+
More
As I’m seeing fines and other crazy headlines roll in against law firm Skadden Arps, I can’t help but reflect on some of the injustices that happened in the TransPerfect Global case. The injustice jumps right out at me when I think about it in light of these new Skadden Arps developments. Let me tell you the latest and let’s see if it jumps out at you too! Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Andre Bouchard, a former lawyer from Skadden Arps, an international law firm accused of criminal activity, AND recently fined $4.6 million, ruled subjectively and totally against TransPerfect CEO Philip Shawe in favor of his buddy Kevin Shannon, who represented the plaintiff, Elizabeth Elting, Shawe’s former partner. During the trial, and without evidence, Bouchard wrongly fined Shawe $7.1 million and awarded $1.4 million in legal fees, which were un-substantiated, to his good friend Kevin Shannon who I believe he potentially colluded with during the decision making period of the trial while in a forum together in New Orleans. Bouchard also appointed his former partner Robert Pincus (another Skadden Arps attorney) as the Custodian of TransPerfect, who then, in my view, ripped off the company to the tune of over $25 million — an unprecedented amount of money, again without substantiation or itemized consideration — all approved by Chancellor Bouchard. Then of course we have the appeal upheld by Delaware Chief Supreme Court Justice, Leo Strine, despite the fact the whole deal was an illegal “TAKING” under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! Guess what? Leo Strine is another former Skadden Arps attorney! Chancellor Bouchard refuses to release the billings to the Public because, in my opinion, he is afraid of what might be established and perceived. As another aside, Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager, could probably get 19 years in prison for unrelated, process crimes created by the fact that a false document was filed, yet Skadden Arps only receives a $4.6 million dollar fine and a slap on the wrist to boot, for what I consider an outrageous illegal activity! There’s a HUGE INEQUITY here, folks! Skadden Arps could be corrupt in my opinion, and as I see it, possibly all of these Delaware attorneys (former Skadden Arps guys) could be corrupt as well. Could there be huge kickbacks to all concerned here?? It is all far too cute and convenient, and yes incestuous, for my comfort. Folks if there was ever the appearance of an impropriety, this is definitely one! And it needs to be investigated! I call for the FBI and the Department of Justice to start an immediate investigation, as federal crimes could have been purloined here? It looks to me as if the State of Delaware is protecting its own, so the feds need to get involved! How is it that Manafort goes to jail, while Skadden Arps escapes with a fine that is a drop in the bucket of their billions in revenue?! All while Bouchard, Pincus, and Strine — along with Kevin Shannon — could possibly be laughing all the way to an offshore-island bank ? WHERE IS JUSTICE, WHERE IS EQUITY? In my view there is no justice anymore in the State of Delaware! Shame! TIME FOR THE FEDS TO GET INVOLVED?! Please look over excerpts from the articles below to glean this nefarious information and background.  
   

New York Times — January 17, 2019

“WASHINGTON — A global New York-based law firm has agreed to pay $4.6 million to settle a Justice Department investigation into whether its work for a Russia-aligned Ukrainian government violated lobbying laws.

The investigation stems from work that the firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, did with Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman. The case overlaps with the investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

As part of the settlement, the law firm agreed to register retroactively as a foreign agent for Ukraine in addition to paying the government $4.6 million, representing the money it earned from its work in Ukraine.

The settlement between the firm and the Justice Department, which was made public on Thursday, is the latest indication that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry and related investigations are fundamentally challenging the lucrative but shadowy foreign-lobbying industry that has thrived in Washington.

 
 

AXIOS — February 15,2019

 

Prosecutors for special counsel Robert Mueller said in a new court filing that President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort should serve between 19.5 and 24.5 years in prison for the financial crimes for which he was convicted in a Virginia court last August.

“In the end, Manafort acted for more than a decade as if he were above the law, and deprived the federal government and various financial institutions of millions of dollars. The sentence here should reflect the seriousness of these crimes, and serve to both deter Manafort and others from engaging in such conduct.”

Why it matters: This would essentially be a life sentence for the 69-year-old Manafort. He is also facing a separate case in D.C., where a judge recently ruled that he had violated his plea agreement with Mueller and could therefore lose out on any potential leniency he might be offered.

 
 

NEW YORK TIMES — February 2, 2018

“Mr. Mueller’s inquiry threatens the delicate balance that Skadden has struck between lucrative sources of revenue. The firm has made huge profits from corporate work for image-conscious United States companies, while also representing riskier international clients, such as Russian oligarchs and companies with close ties to President Vladimir V. Putin and former Soviet states.

