Mediaboss Marketing

Alphabet is asking a judge to find Uber in contempt for failing to notify the court that former CEO Travis Kalanick was aware one of his top executives had proprietary Alphabet information in his possession and that he ordered its destruction.

The executive, Anthony Levandowski, allegedly told Kalanick and two other employees in March 2016 that he had five discs containing Alphabet documents, several months before the ride-hail company acquired his startup, Otto.

Levandowski, who had previously led Alphabets self-driving car project, has been accused of stealing technology and taking it to Uber.

Judge William Alsup recently ordered Uber to produce documents and correspondence related to the case, including information showing whether any evidence had been destroyed. On Wednesday, Alphabet cited a June 5 Uber court filing that shows Kalanick asked Levandowski to destroy the documents in question. Uber had to present the information by March of this year but didnt report its findings until June.

Ubers June 8 filing reads:

On or about March 11, 2016, Mr. Levandowski reported to Mr. Kalanick, Nina Qi and Cameron Poetzscher at Uber as well as Lior Ron that he had identified five discs in his possession containing Google information. Mr. Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber that he had destroyed the discs.

This was around the same time that Levandowski began consulting for Ubers self-driving arm, as we reported.

The ride-hail company maintains that none of these documents made it to Uber and that Kalanick did not encourage Levandowski to bring the files to the company, a condition that was also included in his employee agreement. On May 30, Uber fired Levandowski, who pleaded the Fifth Amendment earlier in the case, for not complying with the courts orders.

Uber was also directed by the court to produce a report from Stroz Friedberg, a forensic firm that Uber had hired to conduct a due diligence report on Otto before the acquisition. The report could reveal if Uber was made aware of any Alphabet technology Levandowski may be using within Otto.

Now Stroz is required to produce the report, the identities of the Otto employees that participated in the report and any documents those employees produced for the report.

Levandowski, who is not a party to the suit and is not represented by Ubers attorneys, previously argued that those documents are protected by attorney-client privilege. The judge disagreed and compelled Uber to produce the report.

Ubers attorneys did not hire Stroz on behalf of Levandowski and Uber; they hired Stroz to investigate Levandowski, the order reads.

It follows, then, that an order compelling Stroz to produce these materials does not violate Levandowskis Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

Uber is in the midst of navigating a major upheaval, with Tuesdays resignation of its CEO Travis Kalanick and the shuffling of key board members, but this lawsuit could prove to be the companys biggest threat. The embattled ride-hail player could face criminal charges over the possession of stolen documents, though the judge has previously chided Alphabet for lack of evidence that those files Levandowski allegedly downloaded made it to Uber.

Link:
Alphabet says Travis Kalanick knew one of Uber's acquisitions had taken Alphabet files - Recode

Ousted Uber CEO Travis Kalanick may have known a star engineer possessed trade secrets stolen from Google, according to a recent court filing.

The court case centers on Waymo, the self-driving car unit of Google-parent Alphabet, and Anthony Levandowski, an engineer who left Waymo to start his own company, Otto, that was later acquired by Uber.

Waymo alleges Levandowski took 14,000 documents with him, including trade secrets. Waymo attorneys filings released this week suggest that Kalanick knew Levandowski possessed, and later destroyed, some of the information in question:

On or about March 11, 2016, Mr. Levandowski reported to [Travis] Kalanick, Nina Qi and Cameron Poetzscher at Uber as well as Lior Ron that he had identified five discs in his possession containing Google information. Mr. Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber that he had destroyed the discs.

Levandowski has exercised his Fifth Amendment rights and has largely been silent on what is in his possession. But a judge told Uber to use "the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual and other authority" to compel Levandowski to return the documents by May 31. When Levandowski didn't deliver, he was fired.

New filings this week, though, indicate that Uber may have had access to those files earlier, and allowed them to be destroyed prior to the deadline. The information, previously unearthed by TechCrunch, sheds more doubt on the already murky relationship between Levandowski and his former employers at Uber.

"No statement of any destruction was provided pursuant to the Court's Order by the March 31 deadline," Waymo's lawyers wrote in a motion. "Yet, over two months later, Defendants Uber's and [Otto's] June 5 response to Waymo's expedited interrogatory revealed that documents were destroyed, allegedly at Uber's direction, back in March 2016."

The timeline of when Levandowski ended his tenure at Waymo and began negotiating with Uber has become central to the case.

Levandowski collected $120 million from Google, despite involvement with at least one start-up that would ultimately compete with the company, the case alleges. Waymo's lawyers said Levandowski was already trying to staff up his competing start-up, Otto, while he worked at Google but he waited until he got his payout to make the details of Otto public.

Uber, Kalanick and Levandowski's attorney did not immediately respond to CNBC requests for comment.

