Table of Contents
- Corporate Governance: From Rapture To Revulsion
- Legal Ethics: Sex With Clients Coming To An End
- Appellate Practice: Curbing Chronic Long-Windedness
- Law Firm Management: Can The Loo Be A Profit Center?
- Frivolous Litigation: A Soupçon Of Merit, A Carload Of Chutzpah
- The Media: Facebook’s Trending And Troubling Fake News Scandal
- Crowing: Aubergines’ Award-Winning Reporting Team Feted
- Local news: The Town Of Atherton
- The Menlo Maven: A Salve For The Valley’s Legions Of Lonely
- Aubergines De-Classified Advertising
From Rapture To Revulsion:
With No Buy-Sell Agreement,
Company’s Feuding Co-Founders,
Once Lovers, Go Nuclear In Court
TransPerfect is a highly successful New York City-based company formed by two former lovers in 1993 in their college dorm room. It provides language translation and other corporate services to some of the largest companies in the world.
The globalization of world commerce has been very good to TransPerfect. Revenues have grown to nearly $500 million annually, and it has over 3,500 employees in 90 offices around the world. Estimates of the company’s value are $1Billion or more.
The co-founders were briefly engaged to be married, but that was broken off in 1997. Ever since the company’s founding and still today, both of the co-founders have carried the title of Co-CEO.
Things seem to be going swimmingly for this power couple until their engagement was broken off, when their mutual affection quickly turned to mutual loathing. But their breakup did not end each of them continuing to hold 50% of TransPerfect’s shares, nor did it end their occupying the only two board seats of the company.
Being Co-CEO’s can often work well for a couple, but it can sometimes result in troublesome management friction when the romance grows chilly, even worse when a deep freeze sets in. To say that TransPerfect’s management has today become dysfunctional is probably a huge understatement. With a 50-50 shareholders’ voting standoff, and no buy-sell agreement in place between the two shareholders, a resulting deadlock has produced dueling lawsuits pending in two states, and prevented the company’s management from making key decisions free of bitter rancor and high-stakes ransom demands. No tool seemed available to it for resolving the internal crisis and preserving the company’s value.
Without an agreement, the co-CEOs can’t fire each other. They can’t sell the company. They can’t buy each other out. They can’t raise capital. Nor can they change the way the business is being run. Even simple hiring decisions are bitterly fought over. And everyone inside the company has become painfully aware that the two factions despise each other and that they are duking it out in court to gain control.
Lawsuits by the two TransPerfect co-founders are pending in Delaware and New York. And a Delaware court (the company was incorporated there) recently decided that the acrimonious nonalignment of the two co-CEOs had become so bitter, so destructive and so paralyzing that there was no viable course of action other than to order that the company be sold to a third party, with the two c-founders to share in the proceeds equally. Neither founder likes this decision. He is appealing. She is considering it. The employees don’t like the court’s decision either, because they fear that a sale to a third party will jeopardize their jobs and invite ensuing tumult, layoffs and uncertainty. (Rudi Giuliani has been engaged by the employee group to intervene in the court actions.)
Delaware corporate law permits a court to order the sale of a company in the event of a deadlocked board and its shareholders. And that is just what the judge in the Delaware proceeding has recently done.
How could this disastrous outcome have been avoided? A traditional buy-sell agreement between these co-founders could have – and should have – been entered into at the time the company was formed. Such an agreement can anticipate how to deal with divorce, death, disability and even disagreement, and provide for options that shareholders hold to buy out each other, adopt a formula for determining price, and provide for an arbitration right to listen to claims and order a binding decision that provides a go-forward plan. Such agreements rarely call for a sale of the company to a third party which the shareholders do not want.
These agreements come in many variations, and use different short-hand titles such as “shareholders’ agreement” and “buy-sell agreement”. Most startups in Silicon Valley start off with agreements of this type in place. But not always. There are many examples of highly successful startups which had no such agreement at the outset, but when investors come in they typically will insist that all shareholders be governed by a shareholders’ agreement. SnapChat and Square are two examples where the founders, well after company success had begun to occur, still had no shareholders’ agreement with the co-founders. Both companies were plagued by bitter and costly litigation. Both companies were fortunate that they were so successful at the time of their initial venture capital funding came in that the investors were willing to come in despite the perils of the lawsuits’ outcomes. Not all startups in such a perilous position are so lucky.
