Can the Government Shut Down Businesses in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

To stem the COVID-19 spiral, the US Government shut down businesses, learning institutions, and places of worship and forced citizens to stay in their homes. As business remained crippled and the economy faced downtime, companies and individuals asked if the government has any right to actually shut down businesses. Below we discuss COVID-19 and the US constitution to determine if the government was in the right to call for closures across the country.

COVID-19 and the Constitution

To determine if the government has any right to set restrictions on business operations and force people to stay in their homes, we must take a close look at the link between the deadly virus and the constitution. The pandemic raised a host of constitutional issues, including the following:

• How the government can operate while adhering to social distancing;
• The interplay between federal and state governments in response to the crisis;
• How presidential powers may affect democratic forms in emergencies;
• Whether voting procedures would change in the face of the pandemic.   

Yes, But No Arbitrary Action

The government has the constitutional right to close down businesses in the face of a pandemic, or any emergency for that matter. However, it’s unlikely that the government will send out the military to ensure citizens are following all restrictions exactly. The declaration for the closure of businesses would have to stay within the precincts of the laws authorizing the edict.  Governors across the country have imposed various restrictions in the last 8 months based on the severity of case rate. Since the virus has been spreading rapidly in November, many governors, such as Governor Murphy of New Jersey, have put forth new restrictions and safety protocols for citizens. Some restrictions are more enforceable than others. For example, it’s easier to ensure restaurants and bars close at 10 p.m. than to make sure family members aren’t gathering in large groups indoors. The latter has caused friction between many individuals who have chosen not to comply with specific gathering measures.

Preventing Abuse of Power

The separation of our government entities into three branches is to prevent the possible abuse of power. Because of this, governors cannot do whatever they please, even if their actions are in the best interests of the people.  For example, when Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer extended stay-at-home orders in the spring, Republican legislators introduced a bill to strip her of certain powers, causing some of her restrictions to be ruled back in the state. Yet emergencies, such as the pandemic, allow for flexibility in statutory powers.  Other examples of state’s of emergency include hurricanes and snowstorms, where governors are given the ability to call on police to redirect traffic, free up funds earmarked for emergencies, and call on the National Guard to help.     

The Bottom Line

The government has the right to shut down businesses and quarantine citizens in the process for the safety, welfare, and health of the people. Companies and businesses should take appropriate measures to comply with government directives. However, they can mitigate the impact of executive orders by checking if they have insurance coverage for business interruptions resulting from the state closure of their firms.   

Are Government Regulations Really Good for the Economy?

Government involvement in the US economy has grown enormously in recent years, prompting mixed reactions from individuals and businesses. Proponents claim regulations are necessary to mitigate the risks of unregulated business, including labor abuse and environmental damage. While some interventions aim to streamline the private sector by providing clear guidelines, advice to businesses, and even loans, companies have voiced concerns about the regulations impeding growth and efficiency.

A Tale of Mixed Fortunes

American firms have suffered and prospered under the ever-increasing government involvement in business. Consequently, the relationship between the government and businesses has been either adversarial or collaborative. A complicated tax code has not made matters any better. As firms express their displeasure over a government with seemingly stifling regulations, consumers are pleased. The rules have protected them from exploitative practices, such as over-pricing and poor-quality products.

Fighting Corporate Fraud: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

In the wake of rampant corporate fraud that roped in several companies, such as Tyco and Enron, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. The Act fosters corporate responsibility and regulates the accounting and auditing of businesses. Many in the corporate world argued the bill would be more detrimental than beneficial to their businesses. They asserted that compliance with the law would be time-consuming, ineffective, and unnecessarily complicated, while not actually protecting shareholders from fraud. The corporate world’s stand against the new law gained traction when many financial frauds surfaced during the 2008 financial crisis. One such high-level fraud case involved Bernie Madoff, the man who pulled off a multi-billion Ponzi scheme disguised as investment securities.

How Government Regulations Protect Businesses

No one can deny that the government occasionally embraces extraordinary measures to protect business entities in times of adverse economic adversity. For instance, economists argue, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the subsequent economic stimulus plans helped to avert a repeat of the Great Depression. Many people often overlook the importance of the rule of law enforced by the government. A good example is the US Patent and Trademark Office that protects specific products and inventions from illegal infringement by competitors. Violations of patents and trademarks attract hefty fines. This type of regulation helps businesses thrive and maintains healthy competition.

The Bottom Line

The government plays the role of providing advisory and financial services to businesses. It also plays the role of advocate to the public, establishing and enforcing worker safety, consumer protection, and other laws. However, governments do also have a long history of over-regulation, trapping countries in patterns of long-term decline. The dual nature of the relation between the government and firms is likely to escalate because disputes will always arise. Maybe, just maybe, success may lie in the government playing a neutral referee in a game whose rules keep changing.

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com

Bayer and Monsanto Highlight Corruption in the U.S.

While Monsanto is a well-known company to consumers, not everyone is aware of the impact the massive brand has on Americans. The Monsanto controversy is not limited to one occasion—the agricultural biotech company has been involved in various lawsuits and at the receiving end of numerous accusations. In 2016, Monsanto merged with Bayer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. This merger has turned out to be one of the biggest cases of US corruption to date. 

What is Monsanto?

In short, Monsanto is an agricultural biotechnology company that has been around since 1901. The company is most famous for being the world’s leading producer of Roundup, a herbicide designed to kill weeds—but linked to cancer diagnoses. Over the years, Monsanto created genetically modified (GM) seeds that are “Roundup Ready”, meaning they are not affected by the herbicide, and continue to grow no matter how much Roundup is sprayed on and around them. By 2013, Monsanto was responsible for growing 80% of genetically modified corn and 93% of genetically modified soy in the United States. 

Where are they now?

In 2018, Monsanto became a part of the crop science program run by Bayer, with a $66 million contract that dissolved the Monsanto name. What was once Monsanto is now only known as Bayer—an attempt at distancing the company from the negative publicity that surrounds Monsanto. All products acquired in the sale are now part of Bayer’s portfolio, and although this certainly removes Monsanto from the spotlight, it doesn’t mean that this sale won’t allow Monsanto to continue to have major implications on the American public.  Bayer is a pharmaceutical company. Monsanto is a biotechnology company producing herbicides that are linked to causing health complications. Having the two companies under the same roof leads to questions of ethics. Is it right for a company to own both a brand that is in hot water for causing cancer and other health issues, yet also own a brand that provides relief to those suffering? 

In and Out of Court: Millions Against Monsanto

Monsanto has been surrounded by controversy since the Vietnam War, when they were one of the largest producers of Agent Orange, showcasing its decades long rap sheet for controversy.  Unfortunately, Monsanto didn’t quite learn from past mistakes. Instead, they went on to create Roundup, a weed killer containing glyphosate. Glyphosate was created by Monsanto in 1974, and has since been subject to over 100,000 court cases linking exposure to the herbicide to cancer, specifically non-Hodgkins lymphoma. In fact, Bayer was recently required to settle the lawsuits with a $10 billion agreement.  With Monsanto having been previously based in Delaware, a case was launched in the Delaware Chancery Court called Barrera v. Monsanto. This case related to Roundup causing cancer, and included several plaintiffs filing claims alleging their cancer was caused by exposure to glyphosate. However, since the plaintiffs did not reside in Delaware, Monsanto attempted to fight the case, asserting the claims should be moved to the courts in their respective jurisdictions. The court denied the request of dismissal, which many took note of, as Delaware Chancery Court had recently been under question after dismissing other cases for similar reasons. Unfortunately, the court cases haven’t stopped since Bayer bought out Monsanto—In 2019, a jury in California ordered Bayer to pay $2 billion in damages for not adequately informing consumers about the harmful effects of Roundup. 

Against the Grain: Americans Against Monsanto

As Monsanto continues to prioritize a longer shelf life and perfect crops over the health of the American people, consumers have taken time to do their due diligence and shift their eating habits to create a more sustainable lifestyle outside of genetically modified fruits and vegetables; opting for organic foods, and, in some cases, a completely vegan lifestyle to prevent contaminated meats. The organic movement is one of the largest food trends in American history. Although there continues to be an ongoing debate as to whether organic products are healthier for the everyday consumer, there are guidelines that organic produces are required to follow by the FDA, including:

• Land Use: The land used to produce an organic fruit or vegetable crop must be free of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, such as those traditionally used in regular farming.
• Farming Practices: Owners or organic farms are not allowed to use genetically modified seeds, such as those created by Monsanto to ward off bugs or insects.
• Ingredients: Any product labeled as organic must be free of any synthetic ingredients

Outside of the organic movement, there is another food movement brewing amidst the US population: veganism. This new food trend is in part due to the avoidance of eating animals that have consumed genetically modified grains and vegetables ahead of slaughter, while environmental impacts and animal rights also play a role. Since the start of this movement, about 8% of the world has identified as a vegan with about 2% residing in the United States. With the American people opting for healthier lifestyle choices, this may be one of the determining factors in the future of Monsanto.

The Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an unbiased news source reporting information on the business world, the Delaware Chancery Court system, the beyond. We strive to bring light to corruption in the United States, and hope to aid readers to make informed decisions on current events.  If you want to learn more about The Coastal Network, or are interested in furthering your knowledge of US corruption, visit our website at www.coastalnetwork.com.   