Skadden’s work advising controversial foreign clients was probably prompted by the same aggressive risk-taking that fueled the firm’s rise from scrappy upstart to top-grossing legal giant with a range of practice areas, said Lincoln Caplan, a research scholar at Yale Law School and the author of “Skadden: Power, Money, and the Rise of a Legal Empire.”

“The mentality is that Skadden wouldn’t be afraid of doing something like this, if there was a chance to utilize their skills and status to take advantage of what sounds like a very lucrative business, and they saw no legal or ethical proscription against their taking on the matter,” he said.

Skadden’s work is part of a trend in recent years of lobbyists and lawyers earning increasingly larger paydays by marketing their connections in Washington to foreign politicians, countries and companies willing to pay hefty fees to burnish their reputations in the United States and on the international stage

Question: What do all of these have in common?

    Answer:  Law firm- Skadden Arps.    As Bouchard’s handling of the TransPerfect case melts the main driver of Delaware’s economy (incorporating businesses), it also appears the ice may be melting beneath the feet of legal giant, Skadden Arps.   As I have been calling for an investigation into Bouchard, Bob Pincus and Skadden’s outrageous billing of TransPerfect, The New York Times reported this past Thursday that Skadden Arps is under investigation for potentially corrupt payments from the Ukraine.  I hope the investigation spreads to the Wilmington office of Skadden—God knows what they might uncover?  I always wondered where Bouchard learned his tradecraft? Bouchard’s alma mater and Pincus’ current employer were just featured in the New York Times.  Apparently, some of Skadden’s fees were shady enough to catch the eye of the Justice Department.  And, in my opinion, nothing could be shadier than the Custodian’s TransPerfect bills, which are now rumored at the company to exceed $500,000 per month?!   Here is an actual picture from a Spanish Newspaper of Bob Pincus drowning in money !  
Robert Pincus

Robert Pincus, lawyer partner of the firm Skadden and judicial administrator of Transperfect / FOTOMONTAJE CG