So, when is the best time to implement a buy-sell agreement? At the earliest possible time, preferably when the initial shares are being issued. Why? Because a startup company’s value at formation is typically very low, since its potential appreciation in value will depend almost entirely on achievements and successes that have not yet occurred. However, founders tend to rarely spend much time on such agreements, choosing to focus instead on what they see as bigger and more pressing issues like getting the right team together, cutting up the ownership pie equitably and establishing proper share vesting terms, and bringing in much-needed equity funding to cover the period while their technologies and products are being developed.
Parallels are often drawn between business partnerships and marriages, in order to stress the importance of “taking care of business at the front-end”. It’s accepted as a truism that entering into a buy-sell agreement where a business formation is concerned is a lot like signing a pre-nuptial agreement in the case of a marriage. Yes, these agreements can seem to the founders like they are unnecessary, or costly, and even excruciatingly boring and far-fetched to contemplate. However, taking care of them at the front end can save a lot of headaches, frustration and loss of control over key issues should the future serve up – as it usually does – events and circumstances that probably neither party thought possible, if they thought about them at all.
[The TransPerfect power struggle litigation has been going on for over two years. Crain's Business wrote this colorful article in 2014 (which comes with a sound link to some of the vitriolic phone calls between the two key actors). And the New York Times' Deal Professor wrote about the bitter fight in early November of this year. Read here. ]
Proposed Bar Ethics Rules
To Ban Attorney-Client Sex
Stiff Bar Blow-back Expected
Broad Collapse Of Firms Predicted
The State Bar of California has not updated its ethics rules since 1987. Although other states have adopted similar bans involving sex with clients, and the American Bar Association has adopted such a rule, the California State Bar has until now shown little interest in regulating this area of lawyers’ conduct.
It’s mind-numbing to think of the innumerable penetrating questions that members of the California Bar will ask in order to make their point that enforcement of such a rule is not only prudish, old-fashioned, impossible to precisely define, difficult to enforce and, well, just plain silly.
“What kinds of sex would this prohibit? might be a fertile place to begin. That question alone could take years to get to the bottom of. Recall that President Clinton had considerable difficulty during his Congressional impeachment proceeding deciphering the precise meaning of sex, even stumbling on the many complex possibilities of interpretation when confronted with the seemingly simple word “is”.
And considering California’s leading role in the sexual revolution including its avant garde role in originating and legitimizing the first topless bars and dirty movies, tolerating free love in Golden Gate Park for the flower children of the 70′s, the California birthplace of the scientific development of the first oral birth control medication, the Los Angeles home of the multi-billion dollar pornography industry and the embrace of the legality of gay and lesbian relationships, just to name a few key beacons of sexual revolt for the State Bar to choose this particular moment to regulate the sexual conduct between lawyers and their clients. The whole notion is striking many experts in ethics, leading spokespersons in the state bar, pundits, journalists (fake and real), ministers, spiritual advisors, life coaches and politicians as “a real head-scratcher”.
Federal Appellate Practice
Fed Up With Verbosity, Bloviation
Courts’ New Word Count Cap
Begs Brevity For Bar Briefs
Many jokes and wisecracks have been made for centuries about how long-winded members of the legal profession tend to be. To be fair, most of the public’s view of this tendency toward wordiness is mostly directed at those whose practices involve trial proceedings and appeals.
Trial court judges typically have the power to cut off a trial lawyer in mid-stream who’s seen as talking for too long. No strict rules are required for this; the enforcement occurs swiftly and arbitrarily when the judge’s patience is overly tested.
But did you know that federal appeals courts, and many state appeals courts, have adopted formal rules for the length of filed appeal briefs? The current limit for word count for a federal appeals court brief is 14,000. This is a seemingly generous limit for arguing effectively on behalf of just about anything, especially if you consider that the U.S. Constitution, a powerful and enduring foundation for our democracy uses only 4,543. (Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged came in at 561,996 words).
Appellate judges complain that briefs just keep getting longer and longer, more repetitive and needlessly larded up with lofty and archaic legal jargon. They argue that all that wordiness has no effect except to frustrate the judges who must read them.
Appellate lawyers, not surprisingly, argue that topics today are just increasingly complex, requiring many more words with which to formulate arguments and lay out the many operative facts. In fact, many leading appellate lawyers favor increasing, not lowering, the word limit.
Appellate judges point out that they have an average of 1,200 cases to review annually. This involves an opening brief, an opposition brief and a reply brief, with the result that each judge would currently be reading about 42 million words annually for an average caseload. (The Encyclopedia Britannica contains approximately 44 million words.)