It all comes amid a rocky time within Uber, after reports of sexual harassment and gender bias led to an internal investigation into workplace culture. The company is also without top leadership now that Kalanick has resigned in the face of an investor revolt.

"This is certainly a part of the workplace culture: toe stepping, don't be afraid to get in people's faces," Kate Bischoff of tHRive Law & Consulting told CNBC last week. "'Oh, we should hire the guy from Waymo' that's not something outside the realm of possibility when you've created a culture that wants to ride the line."

The dispute between Waymo and Uber is playing out in two different arenas: In addition to the civil court case, the case has also been referred to the U.S. attorney for investigation of the possible theft of trade secrets.

"There are a whole host of variables that the government takes into account," Phil Bezanson, white collar partner at Bracewell, said last week. "Corporate culture is one, tone at the top, pervasiveness of wrongdoing, how the company responded. Because we have so many different subject matter issues, an overall corporate culture assessment is a good thing. The DOJ will pay close attention to it."

See original here:
Uber CEO Travis Kalanick may have known about stolen trade secrets, court filing indicates - CNBC

Mr. Shkreli taunted his critics on television (dismissing Bernie Sanders on Fox Business Network: I dont think he understands pharmaceuticals at all), on Twitter (Haters, please tell me about the latest in apicomplexa genetic drift) and on hourslong YouTube live streams (combing his hair, playing chess and chatting with a female student at Hunter College High School).

During a live stream, Mr. Shkreli discussed rap, high school and a friend of his who is in jail.

Responding to the public outrage, Express Scripts, the largest prescription drug manager in the United States, said that it would back the production of an alternative to the $750-a-pill Daraprim that would cost only $1 a pill.

In December 2015, it was revealed that Mr. Shkreli was the buyer of a one-of-a-kind Wu Tang Clan album that was auctioned for $2 million. When RZA, a co-founder of the hip-hop group, criticized the sale, Mr. Shkreli responded with an expletive and told the rapper to show me some respect.

Nine days later, Mr. Shkreli was charged with securities fraud linked to his first pharmaceutical company, Retrophin. The government accuses Mr. Shkreli of using the company to pay back investors in MSB Capital, a hedge fund he founded. The investigation began long before his notoriety. He resigned from Turing shortly after being charged.

Those who know him describe Mr. Shkreli as charismatic and intelligent. Months before he became a drug industry pariah, Mr. Shkreli made a $1 million donation to Hunter College High School, the prestigious Upper East Side school that he attended before going to work on Wall Street at 17. Some alumni later pushed for the gift to be returned.

Martin is the smartest guy in the room at all times, someone who worked with him on Wall Street told The Times. One early investor said that if you give him a science textbook on chemistry, hed give it back to you in nine months and hed have it memorized.

Despite his penchant to speak his mind, Mr. Shkreli was notably quiet in a federal court in Brooklyn in February 2016 (in response to a question: yes, judge). The same was the case during a heated congressional hearing on drug prices (he smirked and took the Fifth Amendment). But after testifying, he tweeted: Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government.

Mr. Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment rights while Congress peppered him with questions about his company's increasing drug prices.

Mr. Shkreli eventually shared the spotlight with other drug industry executives portrayed as villains. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, a company that also bought patents and raised drug prices, saw its stock plummet. And Mylan, the maker of the lifesaving allergy injecting device EpiPen, was criticized for raising the price for a two-pen set to more than $600.

The outspoken Mr. Shkreli was finally forced into silence this year, but only on Twitter. He was kicked off the social media platform after harassing a female journalist, but he maintains his online presence on Facebook and YouTube.

His lead defense lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, appeared to channel some of President Trumps advisers when he said that his clients messages on social media should not be taken at face value. When people tweet, they dont always mean what they say, Mr. Brafman said.

Excerpt from:
Scenes From Martin Shkreli's Journey to Federal Court - New York Times

An Orlando businessman, Ishrat Rehmetullah, is citing the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination while arguing in federal bankruptcy court that he shouldnt have to disclose all of his assets.

Remetullah and his wife, Shama, filed a personal bankruptcy in 2014, citing almost $800,000 in debts, which included a $572,000 foreclosure on his home in Dr. Phillips. The debts were discharged and the case was closed.

But the case was reopened in 2015 when some creditors alleged that Rehmetullah had attempted to flee the country, and had failed to report a collection of gold coins, diamonds and real estate he owns in Karachi, Pakistan; those allegations were detailed in a filing by a court-appointed trustee assigned to the case, Richard Webber, .

Webber recently sought a judges order requiring Rehmetullah to report additional assets. Instead of complying, or denying the allegations, Rehmetullahs attorney filed a response saying that reporting additional assets could violate his clients Fifth Amendment rights.

According to a filing by Ishrat Rehmetullahs lawyer, Jeffrey Ainsworth, There have also been suggestions that the debtors in this case will be referred to the United States Attorneys Office for criminal prosecution, which further shows that the debtors fear of criminal prosecution in this case is legitimate.

In a court hearing Tuesday, Ainsworth suggested the political climate in the U.S. could spell trouble for his client: If you look at the current administration, a Pakistani national living in the U.S. is probably a real target.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Cynthia Jackson said that the creditors in the case have a right to know if there were additional assets, but she took the matter under advisement and said she would give her opinion later.

Regarding the Fifth Amendment claim, she said: There has to be an imminent threat of criminal prosecution, and I dont see that.

Ishrat Rehmetullah sold a home in Pakistan shortly after filing for bankruptcy, and provided $75,000 from that sale to the bankruptcy trustee, but the trustee has questioned the value of that home. Rehmetullah also turned over some of his coin collection, which was sold for $2,400.

Rehmetullah is the father of two Orlando entrepreneurs who launched a financial technology startup in 2014 called Fattmerchant Suneera Madhani and Sal Rehmetullah. Both siblings were deposed in the bankruptcy case. In 2016, Sal Rehmetullah offered to pay $100,000 to prompt a settlement of his fathers debts, but later that offer was withdrawn. The siblings argued that their father is not formally part of the Fattmerchant business.

Ishrat Rehmetullah and his wife have registered several businesses with the state, including I Travel Florida LLC, Discount Holidays LLC, and Pizza Romas LLC, among others. They had also reported a loan of $100,000 from a Florida company called Oyster Bay Investments.

Got a news tip? pbrinkmann@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5660; Twitter, @PaulBrinkmann

More here:
Orlando businessman cites Fifth Amendment in bankruptcy case - Orlando Sentinel

Some notable cases include:

In Jennings v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause entitles aliens being held in federal facilities to a bond hearing, such that if they post bond they could be released into the U.S. civilian population. Justices asked hard questions of both sides during oral argument in November.

In Sessions v. Dimaya, another case involving aliens, the Court will decide whether a key provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) governing the deportation of certain aliens is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause.

In Lee v. Tam, the justices will decide whether the provision of federal law that authorizes denying trademark protection because of content some consider disparaging violates the First Amendment. The Federal Circuit invalidated the restriction, which has direct application to the Washington Redskins and billboards expressing views critical of militant Islam.

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, the High Court will determine whether a plaintiff can directly sue individual FBI agents for detaining illegal aliens after the 9/11 attacks.

In Hernandez v. Mesa, the Court will decide whether Fourth Amendment protections apply to a cross-border shooting involving U.S. agents on the American side and a Mexican across the border, where the Mexican died and his family is suing the American agents. During oral argument, the justices focused heavily on the foreign-affairs aspect of this situation and whether the U.S. State Department should be in the lead, rather than courts.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the justices will consider whether registered sex offenders can be banned from social network platforms like Facebook, given the number of children the offender could have contact with.

In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court will consider aspects of when government so completely regulates a piece of property that the land becomes unusable by the owner, such that this triggers the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause requiring the government must pay the owner. The question here is how much of the land the government must compensate the owner for.

In Lee v. United States, a legal alien allowed to stay permanently in the United States pleaded guilty to a nonviolent drug crime involving ecstasy, not knowing that his plea deal would automatically result in his deportation. The case is about whether his rejecting the deal was rational, such that it was ineffective counsel for his lawyer to fail to explain the deportation consequences of the deal. Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit ruled that his rejection was rational but explained that controlling precedent required her to do so, flagged problematic aspects of those precedents, and managed to get the Supreme Court to reconsider them.

In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the Supreme Court is considering whether Blaine Amendments which forbid state funds from going to providers of public service programs only when those providers have a religious mission violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal ProtectionClause.

In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of San Francisco County, the justices are exploring how far the Fourteenth Amendment permits state courts to have jurisdiction over out-of-state businesses.

The justices are currently scheduled to hand down all remaining decisions this year on the next two Mondays, June 19 and June 26. However, the Thursday in between, June 22, is often converted into another daily session for handing down decisions. If there are still undecided cases after June 26, the Court could also announce one final session later that week.

One uncommon wild card in play this year is that, for most of the term, there was a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Now that Justice Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed to the seat formerly held by the iconic Justice Antonin Scalia, cases that were originally 4-4 tie votes might be rescheduled for a new hearing next year, with Gorsuch as the tiebreaking vote.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original:
Big Cases Still Waiting for Supreme Court Decisions in 2017 - Breitbart News