Robert Pincus, lawyer partner of the firm Skadden and judicial administrator of Transperfect / FOTOMONTAJE CG
Skadden, Big New York Law Firm, Faces Questions on Work With Manafort By KENNETH P. VOGEL and ANDREW E. KRAMER SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 The New York Times WASHINGTON – Five years ago, Paul Manafort arranged for a prominent New York-based law firm to draft a report that was used by allies of his client, Viktor Yanukovych, the Russia-aligned president of Ukraine, to justify the jailing of a political rival. And now the report is coming back to haunt it. The Justice Department, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation, recently asked the firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, for information and documents related to its work on behalf of Mr. Yanukovych’s government, which crumbled after he fled to Russia under pressure. The request comes at a time when Mr. Manafort, his work for Mr. Yanukovych’s party and for Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs as well as the handling of payments for that work have become focal points in the investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and connections between Russia, Mr. Trump and his associates. It’s unclear if the Justice Department’s request to Skadden, as the firm is known, is part of Mr. Mueller’s inquiry. But the interest from prosecutors in what Skadden did for the Ukrainian government is one indication of the wide-ranging nature of the inquiries related to Mr. Manafort. It also highlights the risks associated with advising authoritarian governments overseas, a lucrative sideline among Washington lawyers, lobbyists and public relations consultants. Mr. Manafort played a central role in the effort to shield Mr. Yanukovych from international condemnation, according to consultants involved in the effort. He devised the strategy and recruited lobbyists, lawyers and public relations consultants from across the political spectrum, but left the day-to-day implementation of the campaign to others. Skadden’s report was one element of that strategy. Its conclusions provided a counterpoint to international critics who said that Mr. Yanukovych’s government had prosecuted and convicted the former Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia V. Tymoshenko, on corruption charges in 2011 for political reasons and without sufficient evidence. That kind of international consulting by American firms traditionally has not drawn much scrutiny from regulators or the media, but that has changed in the last year, thanks largely to Mr. Manafort’s role as Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman in 2016 after years collecting multi-million-dollar paydays from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs and political parties. As part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, prosecutors last month issued grand jury subpoenas seeking testimony from officials from at least two lobbying and public relations firms that worked on the team Mr. Manafort assembled to plead Mr. Yanukovych’s case in Washington – Mercury Public Affairs and the Podesta Group, according to two people with direct knowledge of the subpoenas. The firms were paid more than $1.1 million each to try to rally support among American policy makers and opinion leaders for Mr. Yanukovych, and the firms’ lobbyists cited the findings in Skadden’s report to quell mounting concerns about his leadership. The subpoenas for Mercury and Podesta – which followed an earlier round of subpoenas to the firms for documents and information related to their Ukraine work – focused on “Manafort’s money – where it came from, how he got it, what he did with it,” according to a person familiar with the inquiries. Officials at Mercury and the Podesta Group did not respond to requests for comment. Through a spokesman, Mr. Manafort declined to comment. Federal agents raided his Virginia home in July, confiscating documents and copying some of his computer files. Shortly afterward, prosecutors working for Mr. Mueller told Mr. Manafort they planned to indict him. The Justice Department’s request for information about Skadden’s Ukrainian work came after Ukrainian prosecutors asked their American counterparts for assistance in pursuing an inquiry into alleged illegal spending by Mr. Yanukovych’s government. That inquiry included payments to Skadden, though the Ukrainians have not accused the firm of any crime. The Ukrainians nonetheless requested that the Justice Department question Mr. Manafort and Skadden’s lead lawyer on the case, Gregory B. Craig, who had served as President Barack Obama’s White House counsel. Mr. Manafort’s team hoped that the involvement of Mr. Craig, who maintained deep connections to Washington’s Democratic establishment, might win Mr. Yanukovych a more favorable reception with the Obama State department, according to the consultants who worked on the issue. Yet they said that even employees of Mercury and Podesta regarded the report as a “whitewash” that did little to address valid concerns about Mr. Yanukovych’s government. The report was concluded in September 2012 – just before one of Mr. Manafort’s daughters started work as an associate at Skadden – and released in December 2012. The day after its release, Victoria Nuland, a State Department official at the time, called it “incomplete,” at a department press briefing, saying that it “doesn’t give an accurate picture.” She said the State Department was concerned that “Skadden Arps lawyers were obviously not going to find political motivation if they weren’t looking for it.” In a recent interview, John E. Herbst, a former United States ambassador to Ukraine, went further. He said that Skadden “should have been ashamed” of the report, calling it “a nasty piece of work.” Mr. Craig declined to comment. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or F.A.R.A., anyone engaged in lobbying or public relations for foreign governments must register with the Justice Department. But in a statement this month, Skadden contended that “none of our attorneys engaged in any activity that required them or the firm to register under F.A.R.A.” The firm also asserted that its report “did not opine about whether the prosecution was politically motivated or driven by an improper political objective” – an assertion that narrowly avoids directly contradicting the report’s conclusion that “Tymoshenko has not provided clear and specific evidence of political motivation that would be sufficient to overturn her conviction under American standards.” Rather, the firm’s statement said that Ms. Tymoshenko “was denied basic rights under Western legal standards,” was “improperly incarcerated during the trial” and that “in the West, she would receive a new trial.” In June, Skadden refunded $567,000 to the Ukrainian government – about half of the total it was said to have been paid by Mr. Yanukovych’s government. The firm suggested in a statement that it returned the cash because the money had been placed “in escrow for future work” that never took place. Less than a year and a half after the release of the Skadden report, Mr. Yanukovych fled the country amid street protests over his government’s corruption and its pivot toward Moscow. Under the government that succeeded Mr. Yanukovych, the country’s general prosecutors office – Ukraine’s version of the Justice Department – opened criminal corruption investigations into Mr. Yanukovych and members of his government, including his justice minister, Oleksandr Lavrynovych. Court documents in the case against Mr. Lavrynovych alleged that Mr. Manafort “designed a strategy” to enlist Skadden to “confirm the legality of the criminal prosecution of Yulia Tymoshenko and … reject any political motives of such prosecution.” Mr. Lavrynovych’s lawyer, Yevgeny V. Solodko, rejected the charges against his client, characterizing the case as a politically motivated crackdown on officials from the former government. The general prosecutor’s office, under a mutual legal aid agreement with the United States, began asking the Justice Department and the F.B.I. for assistance with the investigation into Mr. Lavrynovych starting in late 2014. But neither the Justice Department nor the F.B.I. had responded to the requests as recently as March, when the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, was asked during a congressional hearing why the Ukrainian requests for assistance had gone unheeded. More recently, Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, acknowledged in written responses to The New York Times that his office had begun working with the Justice Department to investigate the payments from the Ukrainian Justice Ministry to Skadden. Asked whether Ukrainian prosecutors are assisting in Mr. Mueller’s investigation, Mr. Lutsenko’s office was coy. In a statement, it said that it had not publicly disclosed any such cooperation, but it also noted that not all international judicial cooperation can be disclosed. Representatives for Mr. Mueller’s team and the Justice Department declined to comment. Kenneth P. Vogel reported from Washington and Andrew E. Kramer from Moscow. Charlie Savage contributed reporting, and Kitty Bennett contributed research. Kenneth P. Vogel reported from Washington and Andrew E. Kramer from Moscow.Please note new e-mail address [email protected]
Delaware judiciary rating plunge self-inflicted, says Alan Dershowitz
The forced sale of TransPerfect has cost the company $ 20 million in lawyers
A US association claims that several companies are enriched by the conflict while 4,000 workers fear for their jobs
CARLES BALLFUGÓ 14.09.2017 11:35 h Delaware Supreme Court Judge André Bouchard’s decision to order the forced sale of the Transperfect translation multinational has cost the company more than $ 20 million to hire a variety of law firms , investment companies and specialized entities in mergers and acquisitions. According to a piece of advertising by the Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware’s association (CPBD) published on full page in various media, a dozen signatures would be enriching themselves with the shareholder conflict that the company lives. The advertising piece which has had access Global Chronicle also notes that Robert Pincus, a lawyer partner at law firm Skadden and custodian (judicial administrator) of Transperfect , would be getting a salary of $ 1,425 an hour, about 1,200 euros, for overseeing the controversial sale force of the company.HAZARD JOBS
Through this action, the association CPBD wanted to point out that while several companies invoice huge amounts of money to the company under Pincus, the 4,000 employees of the company worldwide, 500 of them in the operating center of Barcelona , continue fearing for their jobs if the forced sale of the multinational of translations is finally executed . A few months ago, Delaware Supreme Court Judge Andre Bouchard ordered the company’s forced sale to resolve the stakeholder conflict between the company’s co-founders, former Liz Elting and Phil Shawe, whose relationship is more deteriorated than ever and their positions in regard to the company, the antipodes of each other.WITHOUT PRECEDENTS
The forced sale of a successful private company is an unprecedented move in United States history and its precursors, Judge André Bouchard and attorney Robert Pincus, may be breaking the legal limits,according to experts familiar with the case. The purchase of Transperfect by a private equity fund would entail relocation and dismissal, as has already happened with the company Lionbridge, Transperfect’s largest competitor globally, which relocated the centers of Spain and France and destroyed thousands of jobs.