In the past, appellate judges may have had it a lot worse. The rules previously called for limits on the number of pages to 50. But appellate lawyers – no dummies, they – used smaller font sizes and other techniques such as thinner margins to cram more and more words into 50 pages. Alas, continuing abuse of the 50-page limit led to adoption of the current 14,000-word limit.
When all points of view had been aired in the recent consideration of this by a joint judicial/bar panel, including an argument by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts in opposition to reducing the limit, the rule-makers agreed to a reduction of the word limit to 13,500, a modest win for the appellate judges of only a niggling 3.7% drop. The new rule took effect on December 1, 2016.
Will the appellate bar continue to invent creative new ways to circumvent the lower word limit? Given its history of tinkering with font size and narrower margins, it seems like a safe bet that new algorithms will be created on behalf of the appellate bar which can quickly edit text to reduce its wordcount. And who’s to say whether the current word-counting formulation built into Microsoft Word is accurate, or the only way that a fair count can be achieved? And wouldn’t counting characters and not words be a much more accurate and fairer way to measure the length of a brief?
Expect to see some future jousting over these gripping, unanswered questions. And probably some appeals, too. We could go on and on in discussing this immensely interesting subject, but out of respect for brevity and conciseness, not to mention our readers’ extremely busy schedules, we’ll stop here.
Editor’s Note: In an obscure 1921 case’s even more obscure footnote, one of our nation’s most colorful and sagacious jurists, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, who served with distinction (and no small amount of controversy) as a federal court judge from 1905 to 1922, shared his belief of what constitutes a legal brief of acceptable quality:
“It must not only enlighten and persuade, it must flow like the smoothest and creamiest of fine chicken gizzard gravies, it must begin softly, almost like a whisper, then gently begin to elevate its tempo to one which is pitch perfect and most pleasant for even the most untutored reader to follow with ease.
All temptation of the writer must be resisted to shout, bellow or yell its most important points, and its words must always be free of even the subtlest arrogance, condescension or gloating. It should derive its greatest power not by flowery or arcane language that is unfamiliar to the common man, but by the sheer force of its logic alone, its precisely selected legal precedent and the solid construction of its good reasoning. Of course, it must be supported by an appropriate but modest quantity of facts which provide ballast to its central propositions; as when cooking with paprika, chili peppers and nearly all Cajun spices, moderation in the quantity of facts used in a brief can determine the difference between total success and mortal failure.
Most assuredly, if a brief exasperates, irritates or confounds its reader, it is destined to greatly prejudice the client’s case, and risk embarrassing its counsel even more so.”
Read more about Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis, who grew up and was educated in Indiana, and who practiced general law with limited success in the Hoosier State before moving to Chicago to successfully practice corporate law. Later, he was appointed to the federal bench by President Grover Cleveland. Landis later became the US Commissioner of Baseball during one of its darkest periods, the Black Sox Scandal.
Law Firm Administration
Billing For Toilet Time Urged
Big Law Firm’s Memo Leaked
A Policy That, To Many, Stinks
AboveTheLaw.com, a popular site for gossip in the legal profession, reported recently on a leaked management memo to lawyers in a UK-based Big Law firm that stated explicitly what many clients have long suspected, but never thought anyone would be foolish enough to reduce to writing: It’s not only ok to bill clients for potty time, it’s expected.
Well, there you have it. The thoughts of lawyers, even while taking a break, continue to flow and are valuable enough to bill for.
Above The Law goes on to report that most US Big Law firms are believed to follow this policy, whether they choose to put it in writing or not.
Perhaps there’s a “wee” bit of exaggeration contained in this report. Let’s hope so.
Editor’s Note: In an obscure 1921 case’s even more obscure footnote, one of our nation’s most colorful and sagacious jurists, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, who served with distinction (and some controversy) as a federal court judge from 1905 to 1922, shared his belief of what constitutes a legal brief of acceptable quality:
“It must not only enlighten and persuade, it must flow like the smoothest and creamiest of fine gizzard gravies, it must begin softly, almost like a whisper, then gently begin to elevate its tempo to one which is pitch perfect and most pleasant for even the most untutored reader to follow with ease.”
Lawyer Threatens $2.25 Lawsuit
Alleges Soup Order Flubbed
Was It A Fine Creamy Bisque?
Or Just Cheesy Pimping Du Jour?
You be the judge. Reported recently on Newser.com: A Texas lawyer became so upset that he wasn’t provided a cup of soup for a recent meal has notified a restaurant owner that he’ll sue if he isn’t reimbursed for $2.25 for the soup.