Jeffrey Epstein, a High-Profile Individual, Evaded Serious Charges in the US Government 

Jeffrey Epstein, a hedge-fund manager with many high-profile acquaintances, was charged with sex trafficking of minors last year after luring young girls to his Palm Beach mansion for years. As someone with seemingly unlimited power and influence, Epstein somehow evaded serious charges from the government until 2019, with accusations dating back to the early 2000s.   The Epstein case brings the state of corruption in the FBI and U.S. justice system to light—many questions have arisen regarding how the case was handled by the FBI and how the sweetheart deal was made. Epstein, who died by suspected suicide in 2019, was finally charged by Florida prosecutors in 2008, when he pleaded guilty. 

Corruption in the US Court System Enabled Epstein to Walk Free for Years

Jeffrey Epstein’s case depicts deep corruption in the U.S. court system. After being accused of trafficking and abusing young girls, Epstein was merely given an 18 month sentence—a slap on the wrist for such heinous crimes. Not only did Epstein receive a lenient sentence of solicitation of prostitution as part of the sweetheart deal, but he only served 13 months, during which he was free much of the time on a work release.  Alexander Acosta, the U.S. attorney in Miami at the time, is one of the key figures who mishandled the Epstein case and granted the sweetheart deal. Acosta’s office broke the law by not disclosing the deal to victims. He had the power to lock Epstein away for life, yet allowed the sex offender to roam free for another decade. In the summer of 2019, Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking by federal prosecutors.  Acosta was not the only official that seemed to be in Epstein’s corner—the office of New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance, argued that Epstein’s status as a sex offender be reduced. Epstein’s defenders, Acosta and Vance, are in the public realm and should be held accountable for their leniency. At least 80 teenagers, most between the ages of 13 and 16 when abused, came forward with similar stories of being lured to Epstein’s mansion. Yet both Acosta and Vance chose to ignore victims and side with a predator, simply because he had money and the power of influence. 

Corruption in the Prison System

On Aug. 10, 2019, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell. The forensic report showed the cause of death as suicide, though many people are skeptical and don’t believe that Epstein killed himself. Ultimately, two jail guards at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan were charged with falsifying records. The two guards initially claimed to have done their nightly rounds, but footage suggests otherwise, and they confessed to “messing up.” The circumstances surrounding the suicide and how jail guards did not notice has been a source of consipiracy theories and suspicion. 

An End to Trial and Co-conspirators

Though Epstein’s death brings an end to the case, it is not the end of investigations. Epstein’s main co-conspirator, his long-time girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, was recently arrested for her role in the sex trafficking of minors. Other prominent figures who mingled with Epstein and Maxwell are also under scrutiny. A survivor accuses Prince Andrew of sex with minors and says that Epstein trafficked many of the underage girls to have sex with prominent men. Other politicians and celebrities who socialized with Epstein are also under the public eye, including President Trump, former President Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Woody Allen, to name a few. The Epstein corruption saga is not over—those who were involved need to be held accountable so justice can be brought to victims.  

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to promoting transparency in the business world and beyond.  For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com   

Cambridge Analytica Showcases Corruption in the United States

The Cambridge Analytica scandal is a perfect example of corruption in the United States. At the center of this scandal: data mishandling, involving data company Cambridge Analytica and social powerhouse Facebook.  After an expose uncovered Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in wrongfully handling user data, CEO Alexander Nix was suspended from his job. The exposed report revealed that the data of 87 million Americans was wrongfully and illegally obtained by Cambridge Analytica in favor of Trump’s election campaign. Many Americans were shocked and disgruntled with the revelation that their personal data was harvested from Facebook, a major social media platform. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared before congress to respond to the scandal. 

Facebook’s Involvement in the Cambridge Analytica Scandal

In the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the consulting firm accessed unauthorized data from users by using a software application through an available Facebook quiz that was deployed on the social platform. The data collected by Cambridge was said to build voters’ profiles, but was instead utilized for hyper-targeting of individuals.  With tens of millions of Americans affected by the breach, this scandal could not simply be swept under the rug. Zuckerberg seemed to be notably quiet after the scandal surfaced, but later appeared before congress to answer questions about the mishandling of American’s personal information. Data privacy remains a hot topic, and many Americans are concerned about how their data online is handled. 

Facebook: Selling Out the American People?

There’s no doubt that Cambridge Analytica’s actions were a main contributor to the influencing of the 2016 election and other political decisions globally, as they harvested personal information to build highly-specific demographic profiles. However, the majority of the data mishandling fell on social monolith Facebook, as Americans place their trust in the platform to securely withhold their data. Naturally, Facebook faced criticism for allowing data harvesting to happen. Many people looked to Zuckerberg to make a statement; others simply deleted their Facebook profiles. At the end of the day, Facebook was fined $5 billion, though this is merely a slap on the wrist for a CEO with a net worth of $96 billion. But many still claim that Facebook ultimately sold out the American people.

Data and Corruption in the United States

Corruption in mishandling personal information will only become more prevalent as people continue to use social media platforms and companies continue to act in their own self-interest. To make matters more complex, President Trump’s former Aide Stephen Banon worked as a board member of Cambridge Analytica, showcasing a conflict of interest in the case. But, protecting user data is not as simple as it may seem. While some people urge the government to regulate massive companies like Facebook, others would rather let the free market take control. Will these large companies do the right thing and guarantee users of their privacy? 

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com 

How the Private Sector Can Get Us Back to Work Amidst the Pandemic

As we head into fall, many Americans are still uncertain about COVID-19 risks around the country—especially, for some, the risks that come with a return to school, although schools across the country have provided both virtual and in-person learning options. The US has led the world in COVID-19 cases and resulting deaths in the last few months, due in part to a lackluster state and federal response to the virus. The key to getting back to work lies in the private sector. 

The U.S. Government’s Response to COVID-19

In a time where the federal government should be providing direction, it instead lacked leadership and provided a poorly organized response to the pandemic. Even in March, it was clear that the government’s response featured failures of judgement and inaction that inevitably cost the lives of Americans. Though the federal government certainly can’t be expected to do everything to protect us, it should provide guidance to states, local governments and private businesses. As pandemic responses have largely been left up to state governments, the country has seen waves of cases regionally—first, raging on the East Coast and throughout the midwest; now flaring up on the West Coast and in the South.  Additionally, a lack of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) left frontline workers vulnerable to the virus. Without supplies from the federal government, states were left bidding against each other for PPE and other medical supplies. With the federal government and state governments buying from the same supply chain, resources ran out quickly. This is where the private sector came in—when President Trump enacted the Defense Production Act, private market manufacturers were compelled to ramp up production of PPE. This act is a great example of enabling the private sector to both thrive and help the nation overcome this pandemic. At the start of the pandemic, the federal government’s regulation of testing left out the private sector, an important asset that has led to innovative solutions and an increase in testing in recent months. 

The Benefits of the Private Sector During COVID-19

In addition to providing another helping hand in a dire situation, local businesses know their communities best. Providing funding and resources to the private sector enables them to identify the local risk level and needs of residents in their region. Supporting the private sector also creates and keeps jobs—something that’s so critical in a time of historic unemployment.  Investing in the private sector also encourages an all-hands-on-deck mentality, where diverse groups of employees can tap into their innovation and creativity to contribute to solutions. The private sector can do a more efficient job in monitoring virus spread and helping Americans evaluate risk—with the help of a federal government that provides infrastructure and the funds needed to succeed.  Gerald Commissiong, CEO of Todos Medical, a company focused on COVID-19 screening and diagnosis, commented “By taking the federal government out of the equation and leaving testing up to the private sector, we can perform a much more efficient job by removing politics and sticking to what really matters; science and business. America is founded on capitalism, so why not revert to what we do best? Adapt and overcome obstacles through innovation, not from the elected officials, but from industry professionals who have dedicated their careers to studying disease testing and control.”

Getting Americans Back to Work 

Returning to the office and bringing back jobs that were lost as the pandemic shut down the country is reliant on our government’s support of the private sector. With the ability to ramp up testing, provide crucial PPE equipment and conduct research that could lead to a vaccine, the private sector is in a position to lead the US response to the virus. Even as employers bring employees back into an office setting, the private sector can provide the tools to make it a smooth transition—thermometers, masks, and cleaning supplies, all of which will be necessary to keep offices and schools safe. 

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com

Credit Suisse, a Swiss investment bank, is under investigation by a regulator after accusations of spying on a former executive. This scandal led to the ousting of the bank’s CEO, Tidjane Thiam, and other top executives.

The spying scandal that hit the Swiss bank, Credit Suisse, highlights corruption in the banking and investment industry. Last year, it emerged that Credit Suisse had hired Investigo, a security firm, to follow a former executive, Iqbal Khan. It later emerged that the bank’s former human resources head, Peter Goerke, and a former employee in Asia were also spied on. Recently, another case of corruption in the United States came to light when it was reported that another staff member was under surveillance in the US. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to corruption in the United States, and corruption in the banking and investment industry, respectively.

Iqbal Khan and Credit Suisse Corruption

After spending 12 years as an auditor at Ernst & Young, Iqbal Khan joined Credit Suisse’s wealth management department in 2013. Within two years, he had risen to become the unit’s CEO. According to the Financial Times, Khan brought an upward of $46 billion in new assets and oversaw an 80% increase in the wealth management division. As Khan rose through the ranks, he became friends with the bank’s CEO, Tidjane Thiam. However, their professional relationship turned sour when Khan was passed over for a promotion to the company’s executive board. Khan then made the decision to leave Credit Suisse, taking a position with UBS, Credit Suisse’s arch-rival in the investment banking space.

