The Anatomy of Public Corruption

Showing posts with label Success Factors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Success Factors. Show all posts

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:

The Whistleblower Adjustment Committee - NO MORE WITNESS RETALIATION



The Whistleblower Adjustment Committee

You can beat the shit out of me as much as want but I will stand up for those that are gone
You can kill my witnesses all day long but I will find them and yell to the universe

Dead Witnesses

see pete



Whistleblower Protections


Protections Against Retaliation

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act expanded the protections for whistleblowers and broadened the prohibitions against retaliation.  Following the passage of Dodd-Frank, the SEC implemented rules that enabled the SEC to take legal action against employers who have retaliated against whistleblowers.  This generally means that employers may not discharge, demote, suspend, harass, or in any way discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because the employee reported conduct that the employee reasonably believed violated the federal securities laws.
Dodd-Frank also created a private right of action that gives whistleblowers the right to file a retaliation complaint in federal court.  This means that if you are a whistleblower who has reported a possible securities law violation and believe you have been retaliated against because of your report, you may be able to sue your employer in federal court and seek double back pay (with interest), reinstatement, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and reimbursement for certain costs in connection with the litigation.
You can find more information about the Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections, including the time period by which a whistleblower must file a private action in federal court, in Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
If you believe you have been retaliated against by your employer for reporting a potential securities law violation and want to let us know, you may do so by submitting a tip either through our online portal or by mail or fax.

Protections Against Actions Taken to Impede Reporting

In addition to protecting whistleblowers who have reported possible securities law violations from retaliation, Commission Rule 21F-17(a) prohibits any person from taking any action to prevent you from contacting the SEC directly to report a possible securities law violation.  The Rule states “[n]o person may take action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement…with respect to such communications.” 
Unlike the anti-retaliation protections, the protections against actions taken to impede reporting possible securities law violations are not limited to the employee-employer context.  Only the SEC, however, may file an enforcement action for a violation of Rule 21F-17(a).
Please let us know by submitting a tip if you believe that someone has taken any action to prevent you from communicating with the SEC concerning a possible securities law violation.

Frequently Asked Questions

The answers to these frequently asked questions represent the views of the staff of the Office of the Whistleblower. They are not rules, regulations or statements of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Further, the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved them. These FAQs provide short general summaries of certain key features of the SEC Whistleblower Program and do not purport to be a complete or comprehensive discussion of all of its provisions. For detailed information about the program, including eligibility requirements and certain limitations that apply, please see Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Final Rules implementing the program.
  1. What rights do I have if my employer fires me or retaliates against me for submitting information to the SEC?
You may bring an action in federal court within a certain time period if your employer violates the anti-retaliation provisions of Dodd-Frank.  If you are successful in court, you may be entitled to reinstatement, double back pay, litigation costs, expert witness fees, and attorneys’ fees.
The anti-retaliation protections generally apply to employees who report information regarding possible violations of the federal securities laws.  Among other things, these protections provide that an employer may not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any way discriminate against a whistleblower in the terms or conditions of employment for:
  • Providing information to the SEC under the whistleblower program, or
  • Initiating, testifying in, or assisting the SEC in any investigation or proceeding
In addition, the SEC may also bring an enforcement action against a company that violates the anti-retaliation provisions of Dodd-Frank.
You may also be able to file a retaliation complaint in federal court under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”).  You can find information about your rights and protections under SOX on the Department of Labor’s whistleblower website
  1. I’m considering reporting internally to my company. Will I still be eligible for the anti-retaliation protections under Dodd-Frank?
With the passage of Dodd-Frank, Congress amended the Exchange Act to add Section 21F, which established a series of new incentives and protections for individuals to report possible violations of the federal securities laws, including enhanced employment retaliation protections.
On February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers stating that the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provisions only extend to those persons who provide information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the SEC.  To understand how this may affect you, we encourage you to consult with an attorney.
If you choose to report a possible securities law violation internally to your company, you also can report that information directly to the SEC either before or at the same time as reporting internally.  If you have already reported to the company, you can still report to the Commission now.
Regardless of whether the anti-retaliation protections extend to you, you may remain eligible for an award under our whistleblower award program. We encourage you to provide information about potential securities law violations to the SEC by submitting a tip. 
  1. What if I am asked to sign an agreement that prevents me from reporting my concerns directly to the SEC?
Such an agreement may violate the federal securities laws.  Rule 21F-17(a) provides that “[n]o person may take any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing or threatening to enforce a confidentiality agreement…with respect to such communications.”
If you have been asked to sign such an agreement, or have already signed such an agreement, and want to understand how the rules may apply to you, we encourage you to consult with an attorney.  You may also send us a copy of your agreement, if you so choose, by submitting it as a tip either through our online portal or by mail or fax.
  1. Do the anti-retaliation protections apply overseas?
Dodd-Frank does not specifically state whether, or to what extent, the anti-retaliation protections apply to individuals or conduct outside of the United States.  To understand if the anti-retaliation protections may apply to you, we encourage you to consult with an attorney. We encourage you to submit a tip to the SEC if you believe you have been retaliated against for reporting potential securities law violations even if the retaliation occurred outside of the United States.
Regardless of whether the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protections extend to you, you may remain eligible for an award under our whistleblower award program.  You do not need to reside or work in the United States to be eligible for an award under our whistleblower award program.  