Attorney Dwain Downing also is seeking $250 in attorney fees for the time spent drafting a letter sent to Benji Arslanovski, who operates Our Place Restaurant in the Fort Worth suburb of Mansfield. Downing says the soup was listed on the menu as part of a Saturday special. He says the restaurant offered no discount or substitution when it ran out. His argument is that the menu amounts to a contract with the customer and that Arslanovski violated the terms of the contract. But the restaurateur says the menu makes clear the soup comes with a meal “while supplies last.”
Recall, if you will, that the state of Texas has produced some of the most creative, cunning and colorful trial lawyers in the US, including Percy Foreman, Joe Jamail, Rusty Hardin, Richard “Racehorse” Haines and Dick De Guerin.
Duane Downing may not seem like a good bet to reach the lofty pinnacle these trial lawyers have, but he certainly doesn’t lack in self-promotional zeal, nor does he seem to possess any level of shame whatsoever. Don’t count him out just yet.
“I don’t want to make a big deal of this,” Downing told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. But he says “it was a wrong and deceptive practice.” Arslanovski then posted the lawyer’s letter online, and it’s been reposted by the Dallas Morning News. According to Downing’s demand letter, Downing went to the restaurant on April 16 and ordered the special, which included soup. Told they were out of soup, Downing requested a substitution or price reduction, but the staff told him that went against restaurant policy. “The menu is an offer for a contract by you,” writes Downing. “You then breached the contract by not offering the soup as promised by you on the menu.”
Arslanovski sees it differently: “Isn’t it amazing?” he says. “This could have been solved with a simple phone call, and he could have come by and gotten a free cup of soup.”
Perhaps Mr. Arslanovski hasn’t considered that Mr. Downing may care considerably more about his free publicity – which, sadly, is being recklessly perpetuated here – than his denied bowl of soup.
Under Pressure From Everywhere
Facebook Cracks Down on Fake News
Faux Fans and The Kremlin Ask:
Isn’t Fake News Too Big To Fail?
Facebook recently experienced some heavily elevated eyebrow-raising by many of its 1.5 billion users, the mainstream media and a variety of civil rights groups, advocacy activists, neo-truthers and journalism watchdogs, when Facebook let it leak that computers not humans were deciding which subjects would be given “trending” status on the fabled Facebook social media site.
Possibly the most embarrassing revelation by Facebook was that its algorithms had frequently listed fake news articles in its list of “trending news”.
Aubergines’ Award-Winning Reporters
Cited For “Most Believable” Fake News
Our oft-celebrated Aubergines team of reporters was recognized recently by FakeBook.com, a wildly popular fake news site, for “… its truly authentic-appearing fake news, its dedication to the highest standards of fake news journalism and its unflagging commitment to continue the long-established and noble role played by fake news in our society, going back to even Puritan times in America, has been responsible for making life in America a richer, kinder, more intellectually invigorating and emotionally stimulating place to be.”
The highly-coveted award – a garish yet elegant gold lame’-lacquered statue of a unicorn wearing a psychedelically-colored propeller hat – known affectionately in the fake news world as the Mother-Faker – is now prominently on display in SFF&W’s majestic lobby, in a bullet-proof, glass-encased and temperature-controlled case, right next to our Laz-Y-Boy pleather recliner chair where many thought-leading Silicon Valley lawyer-legends such as Leonard Ware, Mario Rosati and Jack Jorgensen have been known to seek respite and escape the paparazzi.
The Town of Atherton
We regret to report that just as we were going to press, Aubergines was served with a Temporary Restraining Order which prohibits publication of our special investigative report exposing a broad range of graft payments and other corrupt practices in the Atherton Police Department, including steamy squad car love triangles and trysts, cops accepting valuable perks from billionaire residents which include free horse saddles and polo lessons at the Menlo Circus Club, fully-comped five-star lodging and travel to the 2017 Davos Economic Forum, and untraceable and fully-funded bitcoin accounts to be used for space travel fares.
Predictably, we are taking the high road, and holding off on any publication of our dramatic report, denying everything and counter-suing the pants off the Town of Atherton, until this matter can be fully evaluated by the courts and we are fully exonerated.