Paranoia reigns in the mind of the Delaware Chancery Court-appointed Custodian, Robert Pincus. He is seeking — through a Court order — to find out who is leaking information that shows just how insidious his administration of TransPerfect Global actually is!
In my opinion, Custodian Pincus is using a false premise to go after employees because he’s embarrassed by Skadden Arps’ outrageous fees being made public, and things being said about him in the news. He’s a court-appointed receiver folks — his bills should be public. The way Bouchard is letting Pincus hide his bills in darkness is similar to what he did for his old friend, Elting’s attorney Kevin Shannon at Potter Anderson — making TransPerfect and/or Philip Shawe pay legal bills with no ability to challenge the reasonableness of the fees. His fees should be public. Instead, Pincus is conducting a witch-hunt for employees, which is exactly what he promised employees he wouldn’t do.
Plus, Pincus has not made good on his promise to let employees bid for their company. And, my sources say the custodian could stymie the quarterly press release, which has been a stellar publication, quarter over quarter, for years now. Folks, there is only one way I see this, Pincus is dirty, and he’s trying to mask the truth by silencing employees and sealing everything possible under a court order, with the nefarious help from his former business partner and crony of the Delaware Chancery Court, Chancellor Andre Bouchard (who adjudicated the most heinous and inequitable decision in U.S. business history). Pincus’ rate of $1,425 per hour is three times the rate of most court-appointed receivers. Bouchard has managed to let his buddy fleece TransPerfect out of millions of dollars.
It is the opinion of this writer that Pincus has illegitimately taken advantage of his position. Why should this Custodian be allowed to get rich off the back of this prosperous company and its employees who have helped build the company to what it is? And then not allow them to bid on ownership of the company in order to save their jobs? I’m hearing speculation from employees that Lionbridge (a competitor) could very well buy the company and possibly outsource many American jobs. Employees should not be silenced by the courts in stating the truth. This is America! And, as disappointing as it may be to Bouchard and Pincus, Free Speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Please read the article below from “Delaware Business Now” about this sensational saga, that is now before a New York Court where hopefully some real justice might transpire in contrast to the Kangaroo Chancery Court in Delaware!
I am going to beat this drum until justice is served and these wrongs are righted. Read below folks.
Sincerely Yours,
JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network
Judson Bennett Please note new e-mail address, [email protected] Please note new Twitter account, https://twitter.com/Judson_BennettCustodian seeks info on employee ‘leakers’ in disputed TransPerfect sales effort
By Delaware Business Now – August 25, 2017 The battle over the sale of translation service TransPerfect now extends to the public relations effort from an employee group. Tusk Strategies and Chris Coffey of Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware have asked a New York court to quash the nonparty subpoenas and for a protective order. The custodian working to effect a sale of the company claims leaks from employees are hampering the process of selling the company. “The Subpoenas that Petitioners challenge are designed to chill civil discourse on a matter of public importance,” Chris Coffey stated. “This court-ordered sale is unprecedented. It is the first time a Delaware court has forced the sale of an ongoing and profitable Delaware company without stockholders’ consent. The forced sale has potentially significant implications for the future of TransPerfect’s employees’ jobs.” Coffey continued, “Throughout the sale process, Citizens has tried to draw attention to its members’ concerns about the sale process and its implications. To that end, in late July 2017, Citizens ran (1) a press release referencing concerns that one potential bidder might move their jobs offshore, and (2) another press release and advertisement that listed the fees charged by the Custodian and the many advisors he has hired to assist him in selling the company, collectively totaling more than $20 million over an 18-month period. In response to these two press releases and advertisement by Citizens, the Custodian claims he needs to identify any TransPerfect employees who allegedly disclosed this information – notwithstanding that much of this information was already public.” Coffey concluded, “The Subpoenas are vastly overbroad and duplicative, and they are nothing more than an attempt to cause ‘unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice’ to Tusk and Coffey – and, by association, Citizens — as a consequence for the assistance they provided to TransPerfect employees and Delaware citizens in voicing their concerns regarding the Delaware court’s unprecedented actions.” Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware has been running advertisements and issuing press releases opposing the sales process. Citizens has drawn the ire of the custodian, members of the corporate bar and some legislators for its advertisements and press releases that indicate the dispute will harm the state’s incorporation business, a key source of tax and fee revenues. The sale process comes after co-owners Philip Shawe and Elizabeth Elting have been unable to come up with an agreement to sell the company.