The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Connecting The GhostShip Fire to TPG Racketeering case and the murder of Pandora Employee Johnny Igaz

Connecting The GhostShip Fire to TPG Racketeering case and the murder of Pandora Employee Johnny Igaz 

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project





The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
EX-99.1 p-ex991_20160323.htm EXHIBIT 99.1



Exhibit 99.1


Pandora Adds Anthony J. “Tony” Vinciquerra as New Independent Member to its Board of Directors Effective Immediately

Media veteran brings decades of experience in advising and growing global businesses

OAKLAND, Calif., March 23, 2016 — Pandora (NYSE:P), the go-to music source for fans and artists, today announced that it is expanding the size of Pandora’s board from 9 seats to 10 seats with the addition of Anthony J. “Tony” Vinciquerra, a technology, media and telecom expert with over 30 years of industry experience. Vinciquerra will join the board as a Class III Director and will be included in Pandora’s proxy statement for election at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Vinciquerra has three decades of experience in the media industry, which includes advising and growing Fortune 100 media and technology companies. Since 2011, he has been a Senior Advisor to Texas Pacific Group (TPG) in the Technology, Media and Telecom sectors. He has extensive public-company board experience, serving as a director of Qualcomm since July 2015. He previously served as a director of DirecTV from September 2013 until its sale to AT&T in July 2015, Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. from January 2011 to May 2012, and Motorola, Inc. from July 2007 to January 2011.

Prior to his tenure at TPG, Vinciquerra was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fox Networks Group, the largest and most profitable operating unit of News Corporation. Earlier in his career, he held various management positions in the broadcasting and media industry. He holds a B.A. degree in marketing from the State University of New York.

“We’re delighted to welcome Tony to our Board. His extensive experience and insights will greatly benefit Pandora,” said Brian McAndrews, CEO and Chairman of Pandora. “Tony’s addition will help guide Pandora as we grow the company, expand profitability and deliver value for shareholders.”

“We look forward to having Tony on the Board as we work to realize the value that Pandora holds for our stockholders,” said Peter Gotcher, Lead Independent Director on Pandora’s Board. “As the fourth new independent director added in the past 12 months, Tony’s appointment is emblematic of our continued efforts to bring highly experienced and talented individuals with unique perspectives to the Board.”
Vinciquerra will join the board as an independent director. He follows the appointments of media, music and entertainment veterans Mickie Rosen, Roger Faxon and Tim Leiweke who joined the Pandora Board of Directors in 2015 as part of Pandora’s ongoing commitment to bring fresh expertise and skills to advance the company’s growth strategy.

About Pandora
Pandora is the world’s most powerful music discovery platform - a place where artists find their fans and listeners find music they love. We are driven by a single purpose: unleashing the infinite power of music by connecting artists and fans, whether through earbuds, car speakers, live on stage or anywhere fans want to experience it. Our team of highly trained musicologists analyze hundreds of attributes for each recording which powers our proprietary Music Genome Project®, delivering billions of hours of personalized music tailored to the tastes of each music listener, full of discovery, making artist/fan connections at unprecedented scale. Founded by musicians, Pandora empowers artists with valuable data and tools to help grow their careers and connect with their fans.



1 of 2




Pandora
Dominic Paschel, 510-842-6960
Investor Relations
investor@pandora.com

Stephanie Barnes, 415-722-0883
Corporate Communications and Public Relations
sbarnes@pandora.com



2 of 2

Share:

Willkie: Real Estate Department represented longtime client Colony Capital

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

Colony Capital Acquires National Industrial Real Estate Portfolio For $1.16 Billion

March 7, 2019
Real Estate Department represented longtime client Colony Capital, Inc. in its acquisition of a national portfolio of 54 light and bulk industrial buildings.
On March 5, affiliates of Willkie client Colony Capital, Inc. (NYSE: CLNY), a diversified global real estate investment firm, announced the acquisition of a national portfolio of 54 light and bulk industrial buildings for $1.16 billion. 
This value-add portfolio is located across 10 U.S. markets, totals approximately 11.9 million square feet, and is 71% leased. Forty-eight of the buildings are last-mile light industrial and were acquired through Colony’s existing light industrial platform. The remaining six buildings are bulk industrial and were acquired through a newly formed joint venture in which Colony Capital has a 51% interest and a third-party institutional investor has a 49% interest.
Based in Los Angeles, Colony Capital is a leading global investment management firm with assets under management of $43 billion. The company, with over 400 employees across 17 locations in 10 countries, manages capital on behalf of its stockholders, as well as institutional and retail investors in private funds, non-traded and traded real estate investment trusts and registered investment companies. 
The Willkie deal team was led by partners Thomas Henry and Daniel Backer
Share:

Who is Pete Bennett, Who Does Know, What Does Know?