    Robert Pincus,   Below is the story as it ran in The New York Times.  I’m sure it’s all just an innocent coincidence—or is it?   Your comments are welcome as always, JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network
Skadden, Big New York Law Firm, Faces Questions on Work With Manafort By KENNETH P. VOGEL and ANDREW E. KRAMER SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 The New York Times  WASHINGTON – Five years ago, Paul Manafort arranged for a prominent New York-based law firm to draft a report that was used by allies of his client, Viktor Yanukovych, the Russia-aligned president of Ukraine, to justify the jailing of a political rival. And now the report is coming back to haunt it. The Justice Department, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation, recently asked the firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, for information and documents related to its work on behalf of Mr. Yanukovych’s government, which crumbled after he fled to Russia under pressure. The request comes at a time when Mr. Manafort, his work for Mr. Yanukovych’s party and for Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs as well as the handling of payments for that work have become focal points in the investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and connections between Russia, Mr. Trump and his associates. It’s unclear if the Justice Department’s request to Skadden, as the firm is known, is part of Mr. Mueller’s inquiry. But the interest from prosecutors in what Skadden did for the Ukrainian government is one indication of the wide-ranging nature of the inquiries related to Mr. Manafort. It also highlights the risks associated with advising authoritarian governments overseas, a lucrative sideline among Washington lawyers, lobbyists and public relations consultants. Mr. Manafort played a central role in the effort to shield Mr. Yanukovych from international condemnation, according to consultants involved in the effort. He devised the strategy and recruited lobbyists, lawyers and public relations consultants from across the political spectrum, but left the day-to-day implementation of the campaign to others. Skadden’s report was one element of that strategy. Its conclusions provided a counterpoint to international critics who said that Mr. Yanukovych’s government had prosecuted and convicted the former Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia V. Tymoshenko, on corruption charges in 2011 for political reasons and without sufficient evidence. That kind of international consulting by American firms traditionally has not drawn much scrutiny from regulators or the media, but that has changed in the last year, thanks largely to Mr. Manafort’s role as Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman in 2016 after years collecting multi-million-dollar paydays  from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs and political parties. As part of Mr. Mueller’s investigation, prosecutors last month issued grand jury subpoenas seeking testimony from officials from at least two lobbying and public relations firms that worked on the team Mr. Manafort assembled to plead Mr. Yanukovych’s case in Washington – Mercury Public Affairs and the Podesta Group, according to two people with direct knowledge of the subpoenas. The firms were paid more than $1.1 million each to try to rally support among American policy makers and opinion leaders for Mr. Yanukovych, and the firms’ lobbyists cited the findings in Skadden’s report to quell mounting concerns about his leadership. The subpoenas for Mercury and Podesta – which followed an earlier round of subpoenas to the firms for documents and information related to their Ukraine work – focused on “Manafort’s money – where it came from, how he got it, what he did with it,” according to a person familiar with the inquiries. Officials at Mercury and the Podesta Group did not respond to requests for comment. Through a spokesman, Mr. Manafort declined to comment. Federal agents raided his Virginia home in July, confiscating documents and copying some of his computer files. Shortly afterward, prosecutors working for Mr. Mueller told Mr. Manafort they planned to indict him. The Justice Department’s request for information about Skadden’s Ukrainian work came after Ukrainian prosecutors asked their American counterparts for assistance in pursuing an inquiry into alleged illegal spending by Mr. Yanukovych’s government. That inquiry included payments to Skadden, though the Ukrainians have not accused the firm of any crime. The Ukrainians nonetheless requested that the Justice Department question Mr. Manafort and Skadden’s lead lawyer on the case, Gregory B. Craig, who had served as President Barack Obama’s White House counsel. Mr. Manafort’s team hoped that the involvement of Mr. Craig, who maintained deep connections to Washington’s Democratic establishment, might win Mr. Yanukovych a more favorable reception with the Obama State department, according to the consultants who worked on the issue. Yet they said that even employees of Mercury and Podesta regarded the report as a “whitewash” that did little to address valid concerns about Mr. Yanukovych’s government. The report was concluded in September 2012 – just before one of Mr. Manafort’s daughters started work as an associate at Skadden – and released in December 2012. The day after its release, Victoria Nuland, a State Department official at the time, called it “incomplete,” at a department press briefing, saying that it “doesn’t give an accurate picture.” She said the State Department was concerned that “Skadden Arps lawyers were obviously not going to find political motivation if they weren’t looking for it.” In a recent interview, John E. Herbst, a former United States ambassador to Ukraine, went further. He said that Skadden “should have been ashamed” of the report, calling it “a nasty piece of work.” Mr. Craig declined to comment. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or F.A.R.A., anyone engaged in lobbying or public relations for foreign governments must register with the Justice Department. But in a statement this month, Skadden contended that “none of our attorneys engaged in any activity that required them or the firm to register under F.A.R.A.” The firm also asserted that its report “did not opine about whether the prosecution was politically motivated or driven by an improper political objective” – an assertion that narrowly avoids directly contradicting the report’s conclusion that “Tymoshenko has not provided clear and specific evidence of political motivation that would be sufficient to overturn her conviction under American standards.” Rather, the firm’s statement said that Ms. Tymoshenko “was denied basic rights under Western legal standards,” was “improperly incarcerated during the trial” and that “in the West, she would receive a new trial.” In June, Skadden refunded $567,000 to the Ukrainian government – about half of the total it was said to have been paid by Mr. Yanukovych’s government. The firm suggested in a statement that it returned the cash because the money had been placed “in escrow for future work” that never took place. Less than a year and a half after the release of the Skadden report, Mr. Yanukovych fled the country amid street protests over his government’s corruption and its pivot toward Moscow. Under the government that succeeded Mr. Yanukovych, the country’s general prosecutors office – Ukraine’s version of the Justice Department – opened criminal corruption investigations into Mr. Yanukovych and members of his government, including his justice minister, Oleksandr Lavrynovych. Court documents in the case against Mr. Lavrynovych alleged that Mr. Manafort “designed a strategy” to enlist Skadden to “confirm the legality of the criminal prosecution of Yulia Tymoshenko and … reject any political motives of such prosecution.” Mr. Lavrynovych’s lawyer, Yevgeny V. Solodko, rejected the charges against his client, characterizing the case as a politically motivated crackdown on officials from the former government. The general prosecutor’s office, under a mutual legal aid agreement with the United States, began asking the Justice Department and the F.B.I. for assistance with the investigation into Mr. Lavrynovych starting in late 2014. But neither the Justice Department nor the F.B.I. had responded to the requests as recently as March, when the F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, was asked during a congressional hearing why the Ukrainian requests for assistance had gone unheeded. More recently, Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, acknowledged in written responses to The New York Times that his office had begun working with the Justice Department to investigate the payments from the Ukrainian Justice Ministry to Skadden. Asked whether Ukrainian prosecutors are assisting in Mr. Mueller’s investigation, Mr. Lutsenko’s office was coy. In a statement, it said that it had not publicly disclosed any such cooperation, but it also noted that not all international judicial cooperation can be disclosed. Representatives for Mr. Mueller’s team and the Justice Department declined to comment. Kenneth P. Vogel reported from Washington and Andrew E. Kramer from Moscow. Charlie Savage contributed reporting, and Kitty Bennett contributed research. Kenneth P. Vogel reported from Washington and Andrew E. Kramer from Moscow.  
Please note new e-mail address [email protected]