Kass Six Federal Circuit judges counseled a packed room of attorneys on Tuesday about the most common ways to ruin their own cases, such as talking too much at oral argument, adding additional citations and attacking judges or opposing counsel. Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1836807?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/1836807?nl_pk=feb6bbba-7878-4d39-be…>

1 0

Saudi Arabia?s Wealth Fund Dumps Its JPMorgan Chase Stock; Warren Buffett?s Berkshire Hathaway Did the Same in 2020
by Gunnar Larson 16 May '24

16 May '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/05/saudi-arabias-wealth-fund-dumps-its-… By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: May 16, 2024 ~ Foreign central banks and sovereign wealth funds are required under U.S. law to report their publicly-traded U.S. stock positions no later than 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, if those stock holdings reach $100 million or more. This is done on Form 13F, which is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Sophisticated traders, algorithms at the big trading houses on Wall Street, and giant hedge funds mine that data to spot bullish or bearish signals they might be able to trade on. Unfortunately, for reasons we haven’t been able to unleash from the tight grip of the SEC over many years, some of the central banks and sovereign wealth funds with massive holdings in U.S. stocks do not report their holdings, or, the SEC is granting them confidentiality. One sovereign wealth fund that has been reliably reporting its U.S. stock positions since 2019 is Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF). It filed its 13F yesterday for the quarter ending March 31, 2024. It showed it held 38 U.S. stock positions with a total dollar value of $20.55 billion. One stock position that PIF had held to the tune of $655 million as of December 31, 2023 was no longer in its portfolio. That stock was the largest bank in the United States, JPMorgan Chase. Saudia Arabia might have taken a cue from the Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, who has personally sold $183 million of the bank’s stock this year – his largest stock sales in the bank since he took the reins as CEO in 2005. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund is not the only sophisticated investor to dump the stock of JPMorgan Chase in recent years. According to the 13F filing that Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway made with the SEC for the quarter ending December 31, 2019, it held 59.5 million shares of JPMorgan Chase with a total value at that time of $8.29 billion. By June 30, 2020, that position had been trimmed by more than half, to 22.2 million shares. By September 30, 2020, one day after JPMorgan Chase had admitted to its fourth and fifth criminal felony counts in the prior six years, Berkshire Hathaway’s position in JPMorgan Chase tallied up to just under 1 million shares, a 98 percent reduction from the beginning of 2020. By December 31, 2020, the last share of JPMorgan Chase had disappeared from Berkshire Hathaway’s portfolio, according to its 13F filing with the SEC. Berkshire Hathaway’s stock portfolio is massive. Including all its subsidiary companies, it held $331.68 billion in stocks as of March 31, 2024. More than 10 percent of that portfolio was in the stock of JPMorgan Chase’s largest competitor, Bank of America, the second largest bank by assets in the U.S. According to Berkshire Hathaway’s 13F filing yesterday, as of March 31, 2024 it held a stunning $39 billion in Bank of America’s common stock, or 11.76 percent of its total stock portfolio. Among the largest and most opaque sovereign wealth funds is the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) – which has good reason not to trust financial institutions in the U.S. (See our 2012 investigative report, U.S. Ally Abu Dhabi Levels $4 Billion Fraud Charge Against Citigroup.) According to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute, ADIA has approximately $1 trillion in assets in its portfolio. And yet, the SEC shows no 13F filings for ADIA. Equally interesting, ADIA’s most recent annual review for 2022 fails to provide a dollar value for its total portfolio or its stock portfolio. It does provide a graph showing that its stock (equity) portfolio will comprise the following percent of its total portfolio: equities in developed countries, 32 to 42 percent; emerging market equities, 7 to 15 percent; small cap equities, 1 to 5 percent. Taking the mid-range of each class puts its equity position at approximately 51 percent of its total portfolio. ADIA further advises in its annual review that its overall portfolio has the following breakdown by region: North America, 45 to 60 percent; Europe 15 to 30 percent; developed Asia 5 to 10 percent; and emerging markets 10 to 20 percent.

1 0