Who is Pete Bennett, Who Does Know, What Does Know?

This page will likely be fluid as the unfolding bribery scandal will evolve based facts, research and tragedies near Pete Bennett. 
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

The Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific ~ A brutal loss, a corrupt District Attorney, corrupt counsel, corrupt police department linked to the self-serving Contra Costa Bar Association.

Sante Fe Industries: Its not an old Wild, Wild West story it raw, indictive and tragic. This winner take all build an empire, appear in Forbes and lie about a witness murder of young man just 21 years old.

In the 80s, Pete Bennett endured deals near private equity, mergers and acquisitions, not as a deal maker but as a businessperson. Mr. Bennett opened Mainframe Designs Cabinets and Fixtures around 1980 on Cloverdale Ave.  Within a year he endured a head-on collision during a spin-out accident, and a rear ender.  Both occurred on Willow Pass. 

Mr. Bennett conclusion leads to Ellinwood Farms incident where two murders occurred next his residence adjacent to the local "Cabbage Patch or Onion Field" run by a older farmer that became friends.                  
Share:

TPG Capital: Company Overview of Colony Global Acquisition Corporation

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistle-blower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus, ProLogis, Fremont Group connected to appearances on TV with Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, and Politicians connected to promoting the H-1b visa.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified but he's dead hence the creation of deadwitness.com 

ss


March 18, 2019 10:09 AM ET
Capital Markets
Company Overview of Colony Global Acquisition Corporation






Executive Profile

Justin T. Chang

Co-Chief Executive Officer, Colony Global Acquisition Corporation
AgeTotal Calculated CompensationThis person is connected to 1 Board Member in 1 organization across 7 different industries.

See Board Relationships
50--

Background

Mr. Justin T. Chang has been Co-Chief Executive Officer at Colony Global Acquisition Corporation since November 24, 2015. Mr. Chang has been Managing Director and Global Head of Private Equity at Colony Capital, Inc. since June 2018. He was Managing Director, Special Situations – Private Equity & Co-Investments at Colony Capital, Inc. Mr. Chang is responsible for the identification, evaluation, consummation, and management of new investments of Colony Capital, Inc. (formerly, Colony NorthStar, Inc.), with a particular focus on extending Colony NorthStar’s presence and activities on a global basis. He has been Principal at Colony Capital, LLC since 2010. He served as an Executive Director at Colony Capital, Inc. since July 30, 2015. He served as Chief Executive Officer of Colony American Homes(CAH) from July 2012 to January 2016. He joined the Colony Capital on April 7, 2010. He co-founded CAF. He also served as the Chief Executive Officer of CAH Manager, LLC. Mr. Chang was responsible for the identification, evaluation and consummation of new investments, with a particular focus on extending the firm's presence and activities on a global basis in non-traditional real estate areas, including financial services, energy and natural resources, healthcare and consumer products. He served as a Vice President of CAH Manager, LLC since July 2012. He served as a Partner and Managing Director of TPG Capital, L.P. from 1993 to 2009. He joined TPG Capital in 1993. At TPG, Mr. Chang led private equity investments across a broad range of industries and in multiple geographies. He also serves as a Partner of Texas Pacific Group and has been its Executive since 1993. Prior to joining Texas Pacific Group, he served as a Financial Analyst in the Merchant Banking Group and the Mergers and Acquisitions Group of Wasserstein Perella & Co., Inc. He has been the Chairman of the Board at Colony Capital, Inc. since November 27, 2018. He was an Observer of QuantumShift, Inc. Mr. Chang has served on the Board of Directors of MVX.com, Inc. since 1999. He serves as Director of Lenovo Group. He serves as Director at Free Flow Wines, LLC. He served as a Director of Crystal Decisions Inc. (formerly Seagate Software, Inc.) since February 2001. He served as a Director of PingAn Bank Co., Ltd., (Shenzhen Development Bank Co. Ltd.), since June 2006. He served as a Director of QuantumShift, Inc. and Interlink Group, Inc. He served as a Director at ON Semiconductor Corporation from August 1999 to May 16, 2007. Mr. Chang has served on the Boards of Directors of UTAC Holdings and was the Chairman of the Board of UTAC Holdings from 2007 to 2009. He serves as a Director of Colony American Homes, Inc. He also serves on the International Advisory Board of Virgin Green Fund and on the Boards of several non-profit institutions. He serves on Board of Trustees of the Archer School for Girls. He served as Trustee of Colony Starwood Homes since January 5, 2016 until June 7, 2017. He serves on the Yale President's Council on International Activities and the Yale Development Council. He served as a Director of CAH from July 2012 to January 2016. He served as a Director of Beringer Wine Estates Holdings, Inc. and Silverado Premium Properties, LLC. Mr. Chang received an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School in 1993 and a B.A., cum laude, in Economics and Political Science from Yale University in 1989.