SEC Enforcement Actions

The SEC has brought a number of actions based on both retaliatory conduct, as well as actions taken to impede reporting.
Enforcement Actions Based on Retaliatory Conduct
In the Matter of SandRidge Energy, Inc., File No. 3-17739 (December 20, 2016)
In the Matter of International Game Technology, File No. 3-17596 (September 29, 2016)
In the Matter of Paradigm Capital Management, Inc. and Candace King Weir, File No. 3-15930 (June 16, 2014)
Enforcement Actions Based on Actions Taken to Impede Reporting
In the Matter of Homestreet, Inc. and Darrell Van Amen, File No. 3-17801 (January 19, 2017)
In the Matter of Blackrock, Inc., File No. 3-17786 (January 17, 2017)
In the Matter of SandRidge Energy, Inc., File No. 3-17739 (December 20, 2016)
In the Matter of NeuStar, Inc., File No. 3-17736 (December 19, 2016)
In the Matter of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, File No. 3-17586 (September 28, 2016)
In the Matter of Health Net, Inc., File No. 3-17396 (August 16, 2016)
In the Matter of BlueLinx Holdings Inc., File No. 3-17371 (August 10, 2016)
In the Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., File No. 3-17312 (June 23, 2016)
In the Matter of KBR, Inc., File No. 3-16466 (April 1, 2015)

Retaliation News

Financial Company Charged with Improper Accounting and Impeding Whistleblowers (1/19/17)
Blackrock Charged with Removing Whistleblower Incentives in Separation Agreements (1/17/17)
Company Settles Charges in Whistleblower Retaliation Case (12/20/16)
Company Violated Rule Aimed at Protecting Potential Whistleblowers (12/19/16)
Risk Alert: Examining Whistleblower Rule Compliance (10/24/2016)
SEC: Casino-Gaming Company Retaliated Against Whistleblower (9/29/16)
SEC Charges Anheuser-Busch InBev With Violating FCPA and Whistleblower Protection Laws (9/28/16)
Company Punished for Severance Agreements That Removed Financial Incentives for Whistleblowing (8/16/16)
Company Paying Penalty for Violating Key Whistleblower Protection Rule (8/10/16)
Merrill Lynch to Pay $415 Million for Misusing Customer Cash and Putting Customer Securities at Risk (6/23/16)
Interpretation of the SEC’s Whistleblower Rules Under Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Aug. 4, 2015)
SEC Announces Award to Whistleblower in First Retaliation Case (4/28/15)
SEC: Companies Cannot Stifle Whistleblowers in Confidentiality Agreements (4/1/15)
SEC Charges Hedge Fund Adviser With Conducting Conflicted Transactions and Retaliating Against Whistleblower (6/16/14)
Statement on Court Filing by SEC to Protect Whistleblowers From Retaliation (2/20/14)

Internal Reporting Amicus Briefs

The SEC has intervened in several private cases to argue that the anti-retaliation protections of Dodd-Frank should apply to individuals who internally report potential securities laws violations as well as to those who make disclosures directly to the SEC.  However, on February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers stating that the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provisions only extend to those persons who provide information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the SEC.
Court of Appeals
The SEC maintains a listing of the amicus briefs filed in the Courts of Appeals.
District Courts
The below is a listing of some of the amicus briefs filed by the SEC in the District Courts:

Have Questions?


OWB Hotline
202-551-4790
We are here to answer your questions.

Share:

Anchor links for post titles

Popular Posts

Blog Archive

Labels

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Labels

Recent Posts

Pages

Labels

Blog Archive

Recent Posts