It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge in California ordered a law firm linked to Stormy Daniels’ attorney to pay $10 million on Tuesday to a lawyer who claimed that the firm had misstated its profits and that he was owed millions. The judgment came after Jason Frank, who used to work at Eagan Avenatti, alleged that that the law firm failed to pay a $4.85 million settlement he had reached in December. He said in court papers that the settlement was personally guaranteed by Michael Avenatti, who has garnered national attention as the attorney for Daniels, the porn actress who is suing President Donald Trump following an alleged 2006 affair. Frank had worked at Avenatti’s firm under an independent contractor agreement and was supposed to collect 25 percent of the firm’s annual profits, along with 20 percent of fees his clients paid, according to court documents. He resigned in May 2016 after alleging that the firm didn’t pay him millions of dollars that he was owed, misstated the firm’s profits and wouldn’t provide copies of tax returns and other financial documents. After he resigned, Frank brought the case to a panel of arbitrators, who found that the firm “acted with malice, fraud, and oppression by hiding its revenue numbers,” according to a copy of the arbitration report included in court documents. In December, Frank settled with Avenatti’s firm for a total of $4.85 million, which was supposed to include an initial $2 million payment and then a second payment for $2.85 million. The $2 million payment was supposed to be made by May 14, but Avenatti and his firm never paid, Frank said in court papers.
The settlement agreement included a clause that the firm couldn’t oppose a request for a $10 million judgment if the settlement payments weren’t made within three days of the due date. Frank did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment on Tuesday. The judgment is final and cannot be appealed, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Catherine Bauer said in her ruling.
originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Not trying to defend this law firm but who would hire someone with an agreement to pay them 25% of the company's annual profit? That's unbelievable. Sounds a bit fishy to me.
originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Not trying to defend this law firm but who would hire someone with an agreement to pay them 25% of the company's annual profit? That's unbelievable. Sounds a bit fishy to me.
originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
you're funny, nobody wants to impeach him for his sex life like the republicans did. LOLOLOL i know, he lied under oath about a bj. is trump going to be interviewed?
avenatti isn't worried about any of this and he's SUPER hot.
I think Stormy was paid to provoke this and it was a last ditch effort by the never Trumpers to try a hail Mary.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude
I think Stormy was paid to provoke this and it was a last ditch effort by the never Trumpers to try a hail Mary.
I'm not sure what this aspect even has to do with Stormy Daniels, except that it involved her lawyer.
well, it's an opinion, not a fact.
And as far as it involving Stormy Daniels, I'll let reading comprehension do my work for me.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude
well, it's an opinion, not a fact.
So your opinion is that Stormy was paid to provoke a lawsuit from someone that has nothing to do with the Trump aspect, and that was a hail mary from the Left-never Trumpers?
What?
How does one even go to the leaps in logic to formulate such an opinion?
And as far as it involving Stormy Daniels, I'll let reading comprehension do my work for me.
Ya. So it involves the firm Storm's lawyer is involved with.
That's about it.
It seems you are making conspiracy out of thin air. Not to mention just fabricating nonsense.
how does one find enough nits to pick is beyond me, but when all you have is a hammer, I suppose everything looks like a nail. I won't bother with the crayon rendition today. If you don't like my opinion, you can ignore it, or not.