Corporate Headquarters

515 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, California 90071

United States

Phone: 310-282-8820
Fax: --

Board Members Memberships

2018-Present
Chairman

Education

MBA 1993
Harvard Business School
BA 1989
Yale University

Other Affiliations


Annual Compensation

There is no Annual Compensation data available.

Stocks Options

There is no Stock Options data available.

Total Compensation

There is no Total Compensation data available.

\




Share:

About TPG

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
About TPG Growth
TPG Growth is the middle market and growth equity investment platform of TPG, the global alternative asset firm. With approximately $13.2 billion of assets under management, TPG Growth targets investments in a broad range of industries and geographies. TPG Growth has the deep sector knowledge, operational resources, and global experience to drive value creation, and help companies reach their full potential. The firm is backed by the resources of TPG, which has more than $103 billion of assets under management. For more information, visit www.tpg.com.
Share:

Trinity Commons - Threats of arrest when seeking food.

Trinity Commons - Threats of arrest when seeking food.  No food, no housing and no chance to get back to work.  

Throw in Parental Abduction, a few churches and the boy scouts and you have legal jeapordy.
The recent Federal Indictments of TPG CEO William McGlashan demonstrate inequities in America.  Pete Bennett a local resident of Walnut Creek with a 40 years history is denied food, access to housing and has been banned by Trinity Center.  One reason is  Bennett's business and media efforts on Jobs and Outsourcing resulted in witness intimidation, threats of arrests, multiple attempts on his life and Parental Abduction of his sons. 


It took years to trace the suspects, agencies and local churches, tie them to a corrupt district attorney.  The former District Attorneys offices consistently refused to make arrests in the murder of San Francisco Police Officer Lester Garnier shot dead in Walnut Creek CA during a warm July night in 1988.  The reward signed by Mayor Newsom brought Pete Bennett forward which resulted in his sons being kidnapped with the help of Hillside Covenent Church. 

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
   
Share:

Trinity Center Walnut Creek patterns of Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation

Discrimination based on Sexual Orientation and Trinity Center Walnut Creek 

Trinity Center recieves funding from the City of Walnut Creek
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  


What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers


Overview

EEOC interprets and enforces Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.  These protections apply regardless of any contrary state or local laws.
Through investigation, conciliation, and litigation of charges by individuals against private sector employers, as well as hearings and appeals for federal sector workers, the Commission has taken the position that existing sex discrimination provisions in Title VII protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) applicants and employees against employment bias.  The Commission has obtained approximately $6.4 million in monetary relief for individuals, as well as numerous employer policy changes, in voluntary resolutions of LGBT discrimination charges under Title VII since data collection began in 2013.  A growing number of court decisions have endorsed the Commission's interpretation of Title VII.
The information provided below highlights what you should know about EEOC's outreach and enforcement in this area. 

