Mediaboss Marketing

If Las Vegas took bets on whether recently departed Attorney General Eric Holder would return to corporate law firm Covington & Burling, the casinos would have run out of money faster than Greek banks. Newborn infants could have guessed at a homecoming for the former partner at Covington from 2001 to 2009. Last year, Holder bought a condo 300 feet from the firms headquarters. The National Law Journal headlined the news, Holders Return to Covington Was Six Years in the Making, as if acting as the nations top law enforcement officer was a temp gig. They even kept an 11th-floor corner office empty for his return.

If we had a more aggressive media, this would be an enormous scandal, more than the decamping of former Obama Administration officials to places like Uber and Amazon. That's because practically no law firm has done more to protect Wall Street executives from the consequences of their criminal activities than Covington & Burling. Their roster of clients includes every mega-bank in America: JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America. Yet Holder has joined several of his ex-employees there, creating a shadow Justice Department and an unquestionable conflict of interest. In fact, given the pathetic fashion in which DoJ limited punishment for those who caused the greatest economic meltdown in 80 years, Holders new job looks a lot like his old job.

You could actually make a plausible argument that Covington & Burling bears responsibility for the Great Recession: In the late 1990s, Covington lawyers drafted the legal justification for MERS, the private electronic database that facilitated mortgage-backed securities trading. MERS saved banks from having to submit documents and fees with county land recording offices each time they transferred mortgages. So its unlikely you would have seen mortgage securitization at such a high volume without MERS, and by proxy, without those legal opinions. Of course, securitization drove subprime lending, the housing bubble, its eventual crash and the financial meltdown that followed. Though evidence pointed to MERS implication in the mass document fraud scandal that infected the foreclosure process, former Covington lawyer Holder never prosecuted them, and now hes back with the old team.

Link:
Why Eric Holders new job is an insult to the American public

Early Uber investor and former board member Shervin Pishevar is speaking out against Benchmark again. This time, he penned a letter to Ubers board, demanding that Benchmark Capital drop its lawsuit against former CEO Travis Kalanick. He also filed a legal motion, asking for the case to be dismissed, saying in his letter to the board that he had no choice.

The letter says Pishevar has tried in every way possible to convince my friends at Benchmark to drop this lawsuit, to end their public campaignagainst the founder and the companyand to divest their shares under aproposal which would reward them hugely for their investment. But Benchmark has refused to meet with Pishevar.

Pishevar accuses Benchmark of violating fiduciary duty, by its willingness to talk to others inappropriately. He also accuses Benchmarks Kris Frederickson of convincing Gautam Gupta, Ubers head of finance, to go to another company where he owned shares.

Pishevar claims that Benchmark has also conferred with Lowercase Capital in an attempt to remove Arianna Huffington from the board.

Recently, Pishevar circulated a petition attempting to pressure Benchmark to sell most of its shares and give up its board seat.

Last year, at our Disrupt event in San Francisco, TC talked with Pishevar about the venture market and specifically about Benchmarks Bill Gurley, who recently stepped off of Ubers board, installing his partner Matt Cohler in his stead. Said Pishevar in that stage appearance, I have tremendous respect for Bill Gurley. Hes a friend of mine. I look up to him. Him and [fellow Benchmark partner] Matt Cohler actually referred Uber to me for the Series B.

At the time, Pishevar was working as a venture capitalist with Menlo Ventures, which went on to lead that round.

Pishevar declined to comment for this story. We also reached out to Benchmark, which has yet to respond.

Here is the full text of the letter and below it, youll find the motion his attorneys filed.

UberTechnologies Inc.c/o Garrett CampChairman of the Board Directors1455 Market StreetSan Francisco, CA 94103

August 24, 2017

Dear Uber Board of Directors.

I write to inform you that, along with Steve Russell, I have cometo the conclusion that I have no choice but to seek to intervene in theunfortunate lawsuit that Benchmark Capital has brought against TravisKalanick, the founder and former CEO of Uber.

As you know, I have tried in every way possible to convince myfriends at Benchmark to drop this lawsuit, to end their public campaignagainst the founder and the company, and to divest their shares under a proposalwhich would reward them hugely for their investment.I have called for Benchmark to resign from the Board by proposing aspecific plan that would allow Benchmark to reduce its holdings so that therest of the Board can move forward constructively to address the challengesof building our company, securing new infusions of major capital, andrecruiting a world-class CEO to oversee our continued growth.

