:format(jpeg):focal(2425x455:2435x445)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gfrmedia/VHMDSLP56BEZDI2PZFVOPDHJGA.JPG){kind=small}
– Commitment to documentary evidence in order to prove this Fahd Jaafar Yes you are a member of two Entrepreneur entities John Paulson In Puerto Rico, lawyer Jose Andrew Fuentes began to continue questioning his client on Thursday during the second day of the evidentiary hearing seeking to prove that the executive of Pakistani origin is an accomplice of the billionaire on the island.
Before Judge Alfonso Martinez Piofanetti, Andrew Fuentes took the witness through several documents in which his signature appeared under his name, but also as an authorized representative of the Paulson companies, in particular Duo Condado JV Holdings LLC.
Ghaffar sued Paulson seeking a statutory injunction from accessing Duo Condado's information, as Paulson allegedly refuses to recognize the rights of the entity Condado Hotel Owners LLC, a limited liability company owned by the investor.
Among the documents shown in court was a 2014 operating agreement for Duo Condado when its only members were Paulson PRV Holdings LLC and Condado Hotel Investors SE, according to the lawsuit.
The latter entity, according to the appeal, sold Condado Hotel Owners, an entity bearing the name Ghaffar, 100% of its shares in Duo Condado through a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, known as MIPA, for its abbreviation in English, a document submitted by the latter entity as the lawyer showed in the hearing Listen.
In one reference to the documents, Andrew Fuentes asked the witness he had instructed to sign as an authorized representative of Dio Condado, while he was signing himself, Ghaffar referred to a law firm that provided legal advice to the Paulson companies.
Meanwhile, another time, when the investor was asked again by these companies, he said: “For that At the time, he had been running Paulson's business for six years and understood he was a commissioner.
WhatsApp conversation
In the morning, the first part of Ghaffar's interrogation also began, led by the former federal prosecutor. Maria Dominguezwho is part of Paulson's legal team.
The attorney also presented several pieces of evidence to dispute the claims of Ghaffar, who claims to own 44% of Earle HC, the entity developing the Vanderbilt Residences hotel in Condado.
The questioning left one of the most intense moments of the hearing, when Dominguez, part of Paulson's legal team, presented to the court a WhatsApp conversation in which Ghaffar allegedly gave instructions to an employee at Paulson's companies about what language to use in the email. – Addressed to you – regarding your investment of more than $3 million in the aforementioned entity.
Dominguez noted that the email was among the evidence submitted to the court to prove Ghaffar's involvement in the company.
Despite the objections of Andrew Fuentes, who confirmed that the conversation was out of context, the judge allowed the lawyer to ask about it.
Ghaffar acknowledged that he had “on several occasions” given instructions about the language of some emails, but rejected that it was unfair to submit the document as evidence in court. “Not at all,” he claimed.
On the other hand, Ghaffar acknowledged, when asked by Dominguez, that as of now there is no signed document regarding his participation in Earl HC.
Meanwhile, Dominguez asked Gaffar about Innoveo Programming Which could have been one of the other companies that – according to Paulson – Ghaffar and his brother Amir used to defraud him.
Paulson was supposed to invest $11 million in Innoveo, but according to his lawyer, he did not receive a dime for that investment.
The questions sparked multiple objections from Andreu Fuentes, who asserted that “this Innoveo matter is the subject of another case in federal court.”
“The only significance this matter had problem “That's why (Paulson) didn't sign the (Earl HC) membership agreement,” Andrew Fontes said.
He added: “John Paulson realizes that they have to return $11 million, and my client (Ghaffar) realizes that there is no need to do anything, because this is an investment that (Paulson) made.” “Which problem He added: “The matter is not related to this matter. What is important is why he (Paulson) did not sign the agreement.”
Dominguez responded immediately.
“Andrew opened the door for Inovio to even make allegations through (Ghaffar's) testimony that Paulson wanted to steal the $11 million he invested. We (Paulson's lawyers) are entitled to put that in context, because it was one of the terms of the lawsuit. Membership Agreement“Because there was a factual basis for it and it wasn’t because Paulson didn’t want to (sign it).” pass.
In the face of this controversy, the judge decided to accept the set of questions regarding Innoveo and argued that the court had been flexible from the beginning of the hearing regarding the objections.
He added that, in his opinion, the two cases could have been resolved through documentary means, but highlighted that both parties had agreed to hold an evidentiary hearing to present their arguments.
“We are listening to the context and legal theory of both parties,” Martinez-Piovanetti said.
In a side article with this newspaper, Dominguez said she felt comfortable with how the cases were going at this stage of the proceedings and explained her strategy.
“Rebuttal evidence is always intended to challenge the credibility of the witness on the stand,” he said.
Meanwhile, Juan Casillas, one of Paulson's lawyers, said so “The issue is Subjugate We respect the court's procedures, but the documents speak for themselves. “There was an issue of who instructed whom regarding the content of certain communications.”
More Stories
That’s why you shouldn’t open your Amazon packages on the bed or table
Sam’s Club reveals the nine products that will go on sale in November
Walmart sells 4 pieces of furniture for under $50: The Complete Set