Examples of LGBT-Related Sex Discrimination Claims

Some examples of LGBT-related claims that EEOC views as unlawful sex discrimination include:
  • Failing to hire an applicant because she is a transgender woman.
  • Firing an employee because he is planning or has made a gender transition.
  • Denying an employee equal access to a common restroom corresponding to the employee's gender identity.
  • Harassing an employee because of a gender transition, such as by intentionally and persistently failing to use the name and gender pronoun that correspond to the gender identity with which the employee identifies, and which the employee has communicated to management and employees.
  • Denying an employee a promotion because he is gay or straight.
  • Discriminating in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, such as providing a lower salary to an employee because of sexual orientation, or denying spousal health insurance benefits to a female employee because her legal spouse is a woman, while providing spousal health insurance to a male employee whose legal spouse is a woman.
  • Harassing an employee because of his or her sexual orientation, for example, by derogatory terms, sexually oriented comments, or disparaging remarks for associating with a person of the same or opposite sex.
  • Discriminating against or harassing an employee because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity, in combination with another unlawful reason, for example, on the basis of transgender status and race, or sexual orientation and disability.
See How to File a Charge of Employment Discrimination for information about filing a Title VII charge of sex discrimination in employment related to gender identity or sexual orientation bias. There is a different complaint process for federal employees.                                   

Applicable Federal Law

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate in employment against a job applicant, employee, or former employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.  These federal laws also prohibit employers from retaliating against workers who oppose discriminatory employment practices - for example, by reporting incidents of sexual harassment to their supervisor or human resources department - or against those who participate in an employment discrimination proceeding - for example by filing an EEOC charge, cooperating with an EEOC investigation, or participating in an employment discrimination lawsuit.
While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not explicitly include sexual orientation or gender identity in its list of protected bases, the Commission, consistent with Supreme Court case law holding that employment actions motivated by gender stereotyping are unlawful sex discrimination and other court decisions, interprets the statute's sex discrimination provision as prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Over the past several years the Commission has set forth its position in several published decisions involving federal employment.  These decisions explain the legal basis for concluding that LGBT-related discrimination constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII, and give examples of what would be considered unlawful. In so ruling, the Commission has not recognized any new protected characteristics under Title VII.  Rather, it has applied existing Title VII precedents to sex discrimination claims raised by LGBT individuals.  The Commission has reiterated these positions through recent amicus curiae briefs and litigation against private companies.

Sex Discrimination - Transgender Status

In Macy v. Dep't of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821, 2012 WL 1435995 (April 20, 2012), the Commission held that intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person's gender identity is, by definition, discrimination based on sex and therefore violates Title VII. 
The Macy decision explains that allegations of gender identity/transgender discrimination necessarily involve sex discrimination.  Such cases can be viewed as sex discrimination based on non-conformance with gender norms and stereotypes under the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, and based on a plain reading of the statute's "because of . . . sex" language. 
Applying Macy, the Commission has also held that an employer's restrictions on a transgender woman's ability to use a common female restroom facility constitutes disparate treatment, Lusardi v. Dep't of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133395, 2015 WL 1607756 (Mar. 27, 2015), that intentional misuse of a transgender employee's new name and pronoun may constitute sex-based discrimination and/or harassment, Jameson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130992, 2013 WL 2368729 (May 21, 2013), and that an employer's failure to revise its records pursuant to changes in gender identity stated a valid Title VII sex discrimination claim, Complainant v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133123, 2014 WL 1653484 (Apr. 16, 2014).

Sex Discrimination - Sexual Orientation

In Baldwin v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015), the Commission held that a claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily states a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. 
The Baldwin decision explains that allegations of sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involve sex-based considerations.  First, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves treating an employee differently because of his or her sex.  For example, a lesbian employee disciplined for displaying a picture of her female spouse can allege that an employer took a different action against her based on her sex where the employer did not discipline a male employee for displaying a picture of his female spouse.  Sexual orientation discrimination is also sex discrimination because it is associational discrimination on the basis of sex.  That is, an employee alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is alleging that the employer took the employee's sex into account by treating him or her differently for associating with a person of the same sex.  Finally, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is sex discrimination because it necessarily involves discrimination based on gender stereotypes, including employer beliefs about the person to whom the employee should be attracted. 

Charge Data

In FY 2015, EEOC received a total of 1,412 charges that included allegations of sex discrimination related to sexual orientation and/or gender identity/transgender status.  This represents an increase of approximately 28% over the total LGBT charges filed in FY 2014 (1,100).  EEOC resolved a total of 1,135 LGBT charges in FY 2015, including through voluntary agreements providing approximately $3.3 million in monetary relief for workers and achieving changes in employer policies so that discrimination would not recur.  This reflects increases of 34% in the number of resolutions over FY 2014 (847) and 51% in the amount of monetary relief over FY 2014 ($2.19 million).