A New Feature
Menlo Maven’s Advice Column Debuts
Noted Life Coach, Mystic and Mineral Water Dowser
To Offer Hope To Valley’s Countless Lonely And Sad
I’m 37ish, not in a relationship (I think I’m a tranny, but not sure, so I’m not out), slightly depressed (nightly kick-boxing classes help), maxed out on my credit cards (mostly phone sex charges and Mentos that I buy by the case), heavily tatted and pierced (self-performed; I’m very artistic), impaired by constant ringing in my ears (not sure why; it could be from living in the belfry of an orphanage for several years in Ireland) and am four months preggers (my seventh, but none have ever gone to term). I don’t know who the father is and don’t care.
While none of what I have just written is directly related to why I’m writing, I believe it will help you immensely with tracking my deeper core vibe.
What is bothering me most right now is my workplace environment: I think I’m a victim of micro-aggressive harassment or worse.
Generally, I tend to get along with people. I taught yoga for years in Bali and Katmandu. My clients all loved me. But I eventually got bored with all that chakra-centric focusing. So, I taught myself to write software code in six weeks by watching YouTube how-to videos.
I love my current coding job at a Milpitas gaming startup. I share a cubicle with a guy who’s actually kinda cute, but he has some irritating issues. Let’s call him Squirt.
For openers, Squirt constantly chews tobacco and spits his disgusting juice into our cubicle’s sole waste basket. This occurs without stop throughout the course of our work day. He sometimes misses or splashes, landing the stray spittle on my flip-flopped feet. To avoid being hit, I am forced to sit in a lotus position all day at my computer. Holding this position for long periods can be painful A lawyer friend told me that the most common cause of contracting mesothelioma apparently a horrible and potentially fatal disease on which his law firm is making a killing filing class actions is that of being subjected to a stressful environment for long periods. That’s me in a nutshell.
Squirt also has breath that would make a bison blush. It reminds me of the public restrooms in Golden Gate Park. This could be due to the tobacco. Or maybe it’s due to his belief that brushing and flossing teeth causes gum damage and restrains the release of natural enzymes in the body. He says he went to a talk last year at Burning Man where he learned from a guy a mail order minister and a biotech CEO-angel investor-dog walker-street performer that chewing tobacco is a natural cleanser that can help lower the risk of getting cancer, lower cholesterol levels and build up immunities to venereal disease, cholera and gout. None of this makes any sense to me, but Squirt seems to genuinely believe it.
To my great surprise, Squirt texted me at work today and asked me out to dinner for next Saturday night. It’s a vegan place in the Outer-Outer-Mission featuring sub-Saharan nomadic cuisine I’ve always wanted to go to. Part of me is thoroughly repulsed by the prospect of a social outing with Squirt, while part of me says “Don’t be so close-minded”.
What should I do?
Melancholy In Milpitas
You’re not a victim of micro-aggression. You’re a macro-moron with no life.
Try to open up your mind, girlfriend… but just a little.
Go on eBay right away and search for used gas masks. Buy one, but don’t pay more than $20. Go to a laundromat and run it through the wash cycle at least three times at high heat, as it most likely was taken from a corpse.
Get a pair of knee-high boots. Either Arctic four-bucklers or Wellies are fine. If you can get one of each, even better. You are, after all, very artistic, and your fashion look will be nothing if not edgy.
Then tell Squirt yes, and meet him at the vegan restaurant. Wearing, of course, your mask and boots.
A word of caution: there’s a risk that your date just might abruptly come to an end at the moment Squirt first sees you, but I doubt it. And regardless, your doing such a bizarre, unexpected and out-there thing will likely rocket your sagging self-esteem level to new heights before you’ve even gotten halfway through your foamed lentil-kale-brine crostini appetizer. Enjoy your moment of total freedom. Trust me, sister, it will be way more satisfying than phone sex.
And listen, missy: Your gas mask will not only protect you from having to deal with Squirt’s toxic breath, it will prevent anyone you know from recognizing you while you’re out with him.
Pay close attention to Squirt’s reaction. If he doesn’t seem to notice the mask, this could be a sign of a truly self-absorbed person who’s not worth seeing again. Take a hike and stiff him with the bill. If he acts the least bit intrigued by the mask but doesn’t specifically comment on it, he could be a serial killer-rapist with a costume fetish or, more likely, he’s painfully shy and could possibly be a great catch for someone who’s options-challenged like you.
But before considering the long-term potential for you and Squirt, you will need to determine if he keeps the wad of chaw terbaccy in his mouth throughout the meal, a practice so vile and loathsome that no sane dining partner should ever consider tolerating it. And, puh-lease! Any attempts by Squirt, regardless how surreptitiously he does it, to spit his juice into his napkin is absolutely non-negotiable grounds for dumping your arugula-dandelion-crabgrass crepe platter on his head.