Chief Operating Officer, Pierre-Olivier Bouee, Leans into Data and Corruption

A current investigation into the scandal found that the bank’s then chief operating officer, Pierre-Olivier Bouee, instructed the bank’s security chief to monitor Khan for fear that he was trying to poach the bank’s clients and employees. Khan was tracked for a long time before realizing he was being trailed. During a shopping trip, Khan noticed an investigator following him. He confronted the detective and filed a criminal complaint with Zurich’s public prosecutor. An investigation into the Credit Suisse scam revealed that Thiam wasn’t aware of the surveillance. This goes to show how corruption, if unchecked, can run rampant.

Credit Suisse Spying Scandal Casts Dark Shadow

Under the leadership of CEO Tidjane Thiam the bank enjoyed steady growth. However, the spying scandal has cast a dark shadow over the bank’s reputation, resulting in Thiam, Bouee, and the chief security officer stepping down from their positions. The new CEO, Thomas Gottstein, has been tasked with repairing the bank’s reputation and restoring the shareholder’s trust in the bank’s management.

Under Investigation by Finma

The bank is now under investigation from the Swiss regulator, Finma. Although the regulator doesn’t have criminal enforcement powers, it can censure the bank and ban the implicated executives from the industry. This scandal has shaken up the banking industry, further exposing how far corporations can and will go to protect their own interests.

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to promoting transparency in the business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com

9 Laws that Regulate U.S. Companies

To legally start and operate a business in the US, you must make sure you’re compliant with all US business laws. Government regulations on business affect all industries. There are different regulations, ranging from federal, state and local laws that control different business practices. Due to the sheer number of these regulations, it can be challenging to know which ones apply to your business. Here’s a rundown of the most important United States business laws that every business must abide by.

Sales Tax Laws

Sales Tax Laws require businesses to collect tax from their customers and submit them to the state. The business is only liable for sales tax if it has a physical connection to the state. This could be in the form of a brick and mortar shop, warehouse or hiring employees in that state.

Occupational Safety and Health Act

OSHA laws protect employees from hazards that may compromise their health and safety at work. It requires businesses to provide a safe workplace environment free of damaging noise, toxic chemicals, unsanitary conditions and thermal stresses. Most recently, OSHA has been providing key-health lists in the case that businesses head back to work in the pandemic.

Equal Employment Opportunity Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Act makes it illegal for businesses to discriminate against employees based on sex, national origin, race, disability, age, color, or religion. It protects workers from retaliation when they file a discrimination claim or lawsuit.

Fair Labor Standards Act

This small business law regulates minimum wage, recordkeeping, overtime pay and child labor rules. It stipulates that employers should pay covered workers the federal minimum wage and overtime.

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The FMLA is a United States business law that provides eligible employees with 12 weeks of unpaid leave for family and health reasons. This SMB law offers job protection and requires employers to maintain the employee’s health benefits during the leave. It covers employees who have worked for a minimum of 12 months in a company that employs 50 or more people.

Affordable Care Act

Commonly known as Obamacare, this law covers health care costs, coverage and preventive care. Its main objectives are to make health insurance more available and affordable and expand Medicaid to more low-income people.

Antitrust Laws

Antitrust laws exist to ensure businesses uphold business ethics. It prohibits companies from engaging in predatory business activities such as fixing market prices, monopolization, or conspiracy to boycott a supplier or competitor.

Licensing and Permits Laws

Every state and local governments have different small business laws that regulate businesses. Licensing and permits laws lay out the requirements small businesses should meet to operate.

Truth in Advertising and Marketing Law

Enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, truth in advertising laws aim to protect consumers from fraudulent advertising. It stipulates that the ad must not be misleading, but be truthful and backed by scientific evidence when necessary.

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an online platform dedicated to exposing corruption and championing transparency advocacy in the Delaware Court System and the business world. Visit www.coastalnetwork.com for more on business and corruption.

Delaware-Based Law Firm Skadden Arps Continues to Make Negative Headlines

One of the most influential corporate law firms in the nation is also heavily involved in Delaware’s court system affairs. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is a corporate law giant that many Delaware citizens and working class Americans are growing wary of as conflict of interest issues continue to arise. The Chancery Court continues to face scrutiny after years of corruption and scandals that involved associates of Skadden Arps. 

About Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Skadden Arps was founded in New York in 1948. In the decades since, the firm’s Litigation Group has grown to employ approximately 600 attorneys worldwide. The firm’s grip on Delaware in particular has a lengthy history—it was the first national firm to establish a presence in the state almost 40 years ago. This undoubtedly contributes to the strong influence the firm holds over the Delaware Court of Chancery; which has contributed to an abundance of conflicts of interest within the Delaware court system. Delaware Court Chancellor Andre Bouchard and his court-appointed Custodian, Robert Pincus, have graced many headlines in recent years. Both Bouchard and Pincus worked for Skadden Arps, leading many to accuse Bouchard and the Chancery Court of conflict of interest. Chancellor Bouchard has been accused of being biased and bad for business while overstepping constantly at the expense of working class Americans. 

Skadden Arps and WeWork

Another case bringing negative attention to Chancellor Bouchard and the Delaware Court of Chancery is the WeWork suit against SoftBank. In October 2019, SoftBank agreed to buy $3 billion of WeWork shares, then canceled the deal. After the deal fell through, WeWork’s valuation collapsed from $47 billion to about $8 billion. A special committee of WeWork directors sued SoftBank in the Delaware Chancery Court for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. By the time suit was filed, because of the massive amount of shares promised to be purchased by SoftBank initially, half of WeWork’s board was appointed by SoftBank.  SoftBank, represented by Skadden Arps, is arguing that there is a conflict of interest regarding the board members in the committee suing SoftBank. Chancellor Bouchard allowed the appointment of new directors, siding with WeWork’s parent company. Yet again, both the Delaware Chancery Court and Skadden Arps are involved in a bizarre case making headlines. 

Skadden Arps and Diversity Issues 

Racial equity in America has been dominating discussions in recent months, forcing many companies and organizations to take a much-needed look at how they’ve handled diversity and equity in the workplace. Skadden Arps is no exception—the firm has faced scrutiny from many groups in recent months because of its lack of diversity. Civil rights advocate Al Sharpton has criticized Skadden over it’s lack of minority representation in its latest partner class. In a letter to Skadden, Sharpton notes:  “Take a look at judges like Chancery Court Chancellor Andre Bouchard, or even retired Delaware Supreme Court Justice Leo Strine, where did they come from? Skadden Arps. One firm, Skadden Arps, has an especially significant impact on an entire state’s justice system. Therefore, Skadden Arps needs to lead the effort to more completely diversify the ranks of law firm partners and judges in this state.”  Another group that has called out the firm over it’s lack of diversity is Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware. The group has noted that Skadden has just a handful of African American lawyers in a state that’s nearly 30 percent black. This statement came in response to statistics released by Skadden Arps highlighting the diversity, or lack thereof, within their own firm. 

Skadden Arps and TransPerfect

The TransPerfect case with Skadden Arps is riddled with scandal and conflict of interest. Aside from the forced auction of the company by Chancellor Bouchard, he appointed his former Skadden associate, Robert Pincus, as custodian to the case. Since his appointment, Skadden has collected more than $14 million in court fees.  Citizens for a Pro Business Delaware explained:  “Since being appointed custodian of the company, Skadden has never produced an itemized invoice for the services it claims to have performed as the firm, led by Jennifer Voss and Bob Pincus, has already collected over $14 million in court-ordered legal fees from TransPerfect. That needs to change. Our members and TransPerfect’s employees deserve to know where that money has gone.” Chancellor Andre Bouchard is partially responsible for the abundance of legal fees, having issued a nearly $1,500 an hour no-bid contract for the case. 

A Firm With a Negative Rap Sheet

Though Skadden Arps is one of the biggest corporate law firms in the nation, that doesn’t necessarily mean it adopts transparent practices. Current and former associates, such as Bouchard and Pincus, have been in headlines for bias and conflict of interest in cases such as TransPerfect and WeWork. The scandal extends far beyond the Delaware court system: Skadden made international headlines when the firm settled for more than $11 million to avoid a lawsuit by a former Ukrainian prime minister. 

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing insight into Delaware’s court system, business, and beyond through transparency and honesty. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com 

The Court of Chancery’s Inequity in Handling the WeWork Case

The Court of Chancery in Delaware handles corporate cases, as a top incorporation state in the United States. At the Chancery level, the court does not include juries, and the presiding judge has the final verdict in each case. Notably, with this type of system, and no watch dogs in place, there is room for judicial overreach and corruption. While the Delaware Court of Chancery is famous for incorporating 60% of Fortune 500 companies and countless businesses, the court has most recently been in the news for injustice that’s seeped into its handling of multiple cases, including office share space company WeWork.