Conciliation and Litigation

When the Commission finds reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, it seeks to resolve the matter voluntarily through informal means of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.  If the Commission is unable to secure a voluntary resolution, it has authority to file suit in federal court.  In several cases, the Commission has filed LGBT-related lawsuits under Title VII challenging alleged sex discrimination.  Read about examples of pending and resolved EEOC litigation involving Title VII sex discrimination claims brought on behalf of LGBT individuals, as well as EEOC amicus briefs filed in suits brought by private individuals raising these issues.   

Federal Sector Enforcement

In the federal sector, EEOC has implemented its priority for covering LGBT individuals in a variety of ways:
  • Tracking gender identity and sexual orientation appeals in the federal sector
  • Issuing 20 federal sector decisions in FY 2015, including finding that gender identity-related complaints and sexual orientation discrimination-related complaints can be brought under Title VII through the federal sector EEO complaint process.  For example, in  Larita G. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120142154 (Nov. 18, 2015), EEOC reversed the Agency's dismissal of a hostile work environment claim on the basis of sexual orientation because such an allegation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.
  • Establishing an LGBT workgroup to further EEOC's adjudicatory and oversight responsibilities
  • Issuing guidance, including instructions for processing complaints of discrimination by LGBT federal employees and applicants available on EEOC's public web site
  • Providing technical assistance to federal agencies in the development of gender transition policies and plans
  • Providing LGBT related outreach to federal agencies through briefings, presentations, and case law updates

Training and Outreach

EEOC is addressing LGBT legal developments in numerous outreach and training presentations to the public.  During FY 2015, field office staff conducted more than700 events and reached over 43,000 attendees where LGBT sex-discrimination issues were among the topics discussed. In the federal sector during FY 2015, there were approximately 53 presentations delivered to over 4,400 federal sector audience members.  These events reached a wide variety of audiences, including employee advocacy groups, small employer groups, students and staff at colleges and universities, staff and managers at federal agencies and human resource professionals.  To assist in this outreach, EEOC is distributing a brochure, Preventing Employment Discrimination Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender Employees.

Resources

The Commission has issued various technical assistance publications on LGBT issues, including:

Useful resources from other agencies include:

Other Laws

Be aware of other laws that also may apply:
  • Federal contractors and sub-contractors are covered by a separate, explicit prohibition on transgender or sexual orientation discrimination in employment pursuant to Executive Order 13672 and implementing regulations issued and enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance.  For more information, see Frequently Asked Questions on E.O. 13672 Final Rule, www.dol.gov/ofccp/LGBT/LGBT_FAQs.html
  • State or local fair employment laws may explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  Contact information for state and local fair employment agencies can be found on the page for EEOC's field office covering that state or locality. On the other hand, if a state or local law permits or does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the EEOC will still enforce Title VII's discrimination prohibitions against covered employers in that jurisdiction because contrary state law is not a defense under Title VII.  Applicants and employees in those jurisdictions should contact the EEOC directly if they believe they have been subjected to sex discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Note that the U.S. Department of Justice's position regarding Title VII's coverage of LGBT-related discrimination differs from that of the EEOC. See https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1006981/download.

Share:

Estate of Donald Joseph Fontaine and of Judy Lynn Scroggins - A most painful event

The Murders of Donald Joseph Fontaine and Judy Lynn Scroggins

A tragic accident, a most painful event and the CIA Cover-up connected to Colonel Oliver North air-traffic controller for Mena Airport.  





Putting flowers on old best friends graves. RIP Donny Fontaine and Judy Scroggins. 41 years later and it's still sad.









CITY OF CAPE CORAL v. DUVALL

Nos. 81-2068 to 81-2071.

436 So.2d 136 (1983)
CITY OF CAPE CORAL, Appellant, v. Kathy Jean DUVALL, a Minor, by Her Father and Next Friend, William R. Duvall, Appellees. CITY OF CAPE CORAL, Appellant, v. Richard FONTAINE, As Administrator of the Estate of Donald Joseph Fontaine, a Minor, Deceased, Appellee. CITY OF CAPE CORAL, Appellant, v. Camita BEDDOW, As Administratrix of the Estate of Judy Lynn Scroggins, Appellee. CITY OF CAPE CORAL, Appellant, v. John Thomas TKAC and Angela Tkac, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Rehearing Denied February 22, 1983.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Chris W. Altenbernd of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Wagner, Cunningham, Vaughan & McLaughlin, P.A., Tampa, Joe Unger, Miami and Joel D. Eaton and Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, for appellees.