Should Squirt ask to try on your mask, politely decline and try to remember why you wore the mask in the first place. Furthermore, I predict that your denial will make him desire it – and you – all the more.
This time’s a freebie, sweetie. Our next session will be on Skype (call me at MyrnaMegaMaven7) or FaceTime (650-ME-MAVEN) whenever you’re ready. $15/minute if no Skype or FaceTime video, $25/minute if you want the cameras on. I’ll explain the two-tier pricing later. There’s no minimum after the first 30 minutes, and I take all major credit cards.
*Editor’s disclosure: Myrna Shagnatz is not only my favorite therapist, my square-dancing partner of choice and my best friend, she’s my wife. We met at a rodeo in Weed, California 22 years ago, where we were both competing (she, in bull-riding; me, as a rodeo clown). Myrna is far too self-effacing to boast of her many accomplishments, but I suffer no such constraint when describing her. Myrna was admitted to membership in MENSA at age 14 (it took me until age 16). She can do a Rosie O’Donnell impersonation that will just crack you up. Myrna is also an internationally-acclaimed Olympic competitor in curling and does a decent hammer throw. She’s a champion grower of African Violets and a lifelong practitioner of seven-octave Basque yodeling. She speaks seven languages fluently and has impressive collections of Jewish-Kurdish jokes, midget car racing memorabilia and Roma accordions. Myrna’s academic credentials are without peer, and they include advanced degrees, certificates of achievement and awards from Singularity University, the Universal Life Church, the Church of Scientology, Apple University, the University of Phoenix, the Shagnatz Institute for Cryogenic Transformation and countless other respected institutions of higher learning.
- Bolivar Q. Shagnatz, Editor in Chief, Aubergines
Aubergines De-Classified Advertising
Wanted: Clinical trial subjects for tests studying long-term effects of use of advanced personal vaporizers (sometimes referred to as e-cigarettes, vape pens and APVs). Subjects can earn up to $100/day. Must be able to commit to a six-week program which is led by Stanford University School of Medicine-trained program director who concurrently serves as a noted senior officer of a diversified major America-based multi-national corporation. Applicants must be over 21, in good health, with no history of obesity, initiating litigation and not currently incarcerated or enrolled in an addiction rehabilitation program. Combat service in Iran or Afghanistan is a plus. Navy Seals, Iron Man winners and victims of war-related torture may be eligible for premium pay. If interested, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org/vapetrials/operationsandbag
Now Hiring: Our best-of-breed executive team and our heavily-rock star-funded data analytics and artificial intelligence startup needs bright, incisive and mathematically-inclined young women for challenging, important and world-changing scientific research studies to be conducted on behalf of high profile US and international political leaders, leaders-in-exile, rebel groups and revolutionary forces. Special consideration will be given to applicants who are blonde, slender, perky, dress slightly slutty, enjoy foreign travel and who are unafraid of flirtatious gestures and fond of frequent hugging. Highly stimulating work environment. Offering top compensation and benefits, including hefty stock options, free massages, hair styling, makeup and nail care. If interested, please contact info@TrumpAilesTalentAlliance.com to set up a very private interview. We are an equal opportunity employer. Include photos (no limit). Act now. Physical exam required.
Aubergines is a quarterly review of borderline-authentic news. Nothing contained in Aubergines may be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Don’t even think about suing us. What few assets we have are securely lodged in the island nation of The Cook Islands, which does not recognize and will not enforce judgments rendered by the United States, or any jurisdiction for that matter. If you are fond of reading materials where highly annoying words like emoji, milieu, GIF, ennui, selfie or meme are in frequent use, you won’t be happy here. And while there are widely reported accounts that regularly reading Aubergines will result in lowering one’s blood pressure, arresting male pattern baldness, reversing gluten and lactose intolerance, relieving menstrual cramps, eliminating toenail fungus, relieving spastic colons and chronic bed-wetting, stopping stammering, thwarting incontinence and impotence, and taming annoying tics, Chron’s Disease, and Hashimoto’s or Dress Syndromes, absolutely no such guarantee or warranty of any kind shall be applicable here. All rights are waived in perpetuity and forever thereafter. No representations or warranties, express, implied, inferred or deferred, shall apply in any circumstance whatsoever. This disclaimer is fully valid and enforceable even in jurisdictions where it might otherwise be invalid, including outer space, the afterlife and beyond.
© 2017 Seubert French Frimel & Warner LLP All rights reserved.