The Court of Chancery and the WeWork Case

The Court of Chancery continues to make headlines alongside WeWork for the injustice that continues to seep into the case, but how did it start? Two independent directors in WeWork, Lew Frankfort, and Bruce Dunlevie, approached the Chancery Court through their lawyer William B. Chandler 111 due to its history of being a pro-business state. The primary aim of the current lawsuit that has landed in the court is to hold SoftBank accountable for its breach of contract with WeWork. WeWork’s contract with SoftBank required SoftBank to buy WeWork shares up to $3 billion from Chief Executive Officer Adam Neumann and other shareholders. Upon the completion of all the legal requirements of the contract, SoftBank will, in the future, have full control over the current WeWork’s management. However, SoftBank decided to end the contract on April 1, 2020, leading to the two directors filing for a lawsuit.

The Case Ruling by Andre Bouchard

The presiding judge, Chancellor Andre Bouchard, authorized the appointment of two new directors. The appointed directors’ role is to investigate if Lew Frankfort and Bruce Dunlevie have the right to sue SoftBank. The ruling offers the parent company access to the privileged company’s information through their representative Skadden Arps. William B. Chandler III argues that allowing the appointment of new directors is harmful to the case and Chancellor Bouchard is disregarding important laws and opting to side with the parent company. Both directors expect compensation of $250,000 each in two months.

Parallels Between the WeWork and TransPerfect Case

With the current state of press surrounding the case, those who are aware of the court’s history have drawn parallels between the WeWork case and other significant cases in the past where Chancellor Bouchard and the Court made harmful decisions that impacted the company. One company that took the brunt of the Court’s decision was global translation company, TransPerfect. In the TransPerfect case, Elizabeth Elting filed a lawsuit against business partner Phil Shawe. In the lawsuit, Elting makes a demand for the sale of the company. During the lawsuit, the company has an average of $470 million in total revenue. Shawe put forward a reasonable deal wanting to buy Elting’s shares for $300 million. Chancellor Andre Bouchard, the presiding judge on the case, discarded the offer and proceeded to use a strict and rare custodian appointment method to put the company up for auction. Bouchard granted the custodian, former employee of Skadden Arps, Robert Pincus, authority to oversee billings and hire consultants. Pincus did not allow Shawe to view any of the bills. The unjust rule led to the company’s auctioning, requiring Shawe and other bidders to buy out the company. Shawe won the bid and bought the company at a high price of $770 million. Both the WeWork and TransPerfect cases expose the Court of Chancery’s ignorance of the law and execution of unfair rules to Delaware businesses. Additionally, the fact that Andre Bouchard was an employee at Skadden Arps—the firm that gets the upper hand initially in both cases—illustrates favoritism to the firm.

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com

How Does Mail-In Voting Work? What are the Pros and Cons of Mail-In Voting?

In the last few weeks, there has been heated debate over the pros and cons of mail-in voting. Because of the dangers of gathering in groups while COVID-19 continues to spread, mail-in voting has become an appealing option for voters to exercise their right without fear of being exposed to the novel virus. However, many officials have resisted this option out of fears that voter fraud and suppression would increase, leading to further United States corruption and a lack of voter transparency, or worse, a fraudulent election. This article will go over some of the key pros and cons of mail-in voting. 

Pro: Providing Voter Access

Mail-in voting is a prime opportunity for all voters to participate in the process that is their guaranteed right. In America, anyone is allowed to request an absentee ballot without explanation, and mail-in voting would work in much the same way. This option is especially helpful for those who suffer from disabilities and have a hard time getting out of the house. It is also simpler and less time-consuming to mail ballots, making it easier for young people or disadvantaged groups who normally don’t take the time to go in. Anyone, regardless of age, gender, race, or ability, has the opportunity to vote by mail. 

Con: Inefficiency and Issues with Voter Transparency

Mail-in voting is convenient for many voters, but once it gets in the mail, many problems can potentially ensue. Often, ballots arrive late at their destinations, as evidenced earlier this summer in Wisconsin. Sometimes, requests for ballots overwhelm officials, leading to many citizens not receiving a ballot in time to fill it out and send it back. Some ballots are not properly filled out or have mismatched signatures, which makes them ineligible and reduces the total number of votes. Counting is made more difficult by such delays, and most mail-in elections also suffer from some element of voter fraud. 

Pro: Saving Government Funds 

According to research done by Pew Trusts, the state of Colorado cut government voting expenditures by 40% after instituting a process of sending all voters a ballot by mail. Costs were decreased in printing services, paying officials, renting facilities, and, (with the inclusion of drop-off locations), even postage. 

Con: Security Concerns Over United States Corruption 

Many voters fear voter corruption from mail-in ballots because they don’t want their signature and other personal information exposed or lost in the mail.  Drop boxes used for dropping off ballots on or near the day of election are also open to security risks as they are usually unattended, leaving it possible that locks may be tampered with or boxes moved. Officials are encouraged to place boxes near security cameras/videos in well-lit areas. 

Pro: Convenience

Convenience is especially important for young people in the voting cycle, but with mail-in voting it becomes a benefit for all. Instead of seeing varying deadlines across states for the absentee ballots to be turned in, mail-in voting would include a deadline on election day. This would be easy for voters to understand and increase numbers in demographics like young adults who just don’t want to be bothered to go to a polling place. It would also be convenient for older people who are more at risk from COVID-19 and maybe be hesitant to vote in person. 

Con: Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression 

Doing everything by mail can make it easier for voters to vote by several names, and it is time-consuming for officials to check each name and ensure that it belongs to a living, registered state resident. Voter suppression is often enabled as collectors enter homes and pressure people to vote for a particular party. Officials at the polls often run into problems with verifying signatures as well, whether due to fraud or simply aging or injury that changes the signature. In such cases, they must send a notification to the voter and allow them 14 days to send a matching signature, which only further delays the counting of votes. 

Coastal Network

Coastal Network is an online forum dedicated to providing transparency in our Delaware court system and the world beyond by providing a sincere voice against corruption in all its forms.  To find out more about United States Corruption, visit us at www.coastalnetwork.com.   

The United States and Its Current Rating With the CPI

Where there is power, there is often corruption. While many people have simply accepted the low standards for politicians and ethicality in business, there is still hope that transparency can bring about change. As U.S. citizens, we must demand a government and institution that values integrity and denounces corruption in all forms. 

Corruption and the United States

It can be difficult to pinpoint exactly how corruption develops and what allows it to grow. Most countries have at least some history with corruption, and the United States is not an exception. While it can be tempting to avoid responsibility by responding to corruption with “but look how far we’ve come,” as United States citizens, it’s our duty to advocate for higher standards. To help us in doing so, organizations such as Transparency International utilize the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) to rank countries based on corruption. 

Determining a Country’s Corruption Status

Transparency International’s CPI measurement follows criteria to develop rankings:

1. Defining Corruption. First, they make it clear that their definition of corruption is “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” Check out the link to read their detailed analysis of corruption, how it can happen, what it looks like, and why it matters.
2. Criteria. The criteria that they use comes from 13 different data sources, which measure things like bribery, diversion of public funds, status of the persecution of corruption cases, access to information, protection for whistle-blowers and more using the sources’ unique questions and scoring.
3. Data Sources. The public has complete access to each source, how the source was compiled, and what kind of data was collected. Countries must be included in at least 3 of the 13 data sources in order to be individually assessed.
4. Conversion. The data is then standardized using a scale from 1 to 100 (1 being completely corrupt, and 100 being anti-corrupt), which translates data from all over the world into comparable information. Each country included then gets their score from each data source, and the scores are averaged, creating each country’s final score and ranking.

Where the U.S. Stands

Though Transparency International has been collecting data and ranking countries since 1995, some modifications in the process mean that the data collected between 1995 – 2011 cannot be compared against data collected between 2012-present. Still, there are eight years worth of valuable data to look at. So, where does the U.S. stand? In general, the U.S. score has drifted between 60 and 80. In 2015, the U.S. received its highest score ever, a 76—but this score has slid downwards since. The score given for 2019 was the lowest score in U.S. history, a 69. 

How the CPI Encourages Transparency

Transparency International does more than just collect data and create colorful charts. Their website outlines the action steps they take (and encourage others to take) in order to fight for an anti-corrupt world. Additionally, this ranking holds countries accountable for their actions by showcasing corruption to the public. 

1. Research

Founded on the transparent, focused, and unbiased approach of data-collecting, Transparency International uses the CPI as a tool to get countries interested in improving their score. The research gathered leads to investigations on repeated issues found in countries and regions across the globe

2. Advocacy

Transparency International focuses less on tearing down the big, corrupt figures, and instead turns the attention back towards the victims of corruption. Creating networks and chapters in countries all over the world, teams work together to identify governmental and legislative issues, collect evidence, and partner with local leadership to choose the appropriate form of publicly addressing the issues. 

3. Projects

Using their organization as a platform, Transparency International has launched several programs to end corruption. Check out the link provided to search for projects by country or topics like Business Integrity, Judiciary or Law Enforcement, or Political Integrity.

Continuing to Become Less Corrupt

Though the ranking for the U.S. has dipped in the last few years, with a score of 69, it still remains in the top 25 least corrupt nations in the world. In order to keep this status, the American people should prioritize holding politicians, local and federal governments accountable.  Organizations such as Transparency International make it easy to see how countries are doing—so now it lies in our hands to elect officials with integrity and without a shady history. Other organizations, including Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware, work at the local level to advocate for transparency in the court system. As members of a democracy, we the people should continue to band together and fight for a just system. 

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com 

What is the Electoral College? How does the Electoral College Work?