RYDER, Judge.
The City of Cape Coral appeals from the final judgment awarding appellees damages for personal injuries. We reverse.
This action began as four lawsuits filed concerning an automobile accident occurring February 15, 1975 in Cape Coral. The plaintiffs/appellees are personal representatives of two parties killed in the accident, Scroggins and Fontaine, Kathy Duvall Ellis and her parents, as well as John Tkac and his wife. The plaintiffs/appellees brought suit against the City of Cape Coral, John Patrick McNally, Margaret McNally, Randall Industries, Inc., William Adkins and three insurance companies. The amended complaint alleges that all the plaintiffs were occupants of a taxicab struck in the rear by an automobile operated by McNally. The complaint alleges McNally had been stopped a few hours earlier by the Cape
[436 So.2d 137]
Coral Police Department. McNally was very intoxicated. The police department did not arrest McNally, but rather delivered him into the custody of Adkins, a cab driver for Jack's Radio Cabs, a subsidiary of Randall Industries. The complaint alleges that the officers negligently failed to determine the correct whereabouts of McNally's residence and the cab company failed to deliver him to his home. The cab company returned McNally to his car and gave him the keys. McNally drove away and shortly thereafter caused the accident and injuries to appellees. Following detailed proof of these allegations at trial, the jury returned a verdict finding McNally, Jack's Radio Cabs and Cape Coral to be at fault, and awarded damages.
On appeal, appellant argues that the lower court erred in giving or refusing various instructions and in failing to direct verdicts on several grounds. We hold that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on an applicable statute, and do not discuss the other issues raised.
Section 856.011(3), Florida Statutes (1981), provides as follows:
[A]ny peace officer, in lieu of incarcerating an intoxicated person for violation of subsection (1), may take or send the intoxicated person to his home or to a public or private health facility, and the law enforcement officer may take reasonable measures to ascertain the commercial transportation used for such purposes is paid for by such person in advance. Any law enforcement officer so acting shall be considered as carrying out their official duty.
Upon appellant's request to so instruct the jury, the court ruled that the statute did not apply and refused the request. We hold that the statute could be applied to the facts below and that the lower court erred in refusing the instruction.
Additionally, during the pendancy of this appeal, this court has considered a case with nearly identical facts. In Everton v. Willard, 426 So.2d 996, (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), we held that neither a county nor deputy sheriff may be held liable for the exercise of discretion not to arrest a drinking driver, when that driver subsequently causes injury. We adopt the holding and rationale of Everton, and hold that it precludes relief for appellees below.
Accordingly, the judgments below are vacated and the cases remanded for entry of judgment for appellant.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

Share:

Connecting TPG CEO William McGlashan via Success Factors to Bennett

Connecting TGP Growth, McGlashan, Blum, Success Factors, Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  


sss
EX-8.1 g08859a3exv8w1.htm EX-8.1 OPINION OF ALSTON & BIRD LLP
 

Exhibit 8.1
Alston & Bird llp
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424

404-881-7000
Fax: 404-881-7777
www.alston.com
December 6, 2007
Graphic Packaging Corporation
814 Livingston Court
Marietta, Georgia 30067
     Re: Combination of Graphic Packaging Corporation and Altivity Packaging LLC
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
     We have acted as counsel to Graphic Packaging Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Graphic”), in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreement and Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 9, 2007 (the “Transaction Agreement”), by and among Graphic, Bluegrass Container Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“BCH”), TPG Bluegrass IV, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“TPG IV”), TPG Bluegrass IV — AIV 2, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“TPG IV — AIV”), TPG Bluegrass V, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“TPG V”), TPG Bluegrass V — AIV 2, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“TPG V — AIV”), Field Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Field Holdings”), TPG FOF V-A, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“FOF-VA”), TPG FOF V-B, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“FOF V-B”), and BCH Management, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“BCH Management” and together with Field Holdings, TPG IV, TPG IV — AIV, TPG V, TPG V — AIV, FOF V-A, FOF V-B, and each owner of the BCH Equity Interests, the “Sellers”), New Giant Corporation, a newly organized Delaware corporation (“New Graphic”), and Giant Merger Sub, Inc., a newly organized Delaware corporation (“Merger Sub”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings specified in the Transaction Agreement.
     Pursuant to the Transaction Agreement: (a) Merger Sub shall be merged with and into Graphic, with Graphic surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of New Graphic, and each share of Graphic common stock shall be converted into the right to receive one validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable share of New Graphic common stock (the “Merger”); and (b) the Sellers shall contribute to New Graphic all of the BCH Equity Interests in exchange for newly issued common stock of New Graphic (the “Exchange”) (the Merger together with the Exchange, the “Transactions”).
      