Instead, Benchmark has refused to meet with me to address theseconcerns. I asked as a friend to have a rational, adult conversation, tohave a conversation and try to make peace on behalf of all. Benchmarktold me they looked forward to talking with me when this is over but sawno possibility of a meaningful conversation with me about these issues.

But they have been more than willing to talk to others,inappropriately, and in violation of their fiduciary duty. They reached outdirectly to employees in a letter, which is utterly inappropriate for a venturecapital firm to do. Benchmark principal Kris Fredrickson helpedrecruited Gautam Gupta, the head of finance and effectively the acting UberCFO, to another company where he owned shares without ever informing Uberin fact, Frederickson told his partner and Uber board member BillGurley six months earlier, but Gurley never told Travis Kalanick,exacerbating the crisis facing the Company in May 2017 when Guptaleft. Even more troubling, we have been told that Benchmark has beenconferring with Lowercase Capital with respect to adverse action againstUber, indicating that they are seeking to remove Arianna Huffington fromthe Board and, in clear violation of their fiduciary duties, wrongfully leakedhighly confidential details from the investigation by former AttorneyGeneral Eric Holder.

Benchmark even intruded itself into staff recommendations made by Holder,urging contrary to the CEOs wishes that Holder recommend that theGeneral Counsel be retained, rather than offered a promotion, lest that beseen negatively; yet another inappropriate intrusion by a venture capitalinvestor, this time in an independent investigation

And perhaps most tellingly of all, Benchmark appears determined to insertits own candidate as CEO, Meg Whitman, prior to addressing any futureissues, telling me that they see no meaningful discussion without anacceptable CEO candidate being hired uninfected by improperinfluences. The improper influences here are Benchmarks own efforts tocontrol the company. They have no interest in reaching a peacefulaccordwhich will allow this great company to groweven more, to recruit a world-class CEO, to secure further important funding. Clearly, they have adifferent agenda than ours.

Benchmarks investment of $27 million has grown to some $8.4 billionbecause of the outstanding leadership of Travis Kalanick and histeam. Benchmark recognized as much, even as it was encouraging Travis toresign. For a venture capital firm to then turn around, having threatenedMr. Kalanick with a public campaign if he did not resign, and then launchthe campaign anyway complete with the filing of a frivolous lawsuitnotwithstanding an arbitration clause that prohibits such lawsuits from beingbrought in the first instance has unfortunately convinced us thatBenchmark is not operating in good faith, does not have the companys bestinterests at heart, and instead is seeking to take advantage of the currentcircumstances to try to take control of the Board. Conduct so completely atodds with Benchmarks fiduciary duty cannot be left unanswered, particularly at this terrible time for Mr. Kalanick and his family. We allowe a huge debt to Travis and his team for their tireless work in imagining,creating, and building Uber. I know how proud Bonnie Kalanick was of hersons work, and it is an affront to her memory which we cannot silentlytolerate that her passing should become the occasion for a secretive andpersonal assault on her son by those who, by sheer dint of his hard work anddetermination and that of his team, he has made wealthy beyond all theirother investments

The lawsuit brought by Benchmark seeks to cancel the Voting Agreementamendments adopted in 2016, when the Saudi Governments PublicInvestment Fund made a $3.5 billion dollar investment in Uber. TheAgreement was amended to give the Saudis the right to designate a boardmember; and to give founder and CEO Travis Kalanick three seats he hadthe right to designate. No one objected at the time; nor did they object anytime in the next year. It was only after Mr. Kalanick took a leave to dealwith his familys personal tragedies that Benchmark for the first time tookthe position that Mr. Kalanick should be forced to resign and to give up hisright to appoint additional Board members supposedly because he hadwithheld information that Benchmark in factknew all about.

There is no basis for canceling an agreement entered into by sophisticatedinvestors each advised by counsel. We have a direct and substantial interestin not allowing the governance of the company to be unilaterally changed atthe insistence of one party in violation of the procedures requiring writtenconsent to amend. And there is no basis for Benchmarks decision to ignorethe comprehensive arbitration provision which governs all disputes arisingout of that Agreement in favor of a high-profile filing that paints thecompany in a negative light to serve Benchmarks own interest in a public campaignagainst the founder.

We are seeking to intervene in the lawsuit because if Benchmark insists ontrying to use the courts to try to take over this company, we are committed todoing everything we can to try to stop this abuse.

We continue to hope that a way can be found for Benchmark to moveforward, having profited so handsomely from the work of Travis Kalanickand many others, and to do so without inflicting gratuitous harm on thecompany which we have all supported, and for which we continue to havethe greatest expectations.

Sincerely,

Shervin Pishevar

Trustee, Sofreh LP

Former Uber Board Observer (2011-2015) and Advisor

Motion to Intervene by Katie Roof on Scribd

Read the original:
Pishevar intervenes in Benchmark-Kalanick lawsuit - TechCrunch

SAN FRANCISCO Uber increased its bookings by 17 percent and shrunk its losses by 9 percentin the second quarter of this year, showing that the controversy surrounding the ride-hailing giant hasnt halted the companys growth.

Uber saw gross bookings of $8.7 billion, up 17 percent from the quarter before and doubled from the prior year, the ride-hailing company confirmed to this news organization Wednesday. And while the San Francisco-based company is making more money on rides, it also continues to successfully trim its massive losses. The worlds most valuable startup reported adjusted net losses of $645 million a drop of almost 9 percent from the quarter before, and 14 percent year-over-year.

Tech and politics news website Axiosfirst reported the numbers.

The ride-hailing startup had $6.6 billion in cash at the end of the second quarter, down from $7.2 billion the quarter before.

Recent scandals have tarnished the companys image, forced founder Travis Kalanickto resign as CEO, and plunged the board into a bitter power struggle that ended up in court. Uber recently brought former Attorney General Eric Holder in to investigate accusations sexual harassment, sexism and other inappropriate behavior at the company, leading to the firing of 20 employees. Uber also is fighting a lawsuit that claims the ride-hailing startup stole self-driving car trade secrets from rival Waymo. And Uber faces a criminal probe into its use of Greyball, a secretive software tool that employees used to evade law enforcement stings.

That series of events generated a publicity nightmare for Uber, spawning the #DeleteUber campaign, and giving smaller ride-hailing rival Lyft a push. But while Uber is attempting to clean up its image searching for a new CEO and implementing a laundry list of changes suggested by Holders team the company also has taken big steps to shrink its losses.

Last month Uber ceded control of the Russian market, merging with rival Yandex. A year ago, Uber sold its Chinese business to rival Didi Chuxing, after losing $2 billion during the two years it operated in the country.

Go here to read the rest:
Uber reveals latest financials: Bookings up, losses down - The Mercury News

President Trump is seriously considering pardoning Joe Arpaio, the Arizona sheriff who was convicted July 31 of misdemeanor contempt of court for ignoring a judges order to quit detaining those he suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe? asks Mr. Trump. He has protected people from crimes and saved lives. He doesnt deserve to be treated this way.

Mr. Arpaio is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 5 and could be subject to six months in prison. He hasnt asked for a pardon but says he would take it if offered, because Im 100 percent not guilty.

The left is in a dither about prospects of the pardon because the sheriff, who called himself the toughest sheriff in America, made his reputation enforcing immigration law when the Obama administration wouldnt. Cecilia Wang of the ACLU complains that a Trump pardon for Mr. Arpaio would undo a conviction secured by his own career attorneys at the Justice Department, and predictably adds that it would be an official presidential endorsement of racism.

The prosecution of the sheriff has smelled like politics from the beginning. This started under Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama 60 days after they took office, Mr. Arpaio told a radio interviewer the other day. Here it is, eight, nine years later, and all they can get me for which Im not guilty of is contempt of court.

Mr. Arpaio, who lost a bid for re-election to a seventh term as sheriff in November, recalls that the day before early voting, (the Obama Justice Department) announced they were going to charge me. Two weeks later, they charged me two weeks before (Election Day) so this was a political, political hit job. They got what they wanted. They got rid of me.

Those on the left who are in a snit at the prospect of a Trump pardon for reversing a prosecution of a previous administration did not object when Mr. Obamas Justice Department, under the supervision of Eric Holder, dropped charges brought by the George W. Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party. The Panthers were accused of intimidating white voters at Philadelphia polling stations at the 2008 election.

The president can expect an angry reaction if he pardons the sheriff. This is the season of angry reactions in a summer of hysteria. He should not let the ritual cry of racism deter him if he decides that a pardon is the right thing to do.