Opinions vary when it comes to the Electoral College’s role in selecting the President of the United States, and for good reason. America’s founders may have had good intentions when they included this step in the election process, but is it still relevant today?  Limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights, are intended to protect against government overreach. This is the logic behind supporters of the Electoral College—they believe it keeps one highly populated section of the country from controlling the presidency. Those opposed believe it’s an outdated process. 

The Electoral College System and U.S. Constitution 

The Electoral College is defined by the National Archives as a process rather than a place: “The Founding Fathers established it when creating the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and deciding the issue via a popular vote of qualified citizens.”   According to History, the shapers of the constitution thought that rural voters lacked the knowledge of the candidates necessary to make a wise selection and feared a “headstrong democratic mob” leading the country astray. The concept of the Electoral College limited potential government overreach that could happen by allowing Congress alone to select a president, while allowing for representation of American citizens.  The concept of the Electoral College controlled the potential government overreach that might be implied by allowing Congress alone to select the president, yet allowed for representation of the entire American population through the popular vote, without allowing the popular vote’s totals to be the sole deciding factor. Instead, each state has an electoral vote.

The 12th Amendment and Where We Stand Today in the Electoral College Process

The 1800 presidential election pointed out problems with the American electoral college system and use of electoral delegates. Since the constitution did not distinguish between President and Vice President in votes cast by electors in the American Electoral College, Thomas Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. Ultimately, this led to the passage of the 12th amendment in 1804, which specified separate votes for President and Vice President. Since then, states have varied in the process of selecting electoral delegates. Today, electoral delegates are chosen through an election process, which is also called the electoral college election. The Electoral College process essentially grants states equal representation in the election. Each party on the ballot in each state selects the number of electors, or electoral delegates, equal to the number of delegates the state has in Congress, and these electors are expected to vote for their designated candidate when the Electoral College meets following the presidential election. On January 6, when the votes are opened in a joint session of Congress, a candidate must receive 270 of the 573 available votes to become President, or Vice President, respectively. The Electoral College outcome overrules that of the popular vote when the two differ.

The American Electoral College: A System of Checks and Balances

Many people want the American Electoral College system to remain a part of the presidential election process, citing the fact that it gives less populated states fair representation. Since each state has a fairly close number of electoral votes, highly populous states don’t possess a disproportionate amount of power. Additionally, proponents believe having an Electoral College system limits US voter corruption.  Those in support of the system believe that it offers necessary checks and balances. In addition to offering fair representation to rural states, the Electoral College system, they say, is fundamental to our Federalist setup, preserves the two party political system and legitimizes the popular vote, possibly preventing problems due to US voter fraud. 

Why People Oppose the American Electoral College System Today

Those advocating the repeal of the American Electoral College system requirement cite the fact that it is no longer necessary. They remind critics that the Constitution has been changed before when procedures were proven obsolete. Mass communication, they say, has eliminated the need for electors to represent the public. Those opposed to the American Electoral College system believe that the Electoral College ignores the will of the majority of voters when its outcome differs from the popular vote, thus overruling it.  Americans have been debating the pros and cons of the Electoral College for years. Many experts believe it maintains a system of checks and balances, while others see it as ignoring the will of too many voters.

Coastal Network

Coastal Network aims to provide an outlook of transparency regarding the modern political and judicial processes. Search our site for information you can count on to make clear, informed decisions concerning current events. If you have any thoughts on the American Electoral College system and its role today, please post below in our comment section.  If you’ve been following the winding trail of the TransPerfect case, you’re probably wondering: where does this path lead us? Certainly no one could’ve expected the case, originally a custody-battle, to turn into a fight for survival for the incredibly successful company. 

A Delaware Chancery Court-Approved Shake-Down

While there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel with recent TransPerfect victories, there is much more work that must be done in order to have true justice in Delaware again. How could Robert Pincus get away with such shady billing practices right under the nose of the Delaware Chancery? The events leading up to the current TransPerfect case reveal a history of choosing money over truth, and the “Old Boys Club” that paved the road. 

The Beginning of Corruption 

Robert Pincus, of Skadden Arps, was appointed custodian of the TransPerfect case in 2015 when the global translation company faced a battle for ownership between the two co-CEOs. Since then, the case has escalated into an expensive and time-consuming controversy that showcases the Delaware Chancery Court’s corruption. In August of 2018, TransPerfect filed a lawsuit against Custodian Pincus in Nevada for the exorbitant amount of money he had billed the company.

Massive and Unexplained Billing

As soon as Pincus was appointed custodian over TransPerfect, the custodian sent massive and unexplained bills to the company. When CEO Phil Shawe noticed the bills and began questioning Pincus, he was brushed aside. Though Pincus seemed to think the amounts he was charging were reasonable, the breakdown of the numbers prove otherwise. 

Billing Amounts

In his role as custodian, Pincus charged a $1,425 an hour personal fee—yet did not provide receipts or a breakdown of the charges. At times, he charged TransPerfect between $60,000 and $140,000 per month, totaling at least $14 million today in undisclosed fees. Even after Pincus’ retirement in 2018, the unexplained bills kept coming. After the company raised red flags, Chancellor Andre Bouchard finally ordered Skadden Arps and Pincus to provide receipts and disclosure, yet the law firm continued to provide redacted and vague information. 

Today: Correcting the Wrongs of the Court

Things seem to be looking up for TransPerfect. As knowledge spread of the mishandling of the case, many groups called for transparency in the Delaware courts. Chancellor Bouchard has ordered Pincus and Skadden Arps to provide unredacted receipts to the company, which is the first victory in the TransPerfect saga. 

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com The Delaware Court of Chancery is known as one of the oldest and most prestigious courts in all the United States. On the surface, their reputation seems impeccable. Which begs the question, “Who watches the watchmen?” Who ultimately provides the Delaware Chancery with oversight?

Establishing Oversight of the Delaware Chancery Court

While Delaware’s governor appoints judges to the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the senate confirms them, the Delaware Chancery works with a high level of autonomy in their day-to-day business. The senate and governor would only intervene in the case of serious criminality.  Fortunately for the state, Citizens for a Pro-business Delaware, in conjunction with the Better Business Bureau, have taken it upon themselves to carry the torch of accountability on behalf of the people of Delaware. More than 1/3 of Delaware’s economy is contingent upon the businesses that the Delaware Chancery serves. Among Delaware Pro-business’ many platform points are three key point of oversight:

• Creating an office of Inspector General to oversee the Chancery
• Implementing a “wheel spin” method of case selection to prevent justices from pursuing their own self-interests
• A formal disclosure process for all conflicts of interest, especially those stemming from previous business partnerships

Delaware Pro-business has made it a mission to enforce accountability, which has become a necessity given the events of the TransPerfect case. 

Conflicts Of Interest in the Chancery Court of Delaware

At the heart of Delaware Pro-business’s push for oversight is the behavior of the Delaware Chancery’s chancellor, Andre Bouchard and his former associate at Skadden Arps, Robert Pincus. The two men had previously worked together at the prestigious law firm, so when Bouchard appointed his former colleague as the court-ordered custodian of the forced sale of TransPerfect, Citizens for a Pro-business Delaware responded with a fair amount of justifiable skepticism. 

Requiring Law Firms and Custodians to Provide Financial Receipts when Billing

It wasn’t just the blatant nepotism involved in the appointment; it was the fact that Robert Pincus engaged in deceptive billing practices while serving as custodian. Pincus billed TransPerfect almost $1,500 an hour for nondescript services. When taken to task regarding the inappropriate charges, Pincus’ associate, Bouchard, had no choice but to back pedal and side against Skadden Arps. The resulting decision was not only a legal fiasco, it also weakened the reputation and prestige of the Delaware Court of Chancery. 

Ensure Chancery Court Chancellors Cannot Select Cases Based on Self-Interest

As a result, Citizens for a Pro-business Delaware has called for more oversight on the Delaware Chancery, including pushing for formal legislation forcing the Chancery to abstain from choosing cases that result in a conflict of interest, or worse yet, outright promote their own self-interests.  There’s a hard road ahead, and Delaware Pro-business is just getting started, but through their efforts, and the involvement of Delaware’s citizens, the Delaware Chancery will get the formal oversight it so desperately needs. 

COASTAL NETWORK

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com 

Philip Shawe, Elizabeth Elting, and the Ongoing Fight Over TransPerfect

TransPerfect, a global translation company, started out as the combined dream of two college sweethearts: Phillip Shawe and Elizabeth Elting. Ever since a feud landed the company in the Delaware Chancery Court in 2014, Chancellor Andre Bouchard and custodian Robert Pincus have meddled in the company’s affairs. Here are some facts and key takeaways from the case.

Heading to the Delaware Chancery Court for Litigation

Phillip Shawe and Elizabeth Elting founded TransPerfect and both served as co-CEOs and the two members of the board of directors. The company had 100 shares of common stock; Etling owned fifty, Shawe owned forty-nine and Shawe’s mother owned one. The former lovers broke off their engagement in 1997, five years after founding TransPerfect, and have endured a tense business partnership since. In 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery became involved in the company’s affairs after Elting petitioned the court to appoint a custodian to sell the company. 

Chancellor Andre Bouchard Chooses Skadden Arps

Following the decision to appoint a custodian, Chancellor Andre Bouchard chose Skadden Arps to handle the appointment. There have been no statements defending or justifying this choice from Andre Bouchard, leaving room for skepticism on his intentions. 

Selection of Robert Pincus as Custodian

Chancellor Andre Bouchard approves former colleague and friend Robert Pincus as custodian to preside over the case. There has yet to be a statement from the Chancellor or Delaware officials about the lack of disclosure involving their relationship.

Custodian Robert Pincus and the Selling of TransPerfect

In an unprecedented example of overreach, misconduct, and conflict of interest, custodian Robert Pincus moved that the company should be sold privately at auction, rather than given directly to either co-CEO. This led to an uproar from the group Citizens for a Pro-Business Delaware and appeals from the case are continuing to this day. Dozens of senior staff at TransPerfect resigned both out of protest and pressure from Pincus. 

Delaware Chancery Court Billing Scandal

That’s when the bills started piling in. In June 2017, amidst the finalization of the sale of TransPerfect, Shawe began appealing to the court for Skadden Arps to release proper billing records and statements. After giving citations of increasingly exorbitant amounts, Pincus rushed to finish the auction. Recently, Chancellor Bouchard has finally ordered Skadden Arps to release the statements to TransPerfect. 

Global Translation Company TransPerfect: Today

Refusing to be beaten, Shawe managed to buy his company back at auction, leaving Elting enraged and seeking to overturn the sale, an effort that failed when Bouchard (and the Supreme Court) approved the purchase in 2018. Still, Shawe sought justice for the corruption he faced in Delaware, moving to Nevada to seek a non-biased court. In October 2019, TransPerfect was found in contempt by the Delaware Court, and was fined $30,000 per day until the Nevada litigation was dropped. As of today, it is still unclear whether the corrupt handling of this case will ever be resolved, though the lawsuits are still ongoing. COASTAL NETWORK The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com OPINION Dear friends, For years now, I have been writing about the TransPerfect case and the unusual situation created by Chancellor Andre Bouchard in his adjudication of this unbelievable legal debacle. The real rub is the amazing and incessant billing operation conducted by the appointed custodian, Robert Pincus from the notorious law firm of Skadden Arps. Millions of dollars without itemization or explanation were billed and paid to Skadden Arps from TransPerfect’s coffers. The money flowing out of TransPerfect’s designated account into the pockets of Skadden Arps and Bob Pincus is definitely incessant, certainly suspicious, and indeed outrageous. All this being said, I have always thought there was collusion between Chancellor Bouchard and Bob Pincus. At one time Pincus and Bouchard were business associates. It seemed to me a clear conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety the way this all came together, the dictatorial management of the company by Bouchard’s court and Pincus as custodian with the “Carte blanche” support from Chancellor Bouchard for Pincus’ operation. Laughably, Pincus was the Diversity Chair for the Delaware Office with no Black partners in history. The audacity, in my view, of Robert Pincus’ blatant overbilling for his questionable services has deserved investigation and notation of who he seems to be. The staff of the Coastal Network has researched Robert Pincus and developed some opinions about him. Please check out these 10 Things to know about Robert Pincus, former Custodian of TransPerfect, who made millions from the appointment. The issue here is as follows: The Delaware Court of Chancery is supposed to be about fairness and equity, not about enriching the Chancellor’s personal friends at the expense of the litigants. As always, your feedback is welcome and appreciated. Respectfully submitted, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network Scroll down for the story: coastalnetwork.com/10-things-to-know-about-custodian-robert-pincus/ 10 Things to Know About Custodian Robert Pincus in Our Opinion : August 5, 2020 By Coastal Network Staff Who is Robert Pincus? A man with a long-yet-lacking career in law, Robert Pincus is at the center of the latest scandal in a string of Delaware corruption. For citizens and valuable voters, our team has compiled important information you need to know, including the connections between Pincus and the powerful political figures of our dear Delaware. 1. School and Education After graduating from Harriton High School in the Greater Philadelphia Area, Robert Pincus began a long journey of education. Pincus received his B.B.A. from the College of William and Mary in 1977 and went on to pursue a Juris Doctor Degree at the American University Washington College of Law. He finished his education by earning a L.L.M in Securities and Financial Regulation at Georgetown University Law Center in 1983. 2. Law Career While attending Georgetown University, Pincus started his professional career with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reviewing corporate disclosure documents. In 1983, he landed a position as corporate associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom. After retiring, Pincus moved on to work as a freelance mediator for corporations, and accepted a position as an adjunct professor at the American University Washington College of Law. 3. Role at Skadden Arps During his time practicing corporate law for Skadden Arps in Wilmington, Delaware, Pincus focused on corporate transactions, mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, dispositions and spin-offs, and corporate governance matters. 4. Retirement from Skadden Arps Pincus retired as a partner of Skadden in 2018 with a total of 35 years of service. It’s unclear exactly why Pincus retired, whether it was his personal choice or possibly due to internal pressure from Skadden. 5. Frivolous Spending Habits Amidst the glaring current issues, Pincus recently purchased a nearly $3 million condo, a clear reflection of his attitude during his time at Skadden Arps. The frivolous spending will come up again later during his time at TransPerfect, where many employees were intimidated and pressured into inappropriate financial decisions. 6. Custodian in TransPerfect case After a dispute between the two owners of TransPerfect, Robert Pincus was given the role of “Custodian”. In other words, he was given custody/control over their company, and has since billed them over $14 million dollars in unspecified, non-regulated fees. Breaking their trust, Pincus chose to force the sale of the business, against both of the owner’s wishes. 7. Friendship with Andre Bouchard Robert Pincus’ relationship with Chancellor Andre Bouchard can’t be ignored while investigating this unfortunate neglect of transparency. The Chancellor appointed his former business associate and has yet to apologize for the faulty casework or admit to his personal involvement. 8. Current Role as Adjunct Associate Professor Robert Pincus began teaching at the Washington College of Law in August 2019. His current course load includes LAW-795DE, a course designed for students to learn the practical skills necessary to be a corporate transactional lawyer. 9. Skadden Approved Billing in TransPerfect case According to the most recent calculations, made incredibly difficult for TransPerfect due to redaction and inability to access the necessary information, Pincus charged TransPerfect $1,425 an hour without bills or receipts, adding up to more than $14 million. 10. TransPerfect Global Inc v. Pincus An ongoing lawsuit between the global company and its former Custodian was taken outside of Delaware, due to the corruption allegations, in order to address the grievous and unlawful decisions (including violation of multiple court orders) that are being protected by some of the most wealthy people and law firms today. Coastal Network The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com

Who is Robert Pincus?

A man with a long-yet-lacking career in law, Robert Pincus is at the center of the latest scandal in a string of Delaware corruption. For citizens and valuable voters, our team has compiled important information you need to know, including the connections between Pincus and the powerful political figures of our dear Delaware.

1. School and Education

After graduating from Harriton High School in the Greater Philadelphia Area, Robert Pincus began a long journey of education. Pincus received his B.B.A. from the College of William and Mary in 1977 and went on to pursue a Juris Doctor Degree at the American University Washington College of Law. He finished his education by earning a L.L.M in Securities and Financial Regulation at Georgetown University Law Center in 1983.

2. Law Career

While attending Georgetown University, Pincus started his professional career with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reviewing corporate disclosure documents. In 1983, he landed a position as corporate associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom. After retiring, Pincus moved on to work as a freelance mediator for corporations, and accepted a position as an adjunct professor at the American University Washington College of Law.

3. Role at Skadden Arps

During his time practicing corporate law for Skadden Arps in Wilmington, Delaware, Pincus focused on corporate transactions, mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, dispositions and spin-offs, and corporate governance matters.

4. Retirement from Skadden Arps

Pincus retired as a partner of Skadden in 2018 with a total of 35 years of service. It’s unclear exactly why Pincus retired, whether it was his personal choice or possibly due to internal pressure from Skadden.

5. Frivolous Spending Habits

Amidst the glaring current issues, Pincus recently purchased a nearly $3 million condo, a clear reflection of his attitude during his time at Skadden Arps. The frivolous spending will come up again later during his time at TransPerfect, where many employees were intimidated and pressured into inappropriate financial decisions.

6. Custodian in TransPerfect case

After a dispute between the two owners of TransPerfect, Robert Pincus was given the role of “Custodian”. In other words, he was given custody/control over their company, and has since billed them over $14 million dollars in unspecified, non-regulated fees. Breaking their trust, Pincus chose to force the sale of the business, against both of the owner’s wishes.

7. Friendship with Andre Bouchard

Robert Pincus’ relationship with Chancellor Andre Bouchard can’t be ignored while investigating this unfortunate neglect of transparency. The Chancellor appointed his former business associate and has yet to apologize for the faulty casework or admit to his personal involvement.

8. Current Role as Adjunct Associate Professor 

Robert Pincus began teaching at the Washington College of Law in August 2019. His current course load includes LAW-795DE, a course designed for students to learn the practical skills necessary to be a corporate transactional lawyer.

9. Skadden Approved Billing in TransPerfect case

According to the most recent calculations, made incredibly difficult for TransPerfect due to redaction and inability to access the necessary information, Pincus charged TransPerfect $1,425 an hour without bills or receipts, adding up to more than $14 million. 

10. TransPerfect Global Inc v. Pincus

An ongoing lawsuit between the global company and its former Custodian was taken outside of Delaware, due to the corruption allegations, in order to address the grievous and unlawful decisions (including violation of multiple court orders) that are being protected by some of the most wealthy people and law firms today.

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com  

A Brief History of the Delaware Chancery

The Delaware Chancery Court is one of the oldest legal institutions in the United States. Its history can be traced back to the Revolutionary war. The Delaware Court of Chancery bills itself as one of the most prestigious courts in the modern world, but even a court with such a long and distinguished history is not immune to corruption and nepotism.

What is the Delaware Court of Chancery?

A chancery court differs in concept from a criminal court, circuit court, or court of appeals. The Delaware Chancery deals in cases of equity. The equity issues that result in Delaware Chancery Court decisions rely solely on a judge’s jurisprudence in applying fairness and common sense rather than legality, rules, and strictures in order to resolve disputes. Chancery courts, like the system found in Delaware, deal with civil cases rather than criminal cases. Delaware Chancery Court decisions revolve around contract disputes and business law. Other types of cases that you might see in a chancery court include:

• Injunction applications
• Enforcement of wills and trusts
• Corporate watchdog cases
• Guardianship cases involving property OR minors
• Other business-based disputes

The Delaware Chancery Court mainly deals with business law due to the sheer number of businesses that are incorporated in Delaware.

History of the Chancery

The Delaware Chancery’s long and storied history stretches all the way back to 1792. Delaware’s Chancery Court is a product of historical English law coupled with concepts derived directly from the first Constitutional Convention. Among the most notable figures in the court’s 230-year history include:

• William Killen, the first chancellor whose distinguished legal experience was a major factor in the Chancery’s formation
• Nicholas Ridgely the second chancellor and father of Delaware equity
• Josiah Wolcott, subject of the “Dirty Deal” scandal of 1916
• Collins J. Seitz who oversaw the case that laid the groundwork for “Brown vs. The Board of Education”
• Andre Bouchard, the current Delaware chancellor who was responsible for the mishandling of the TransPerfect case

History of the Chancery’s Membership

The Delaware Chancery derives much of its power and prestige from its public image as one of the fairest, most experienced legal institutions in America, with profound expertise in business law. Just below the public facade, however, the Chancery has a deep history of being an “old boys club.” There has always been an air of nepotism and political manipulation when naming each successive chancellor, but scandal came to the forefront in 1916 when Josia Wolcott was named chancellor in what came to be known as the “Dirty Deal.” At the time, it was alleged that Wolcott was promoted to the position by a Republican governor despite Wolcott’s Democratic status in order to maneuver one of the governor’s allies into congress. The scandal passed quickly, but the court’s reputation has been stained with favoritism since.

Andre Bouchard: Current Delaware Chancellor

Andre Bouchard was named chancellor in 2014. One of his most controversial Delaware Chancery Court decisions involved TransPerfect, a case in which the chancellor eschewed the court’s historically business-friendly modus operandi, instead using his new platform to attack the company while making political contacts. Since his tenure began, Bouchard has done everything in his power to reinforce the public perception that the Delaware Chancery Court is merely an old boys club. 

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com  

Who is Chancellor Andre Bouchard?

Andre Bouchard is a public figure and career politician from the elite of Delaware. After working as an attorney for many years, Bouchard joined the Court of Chancery and has been at the heart of a few Delaware business scandals. He is now Chancellor Andre Bouchard of the Delaware Chancery Court.

1. Chancellor Bouchard’s School and Education 

Chancellor Andre Bouchard, raised primarily in Delaware, dedicated himself to education early on. Bouchard first attended Salesianum High School, an all boys private Catholic school located in Wilmington, Delaware. Following his upbringing at Salesianum Catholic School, graduating in 1979, Andre Bouchard attended Boston College for his Bachelor’s degree and later attended Harvard Law School with his juris doctorate.

• Salesianum Catholic High School, 1979
• B.A., Boston College, 1983
• J.D., Harvard Law School, 1986

2. Andre Bouchard’s Career Summary

With a history of privilege among the Delaware elite, Andre Bouchard has a lengthy list of cushy jobs from working as a corporate litigator at Skadden Arps to starting his own law firm Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander. Now, Andre Bouchard sits as the Chancellor Bouchard at the Delaware Court of Chancery.

• Corporate litigator, Delaware office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (1986-1996)
• 28 years, private practice, Wilmington, Delaware
• Managing partner, Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander P.A. (founded by Bouchard in 1996)
• Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery on May 5, 2014.

3. Chancellor Bouchard’s Additional involvements beyond the Court

With privilege comes connections, and Andre Bouchard has a network of very powerful friends. Because of this, Chancellor Bouchard has also had many opportunities to work in various government positions.

• Past chairman, Delaware Human Relations Commission
• Past vice chair, Delaware Health Information Network
• Vice chair, St. Francis Hospital Board of Trustees
• Member, Governor’s Council on Equal Employment Opportunity
• Member, Sentencing Accountability Commission
• Member, Criminal Justice Council

4. Notable Cases from Bouchard’s Chancery Role

There are multiple cases worth noting, both from Andre Bouchard’s time as an attorney and as the Chancellor for the Delaware Chancery, however, the following cases from the CBS Merger to custody battle over TransPerfect and Meso Scale Diagnostics, showcase a similar theme for Bouchard.

• CBS Merger: A highly controversial case concerning the federal government’s power over independent organizations
• TransPerfect: Though having various personal connections and investments in the outcome of this trial, Chancellor Bouchard chose not to disclose these relationships, and instead presided over the case
• Meso Scale Diagnostics: Meso Scale Diagnostics, a bio company, was never given the chance to request an unbiased judge

A theme runs through all of these cases: unprecedented intervening and oversight from government to business/organizations. For more information, visit Delaware State CourtConnect and Courtroom View Network (CVN).

5. Andre Bouchard’s Firm Represents State in a Federal Lawsuit

As previously noted, Bouchard founded and worked for Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander, a law firm that was once used (before Bouchard became Chancellor) to defend the Delaware Chancery Court in 2011. This case was important, as the Delaware Coalition for Open Government was attempting to prevent the courts’ ability to use confidential arbitration, which would significantly invade the rights of businesses and individuals. The Coalition prevailed, and Bouchard lost the case.

6. Chancery Case: Meso Scale Diagnostics V. Roche Diagnostics

In the midst of the Delaware Coalition for Open Government litigation, Meso Scale Diagnostics was in the middle of a Chancery Court suit against Roche Diagnostics, a case where Bouchard had more bias than Meso Scale knew, including the following:

• Bouchard was Roche’s counsel before he was confirmed as the new chancellor
• Roche won the case according to the Vice Chancellor’s ruling
• Meso claims there was a potential for bias

Andre Bouchard never admitted any relationship, yet information was covered up until recently. Meso Scale was not given the chance to request an unbiased judge and therefore claims it was an unfair trial.

7. A Voice for the People? Conflict of Interest in the Chancery Court

Though Chancellor Bouchard claims that he desires more than anything to protect the vulnerable, his case history would suggest otherwise. He consistently rules in favor of those in power, while leaving Delaware citizens without unbiased representation. The TransPerfect case, the Koch case and the Meso Scale Diagnostics case demonstrate the conflicts of interest that have been present in the Delaware Chancery Court for years since Bouchard has taken over.

8. Andre Bouchard and Skadden Arps

Before his career as Chancellor and running his own practice, Andre Bouchard worked as an attorney for Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP for 10 years. It is important to note Bouchard’s close relationship with the firm, as it has monopolized businesses in Delaware for decades. Bouchard not only worked as an attorney there, but also kept in close contact with many of his previous coworkers and employers, including Robert Pincus—who he brought on as the custodian in the TransPerfect case.

9. Andre Bouchard and Robert Pincus 

Both of these men are seemingly part of the Delaware “Old Boys Club” and worked for Skadden Arps at the same time; Bouchard as an attorney and Pincus primarily as an arbitrator. Yet, the close relationship didn’t seem to be a ‘conflict of interest’ in Chancellor Bouchard’s eyes when he brought Robert Pincus on to be the custodian for the TransPerfect case.

10. Chancellor Bouchard’s role in the TransPerfect case 

In the TransPerfect case, Andre Bouchard seemed to utilize his personal connections when making decisions. He appointed his friend and previous coworker, Robert Pincus, as custodian of the case. This led to mishandling of the case—for years, Bouchard did not require Pincus to hand over receipts for millions of dollars in bills directed at the company.

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.comDelaware has a long history of housing corporations from all over the world. The state’s incorporation process, coupled with some distinct business advantages, makes it a haven for corporate entities. Citizens for a Pro Business Delaware seeks to inform the public of both the benefits of incorporating a business in Delaware, and its potential for corruption.

The Nationwide Incorporation Process

Incorporating a business means making it into a legal entity almost as if the business were a person. Incorporating your business provides a number of important advantages and protections including:

• Protection from liability for debts
• Continuity after the owner dies
• Ability to raise capital through the sale of securities
• Ease of transfer
• Establishes conditions for a company to become public

While every state has a different incorporation process, there are a few universal steps nationwide. Those steps include:

1. Choosing a business name
2. Naming an agent to act on your company’s behalf
3. Preparing your state’s articles of incorporation
4. Establishing bylaws
5. Continued compliance with state incorporation laws

Incorporating a Business in Delaware

Under United States’ business laws, you’re allowed to incorporate in whatever state you would like with one caveat: you must register your company in any additional state you wish to do business in. Delaware is considered the most popular state to incorporate your business in. The process is slightly different, however. Here are the steps to incorporate a Delaware business:

1. Choose your business type
2. Name a registered agent (must be located in the state)
3. Fill out certificate of incorporation
4. Obtain certificate in good standing (some financial institutions only)
5. Pay annual franchise tax

Why Do Businesses Choose Delaware?

The process for incorporation in Delaware is arguably easier.  The question becomes, “Why incorporate a Delaware business?” There are a few distinct advantages to having your company be a Delaware business. The primary advantage rests with the state’s tax laws. Those laws often favor corporations. If your business is incorporated but not physically located in Delaware, you don’t have to pay state income tax. Additionally, Delaware businesses offer a greater level of privacy as they don’t require you to disclose as much information about your business, such as the board of directors. Business law is a thriving industry in Delaware, which receives much of its state income from the incorporation process.

Potential for Corruption: Delaware Chancery Court

Another reason that companies decide to incorporate in Delaware is because of the Delaware Chancery Court. What might be considered an incredible advantage to some is actually a gateway to corruption. Delaware’s Chancery goes back centuries. Established in 1792, the Chancery Court is considered by some to be the most prestigious business court system in America. It is reliant on its system of judges, rather than juries, to oversee Delaware’s economic concerns. Because the incorporation process in Delaware requires such little information on the part of the incorporating company, and because of the legal, privacy, and tax protections placed on Delaware businesses, the Delaware Chancery Court is subject to a higher degree of potential corruption regarding business decisions.

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.comIn 2019, Chancellor Andre Bouchard of the Delaware Chancery Court said he was “sympathetic to some of the concerns [TransPerfect] has raised,” subsequently ordering Custodian Robert Pincus and Skadden Arps to provide itemized billing details in support of the many non-itemized fees charged back to Phil Shawe and TransPerfect. At the time of the ruling, TransPerfect CEO Phil Shawe said the ruling was “a major win for transparency and openness in the Delaware courts.” However, amidst court closures due to Coronavirus, Skadden Arps decided to hide more of its documentation, believing it would go unnoticed or that the Delaware Chancery Court would yield to its traditional practices. Finally, in a motion that upset Chancellor Bouchard, Skadden Arps submitted what it thought was an appropriately redacted motion that hid most everything. On June 8, after TransPerfect requested Skadden Arps to clarify its redacted petition, Chancellor Andre Bouchard ordered for Skadden Arps to provide an unredacted record for TransPerfect. In what seems will finally provide just results, the Delaware Chancery Court told Skadden Arps in is not the sole arbitrator of what is secret and what is open. TransPerfect, Skadden Arps and the Delaware Chancery, including Chancellor Andre Bouchard, have continued to go head to head for a fair outcome in what has now become a five year legal battle. A legal battle that started when TransPerfect co-founders Phil Shawe and Liz Elting went to court for custody over the translation company, which is now the world’s largest. Original story in Medium.      There’s no question that combating COVID-19 is an extremely difficult task from all angles. The Virus is an invisible threat with no clear guidelines on how to be dealt with; but that does not mean we have to make a complicated situation more difficult. Based on the government’s response, testing demand, and projected timelines, we must put more focus on allowing the private sector to get involved, and most importantly the smaller local labs that can meet the local demand. It is becoming clear that US governments are incapable of efficiently administering testing at the scale needed, as well as maintaining a safe environment for all citizens, which is in large part due to reliance on outdated testing strategies and a non-integrated systems that do not address the needs of the country as a whole, or individual communities. There is a huge opportunity to fill this void with state-of-the-art testing products, strategies and equipment, combined with a local approach that understands the communities being engaged, to deliver tailored testing solutions to allow policy makers and employers to re-open with confidence. By taking the federal government out of the equation and leaving testing up to the private sector, we can perform a much more efficient job by removing politics and sticking to what really matters; science and business. America is founded on capitalism, so why not revert to what we do best? Adapt and overcome obstacles through innovation, not from the elected officials, but from industry professionals who have dedicated their careers to studying disease testing and control. As CEO of Todos Medical, I’ve been able to work with a team that is focused on the distribution of a comprehensive suite of solutions for the screening and diagnosis of COVID-19 and the development of blood tests for the early detection of cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. What I’ve learned is that there are a handful of companies with highly collaborative, like minded professionals who are working around the clock to transition from disciplines like cancer testing to find optimal solutions for COVID-19. What I’d like to see is more encouragement from the government to leave testing deployment to multidisciplinary collaborative companies who are working together to make big gains in scaling the testing process to match the demand we have here in the United States. Governments should stay focused on what they are best at: paying for solutions that work. Private industry should stay focused on developing innovative solutions that reduce costs and improve outcomes. There is no question that unlike the cost of most diseases, COVID-19’s costs must account for overall economic costs, so that the solutions developed can address the outcomes required to open the economy again. The private sector can do this if government provides the needed infrastructure funding needed to increase lab capacity, and cuts the red tape stopping common sense solutions from being implement. As pool testing becomes the testing method of choice over the summer for the needed asymptomatic (COVID+ & COVID-), we must integrate this into our strategy. We must now marry the information we have learned over the last 6-8 months about COVID-19 with concrete actionable plans that address the bottlenecks required to make people feel safe. There will be risks with every plan, however a plan that systematically reduces risks in a stepwise fashion and isolates those risks so the Virus can be contained is what must emerge. Together with our partners at Meridian Health and Moto Para, we are able to bring such plans to the marketplace expeditiously. Gerald Commissiong is CEO of Todos Medical. He is currently a director, President & CEO of Amarantus Bioscience Holdings, Inc. and is interim-CEO of Breakthrough Diagnostics, Inc., Todos’ joint venture with Amarantus. This story was originally published in Black Star NewsCorruption occurs when a person in a position of power attempts to give themselves an advantage by leveraging their position. A conflict of interest occurs when a person stands to personally benefit from their public role. Both corruption and conflicts of interest have a deep impact on public welfare. Corruption on the part of large corporations, politicians and other public officials constitutes a deep breach of the public’s trust. Here are the 10 largest cases of corruption in the United States.  

1. Boeing 737 Max and the FAA

Between 2018 and 2019 there was a string of horrific airplane crashes involving the Boeing 737 Max. The culprit was a maneuvering system which could potentially send the plane into a nosedive. The FAA was scrutinized by Congress for poor oversight practices, including relying on Boeing company employees to carry out safety oversight tasks meant for the FAA.

2. The 2008 Financial Crisis

Market conditions leading up to the 2008 financial crisis set the stage for the most impactful recession since the Great Depression. Over-reliance on subprime lending, coupled with aggressive lobbying on the part of financial giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aimed at manipulating federal rules set off a chain reaction that many investors are still recovering from.  

3. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica

Facebook collects a virtual treasure trove of its users’ data. In 2018, Facebook sold that data to consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, who in turn sold it to Donald Trump’s political campaign in one of the largest United States corruption cases ever.  

4. Equifax Breach

When Equifax failed to update the security on a third party software, hackers stole 143 million social security, credit card numbers and other personal identifying data. To make matters worse, Equifax did not disclose the breach to consumers until more than two months later.

5. Volkswagen Emissions Scandal

Back in 2015, auto manufacturer Volkswagen landed itself in hot water. In order to make its line of diesel cars look more environmentally friendly, the automaker installed something called a “defeat device” that registered false readings when the engine was tested. The manufacturer became embroiled in a United States corruption case as a result.  

6. Brooklyn Justice Sylvia G. Ash

In 2018, Sylvia G. Ash was charged with federal obstruction of justice. Justice Ash, a board member of Municipal Credit Union, was accused of assisting the company’s CEO in covering up his own case of corruption by helping him falsify documents.  

7. State Farm and Dark Money

Beginning in 2001, State Farm Insurance company used its assets in an attempt to influence Illinois State elections. Had the case not been settled out of court, it might have been one of the biggest United States corruption cases in modern history.  

8. West Virginia’s Impeachment of Justices

In 2018, all five supreme court justices from West Virginia’s court of appeals were removed from office for a laundry list of corruption charges all stemming from lavish spending habits, paid for by the taxpayers’ dime.

9. The Clintons and Conflict of Interest

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign put the Clinton foundation at odds with her potential presidency. Watchdog groups all over the beltway sounded the alarm over numerous conflicts of interest had she won the presidency.  

10. Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell

Although the Supreme Court eventually acquitted former Gov. Robert McDonnell of bribery and corruption charges, this particular case set a landmark precedent for cases of corruption in the United States. McDonnell was initially charged after taking over $175,000 dollars in gifts and services from a campaign donor.  

Bonus Scandal: Skadden Arps & The Delaware Chancery Court

It’s no surprise that when it comes to the Delaware Chancery Court corruption is apparent. Perhaps one of the most corrupt courts in our country, the Delaware Chancery Court’s Chancellor Andre Bouchard continues to run the court as an old boys club. Including his cozy relationship with Custodian Robert Pincus and Delaware law firm Skadden Arps, Chancellor Bouchard allowed for both Pincus and Skadden Arps to privately bill without receipt in the Transperfect case, causing a corrupt judicial overreach in Delaware.  

Coastal Network

The Coastal Network is an outlet committed to providing a voice against corruption and advocating for transparency in the Delaware court system, business world and beyond. For more on corruption in the United States, including the Delaware Court system, visit www.coastalnetwork.com