      
One Atlantic Center
90 Park Avenue3201 Beechleaf Court, Suite 600601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
1201 West Peachtree Street
New York, NY 10016Raleigh, NC 27604-1062North Building, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
212-210-9400919-862-2200Washington, DC 20004-2601
404-881-7000
Fax: 212-210-9444Fax: 919-862-2260202-756-3300
Fax: 404-881-7777
Fax: 202-756-3333




 

Graphic Packaging Corporation
December 6, 2007
Page 2
     This opinion letter is being delivered in connection with, and as of the date of the consummation of the Transactions and the declaration of effectiveness by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) of the registration statement on Form S-4 and any amendments thereto (the “Registration Statement”), as filed with the SEC to which this opinion letter appears as an exhibit. In that connection, you have requested our opinion regarding (i) certain U.S. federal income tax consequences of the Merger, and (ii) the accuracy of the discussion of the material U.S. federal income tax consequences to the stockholders of New Graphic under the heading “The Transactions — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences to Graphic Stockholders” in the Registration Statement.
     In rendering the opinions expressed herein, we have examined the Transaction Agreement, the Registration Statement, and such other documents as we have deemed necessary or appropriate for purposes of our opinions. We have not, however, undertaken any independent investigation of any factual matter set forth in any of the foregoing. In addition, we have assumed with your consent that:
     (i) The Transaction Agreement and Registration Statement accurately and completely describe the Transactions, the Transactions will be consummated in accordance with the provisions of the Transaction Agreement and the Registration Statement, and the Transactions will be effective under the laws of the State of Delaware;
     (ii) The statements concerning the Transactions set forth in the Transaction Agreement and the Registration Statement are true, complete and correct and will remain true, complete and correct at all times up to and including the Effective Time;
     (iii) The parties have complied with and, if applicable, will continue to comply with, the covenants contained in the Transaction Agreement;
     (iv) The representations made by Graphic, New Graphic and BCH, in their respective letters delivered to us for purposes of this opinion letter (the “Representation Letters”) are true, complete and correct and will remain true, complete and correct at all times up to and including the Effective Time;
     (v) Any representations made in the Representation Letters “to the knowledge of” or similarly qualified are correct without such qualification; and
     (vi) All documents submitted to us as photocopies faithfully reproduce the originals thereof, such originals are authentic, all such documents have been or will be duly executed to the extent required, and all statements set forth in such documents are accurate.
     If any of the above described assumptions are untrue for any reason or if the Transactions are consummated in a manner that is different from the manner in which they are




 

Graphic Packaging Corporation
December 6, 2007
Page 3
described in the Transaction Agreement or the Registration Statement, our opinions as expressed below may be adversely affected and may not be relied upon.
     Based upon the foregoing, and subject to the assumptions set forth herein, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we are of the opinion that:
     (i) The Merger, together with the Exchange, will constitute an exchange under Section 351 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), or the Merger will constitute a reorganization within the meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code, or both;
     (ii) No gain or loss will be recognized by Graphic as a result of the Transactions;
     (iii) No gain or loss will be recognized by holders of Graphic common stock on the exchange of their Graphic common stock for New Graphic common stock as a result of the Transactions; and
     (iv) The statements under the heading “The Transactions — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences to Graphic Stockholders” in the Registration Statement, to the extent that they describe matters of law or legal conclusions and subject to the qualifications, assumptions and limitations stated therein, are accurate in all material respects.
     Our opinions are based on current provisions of the Code, Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, published pronouncements of the Internal Revenue Service and case law, any of which may be changed at any time, possibly with retroactive effect. Any change in applicable laws or the facts and circumstances surrounding the Transactions, or any inaccuracy in the statements, facts, assumptions or representations upon which we have relied, may affect or change our opinions as set forth herein. We assume no responsibility to inform you of any such change or inaccuracy that comes to our attention, and we have no obligation to update our opinions. Finally, our opinions are limited to the tax matters specifically covered hereby, and we have not been asked to address, nor have we addressed, any other tax consequences of the Transactions.
     We express our opinion herein only as to those matters specifically set forth above and no opinion should be inferred as to the tax consequences of the Transactions under any state, local or foreign law, or with respect to other areas of United States federal taxation. We are members of the Bar of the State of Georgia, and we do not express any opinion herein concerning any law other than the federal law of the United States. Our opinions are not binding upon the Internal Revenue Service or the courts and there is no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service will not assert a contrary position.




