Showing posts with label litigious. Show all posts
Showing posts with label litigious. Show all posts

Sunday, October 2, 2016

[Special] Court Opinion: Donald J. Trump vs. Timothy L. O'Brien


Further, as in Sprewell, O'Brien reported Trump's denial of the accuracy of the low net worth figures, although his statement, touting his abilities as a builder, can be construed as less of a denial than an avoidance of the issue presented. Even if that denial had been absolute, which it certainly was not, publication of a statement in the face of denial, however vehement, does not constitute actual malice. Edwards v. Nat'l Audubon Soc, 556 F.2d 113, 121 (2d Cir.) ("such denials are so commonplace in the world of polemical charge and countercharge that, in themselves, they hardly alert the conscientious reporter to the likelihood of error."), cert. denied, sub nom. Edwards v. N.Y. Times Co., 434 U.S. 1002, 98 S.Ct. 647, 54 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977).

Additionally, as we have previously stated, O'Brien confirmed much of the information provided by the confidential sources, and, like the reporter in Sprewell, he sought to confirm the net worth numbers. In this regard, we note that in claiming that overwhelming evidence established the scale of Trump's wealth, Trump relied in large measure on a 2004 Statement of Financial Condition prepared by Weiser L.L.P., Certified Public Accountants, to which O'Brien was allegedly given access on three occasions including during the course of the April 21, 2005 meeting.

However, a preface to that Statement demonstrates its limited value as an accurate representation of Trump's net worth. There, the accountants cautioned that they had "not audited or reviewed the accompanying statement of financial condition and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on it." Further, the accountants noted significant departures from generally accepted accounting principles, and stated "[t]he effects of the departures from generally accepted accounting principles as described above have not been determined." Among the issues they found to exist was the fact that estimates of amounts to be received in the future did not reflect rights that were non-forfeitable, fixed and determinable and not dependent on future services. The values of Trump's closely held businesses were not expressed in terms of assets net of liabilities, and the ownership percentages of each closely held business held by Trump was not disclosed. Additionally, the tax consequences on Trump's holdings were not set forth.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

The New Yorker: Donald Trump Threatens The Ghostwriter of “The Art of the Deal”

By Jane Mayer:

[Jason D. Greenblatt, the general counsel and vice-president of the Trump Organization] demands that Schwartz send “a certified check made payable to Mr. Trump” for all of the royalties he had earned on the book, along with Schwartz’s half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance. (The memoir has sold approximately a million copies, earning Trump and Schwartz each several million dollars.) Greenblatt also orders Schwartz to issue “a written statement retracting your defamatory statements,” and to offer written assurances that he will not “generate or disseminate” any further “baseless accusations” about Trump.

On Thursday, reached by e-mail on an airplane, Schwartz said that he would continue to speak out against Trump, and that he would make no retractions or apologies. “The fact that Trump would take time out of convention week to worry about a critic is evidence to me not only of how thin-skinned he is, but also of how misplaced his priorities are,” Schwartz wrote. He added, “It is axiomatic that when Trump feels attacked, he will strike back. That’s precisely what’s so frightening about his becoming president.”

Friday, June 17, 2016

The Weekly Standard: Nine Tales of Trump at His Trumpiest


By Matt LaBash:

My personal favorite, however, has to be the time Trump went after Julius and Eddie Trump (no relation to Donald) for having the misfortune of sharing his last name. As Crain's tells it, back in 1984, the non-megalomaniacal-billionaire Trumps had bid on a drugstore chain, their company name being the Trump Group. But a letter was mistakenly sent to the (Donald) Trump Organization from the publisher of Drug Store News, welcoming the wrong Trump to the industry.

The next day, Trump's pitbull lawyer, the late and legendary Roy Cohn, demanded that the other Trump Group change its name by the following day or there would be blood. Trump filed suit, alleging of the other Trumps, who were born in South Africa, that they were, as Crain's put it, "nothing but a pair of late-arriving immigrants trying to piggyback on his good name."

The "impostor" Trumps pointed out that they were formidable Trumps, too. They'd been profiled by Forbes in 1976, well before most people had any idea who Donald Trump was. Before they registered "the Trump Group" in 1982, the only companies that turned up in their search were those connected with mollusk pesticides, nut candy, and toilet paper.

After the case lingered for five years, a state judge smacked down The Donald, essentially telling him his name wasn't the special snowflake he thought it was. If Donald Trump had only demanded to see the birth certificates — which he's since become adept at doing — he'd have realized that the other Trumps had been using their last name longer than he has.