Follow this link:
Pardon could right wrongs for Sheriff Joe - Portage Daily Register

The U.S. attorney general proudly trumpets, "We have tried more leak cases . . . during the course of this administration than any other." Critics from across the aisle call for his resignation. Despite pressing no charges, the Justice Department has labeled one respected investigative reporter a criminal "co-conspirator." The Washington Posts Leonard Downie concludes, efforts to control information are "the most aggressive since the Nixon administration."

These events transpired in 2012 and 2013. The president at that time? Barack Obama. The attorney general? Eric Holder. The journalist? Fox News reporter James Rosen. And the critics fighting to protect journalists first amendment right to free speech? Leaders from the Republican Party.

Resistance to the Obama administrations leak investigations was well placed. Whistleblowers, in partnership with journalists, can expose government overreach and error. Consider leaks and associated reporting on the National Security Agencys (NSA) illegal surveillance of U.S citizens or the over one billion dollars of taxpayers money wasted on the NSA's Trailblazer Project.

Fast forward to 2017 and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is building the case for even greater government power. Hes considering strengthening the Justice Departments powers to, during a leak investigation, subpoena a journalist to demand that they reveal their source as well as phone or email records. This is a direct attack on the foundations of Americas democracy.

I do not begrudge Sessions for pursuing legal action against public officials who leak. With civil disobedience comes consequences. Threats to national security mean leaking classified information can jeopardize governments primary role protecting its citizens.

Government exerting authority over journalists, however, is an entirely different matter. Currently, the Justice Department, led by Sessions, determines its own guidelines regarding when a journalist is issued with a subpoena requiring them to reveal information. This is the equivalent of a baseball pitcher changing the rules to widen the strike zone.

Following Sessions announcement, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.,defended journalists saying national security threats are "the problem of the leaker, not the journalist."

There is a way better way to balance national security with press freedoms. If Sessions wants to "respect the important role of the press," as he has stated, he should seek independent oversight from a judge to determine whether subpoena of a journalist is justified. If a leak is truly a threat to national security, and obtaining information from journalists would mitigate that threat, a judge can make that determination using a strict legal standard.

Increased judicial oversight of subpoenas reflects a bipartisan proposal, put forward in 2013 by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y. The senators spoke of the important "check and balance" provided by the courts to prevent the whim of an attorney general using government power unfairly. Subsequently translated into Free Flow of Information Act, amidst debate over the definition of a journalist, the Acts momentum has petered out. The principles underpinning this Act must now be rekindled.

As part of his promise to crackdown on leakers, Sessions explained the press cannot "place lives at risk with impunity." He presented no evidence of harm caused by recent leaks. No Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning equivalent. The only specific leak cited by Sessions was the transcripts of Trump talking to foreign leaders potentially leaked from the White House itself. It seems the arsonists have arrived to put out the fire.

Look to history to observe the impact of a crippled press on democracy. During his three-decade reign of the Soviet Union, Communist Dictator Joseph Stalin systematically decimated the free press. Through censorship and persecution of mainstream society, the state controlled what people watched, listened to and were allowed to say. Stalin once said, "print is the sharpest and the strongest weapon of our party."

Trump has already sought to discredit all but the most administration friendly media including unprecedented censorship in the White House press briefing room. His daughter-in-law has started a "Real News" series on Facebook essentially state sanctioned propaganda. He has overturned Internet privacy laws that prevented companies sharing your browsing history and location. Just this week, the Department of Justice has demanded an Internet service provider, Dreamboat, reveal the identities of all 1.3 million visitors to a website critical of Trump. Thats a direct affront to free association and speech.

Conservatives both voters and in Congress face a choice. Will they stand for traditional conservative values freedom of speech, small government, and support for the constitution and rule of law? Or will they support, tacitly or otherwise, the Trump administrations increasingly authoritarian regime?

In searching for your answer, I implore you to rise above partisan rancor and support a free press. The future of Americas democracy depends on it.

Matt Tyler is an economist who works to improve government effectiveness with a particular focus on social services. Tyler is a former management consultant, where he supported executives in developing and implementing strategy across financial services, telecommunications, manufacturing, postal services, and retail. He worked as an economist for Australias foreign service and as a policy adviser to the Federal Australian Labor Party on economic and social policy. He has also worked for Third Sector Capital Partners where he assisted with the construction of two Social Impact Bonds in Salt Lake City. He is currently completing a Master of Public Policy at Harvards Kennedy School of Government. He tweets as @matt_b_tyler. To read more of his reports Click Here Now.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Go here to read the rest:
Jeff Sessions, Eric Holder and Freedom of the Press - Newsmax