 


Graphic Packaging Corporation
December 6, 2007
Page 4
     We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as Exhibit 8.1 to the Registration Statement, and to the use of our name under the caption “The Transactions — Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences to Graphic Stockholders” in the Registration Statement. In giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Sincerely,


ALSTON & BIRD LLP
By:  /s/ Gerald V. Thomas II  
Gerald V. Thomas II, Partner 

Share:

Did Billioniare Philip Anschutz Director of Santa Fe Southern Pacific kill the witness in Bennett v. Southern Pacific

Connecting KKR, Regal Cinemas, Philip Anschutz to Pete Bennett 

IN the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific was a murder connected Santa Fe Industries somehow my witnsess was murdered in Concord CA.  Somehow Judge Peter Spinetta sided with my counsel who turned on in me in the courtroom.  
The credibilty of the offices of the Contra Costa District Attorney between the mid-70s to when DA Mark Peterson should be questioned.  

 Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  

KKR's largest investment of the 1990s would be one of its least successful. In January 1998, KKR and Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst agreed to the $1.5 billion buyout of Regal Entertainment Group.[92] KKR and Hicks Muse had initially intended to combine Regal with Act III Cinemas, which KKR had acquired in 1997 for $706 million[93] and United Artists Theaters, which Hicks Muse had agreed to acquire for $840 million in November 1997. Shortly after agreeing to the Regal takeover, the deal with United Artists fell apart, destroying the strategy to eliminate costs by building a larger combined company.[94] Two years later, in 2000, Regal encountered significant financial issues and was forced to file for bankruptcy protection; the company passed to billionaire investor Philip Anschutz.[95]
Share:

TPG, Richard Blum, Playtext, and Newbridge Investment Partners

Connecting Success Factors to Bennett

The Dubious Phone Call and Time Wasting Project
The folks at TPG will have to answer to my Whistleblower Complaints on the truly odd collection of RFPs emanating from companies connected to Richard Blum, William McGlashan, CBRE, Regency Centers, Trammel Crow, Lennar, Catellus.

My story is about witness murders, private equity, mergers and acquisitions linked back to the Matter of Bennett v. Southern Pacific lost in 1989.  It was a winnable case as long the witnesses testified.  
Fund Vintage
year
Committed
capital ($m)
TPG's Flagship Leveraged Buyout Funds
Texas Pacific Group Partners 1994 $721
Texas Pacific Group Partners II 1997 $2,500
Texas Pacific Group Partners III 2000 $3,414
Texas Pacific Group Partners IV 2003 $5,300
Texas Pacific Group Partners V 2006 $15,000
TPG Partners VI 2008 $19,800
TPG Partners VII 2016 $10,500
Venture capital funds
TPG Ventures 2001 $339
TPG Biotechnology Partners 2002 $70
TPG Biotechnology Partners II 2006 $402
TPG Biotechnology Partners III 2008 $550
Distressed debt funds
TPG Credit Management I 2007 $1,000
TPG Credit Strategies 2007 $443
Newbridge and TPG Asia funds
Newbridge Investment Partners 1995 $120
Newbridge Latin America 1995 $300
Newbridge Andean Partners 1996 $150
Newbridge Asia II 1998 $392
Newbridge Asia III 2001 $724
Newbridge Asia IV 2005 $1,500
TPG Asia V 2008 $4,250
Other private equity funds
T3 Partners 1999 $1,000
T3 Partners II 2001 $378
TPG Star 2007 $1,500
Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts