Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
A coup accusation. Tariff threats. A mule bomb. The diplomatic rift between Colombia and the United States has spiraled into a multifaceted legal crisis.
From potential treaty violations to international humanitarian law breaches, what began as fiery rhetoric now poses serious questions for courts, trade bodies, and human rights institutions.
In June 2025, Colombian President Gustavo Petro publicly suggested that U.S. officials, including Senator Marco Rubio, were involved in plotting a “soft coup” against his government. (Source: Washington Post)
The White House swiftly denied the allegations, and tensions escalated. Within days, both nations recalled their ambassadors, an extraordinary move for two long-standing allies.
By early July, the crisis had cooled slightly. The diplomats returned to their posts, but the legal and political consequences were already set in motion.
At the heart of the dispute lies the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). Article 41 of the treaty prohibits public interference in the internal affairs of other states. Petro’s public claims made without presenting evidence, may be seen as a violation of these principles.
U.S. chargé d’affaires John McNamara, upon returning to Bogotá, stated he was doing so with “persistent concerns” about Colombia’s behavior, clearly signaling continued unease.
“I return with persistent concerns,” McNamara told upon his reinstatement. (Source: El País)
President Petro attempted to de-escalate the situation with a handwritten letter to Donald Trump dated June 23. In it, he softened his earlier remarks:
“I would like to clarify that any expression of mine … had no intention of signaling anyone personally or questioning the role of the United States, without any proof.”
(Source: Washington Post)
Colombia’s ambassador to the U.S., Daniel García-Peña, reinforced the message:
“Neither the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, nor the government of the United States, play any role in a coup attempt.”
(Source: Reuters)
Petro’s accusations followed another flashpoint: a standoff over deportation flights. In early 2025, Colombia refused to allow U.S. military planes carrying deported Colombians to land, citing non-refoulement, the international law principle that forbids returning individuals to countries where they might face harm.
The U.S. responded with threats of visa restrictions and economic retaliation. Some legal scholars argue that such coercion could infringe upon Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force or threats against the sovereignty of another nation.
The U.S. is now considering significant tariffs on Colombian exports, including coal, coffee, and agricultural products. However, both nations are bound by the 2012 U.S.–Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which prohibits arbitrary or politically motivated trade barriers.
Legal observers point to several key issues:
If Colombia can demonstrate the tariffs are retaliatory, it may initiate investor-state arbitration.
Alternatively, Colombia could pursue a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute resolution case under most-favored-nation principles.
Meanwhile, on the ground in Colombia, violence continues. In the department of Antioquia, a soldier was killed by a mule laden with explosives, allegedly planted by ELN guerrilla fighters. The unconventional method of attack shocked international observers and may have legal consequences.
Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), this could qualify as a war crime, particularly if the act targeted civilians or used indiscriminate methods of violence.
As conflict over coca production escalates, Colombia is facing one of its worst years for internal displacement in over a decade. More than 65,000 people have been forced from their homes in 2025 so far.
Under Colombia’s Victims and Land Restitution Law (2011), the government is required to protect and compensate displaced individuals. Human rights groups claim that enforcement has faltered potentially opening Colombia to legal action before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR).
Yes. If the U.S. expands military or intelligence operations in Colombia, it must comply with:
The Leahy Law, which prohibits aid to foreign military units involved in human rights violations.
The Foreign Assistance Act, which restricts funding to governments seen as undermining democratic governance.
If further cooperation is proposed, especially under a future administration, Congressional oversight and legal reviews are inevitable.
What triggered the Colombia–U.S. crisis in 2025?
President Petro accused U.S. officials of plotting a coup, prompting both countries to recall their ambassadors before returning them weeks later.
Is it a violation of international law to accuse another country of a coup?
Potentially. Under the Vienna Convention, public accusations without evidence may violate norms of diplomatic non-interference.
Can Colombia challenge U.S. tariffs legally?
Yes. Colombia may pursue action under the 2012 FTA or through the WTO if the tariffs appear retaliatory or discriminatory.
Are the ELN guerrilla attacks considered war crimes?
Possibly. The use of explosive-laden animals or attacks on civilians could be prosecuted under the Rome Statute.
Will Colombia file a formal challenge to U.S. tariffs through WTO or treaty arbitration?
Could the ICC or IACHR launch investigations into guerrilla violence and forced displacement?
Will the diplomatic truce hold or reignite as elections approach in both nations?
As diplomatic theatrics give way to legal positioning, this crisis may ultimately be settled not by politicians, but by judges, tribunals, and international law.
WilmerHale advised Accuidity Capital Management in its strategic sale to Forge Global Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: FRGE), a leading provider of infrastructure, data, and investment solutions for the private market. The agreement and plan of merger was signed and closed on July 1, 2025.
The transaction includes $10 million in cash, subject to customary adjustments, and 1.15 million newly issued shares of Forge common stock in a private placement. A potential earn-out of up to 1 million additional shares may be issued upon the achievement of performance milestones through the end of 2027.
Accuidity, a specialist asset manager focused on private market co-investment vehicles and early-stage venture funds, reported approximately $5.7 million in revenue during the twelve-month period ending May 31, 2025, and managed $220 million in AUM at closing.
Forge expects the acquisition to be accretive to EPS and central to its strategy of expanding investment offerings through registered investment advisors and wealth platforms.
“Accuidity accelerates our strategic vision by enabling the launch of innovative financial products and strategies that broaden investor access to the private markets, while delivering primary and secondary capital solutions for private companies. Leveraging our data, technology and global network alongside Accuidity’s expertise, we aim to deliver new investment opportunities to our growing global client base, with a strategic focus on the wealth channel.” said Kelly Rodriques, CEO of Forge.
As part of the integration, Forge and Accuidity plan to transition the Megacorn Fund - Accuidity’s flagship institutionally managed index fund into a registered interval fund under the Investment Company Act of 1940, pending SEC approval. The revised structure is intended to improve access to diversified private market exposure at lower cost and reduced investment minimums.
“Forge has been a leader in creating the indexes and pricing innovations on which new financial products are being built.” said Vince Gubitosi, Co-President of Accuidity.
“We see enormous potential to scale Accuidity’s strategies across new investor segments and channels. We chose Forge as a partner because of their trusted reputation, scale, and operational integrity. Jointly, we’re unlocking the infrastructure needed to meet growing demand with flexible, transparent private market investment solutions.” added Mark DeNatale, Co-President of Accuidity.
With Forge Global Advisors managing $1.1 billion in AUM and Forge Custody overseeing $17.6 billion in assets under custody, the acquisition of Accuidity represents a meaningful expansion of Forge’s private market ecosystem.
The WilmerHale team advising Accuidity was led by Stephanie Evans, Tim Silva, J.C. Minko, Justin Flaumenhaft, and Matt O’Malley, with support from Bill Caporizzo and Ben Kelsey (tax), Ciara Baker, Amanda Albert, and Meredith Brenton (employment and benefits), Stephen Gillespie (intellectual property), and Kirk Nahra and Ali Jessani (data privacy).
Accuidity is a private-market asset manager founded in 2021 and based in Wellesley, Massachusetts. The firm manages institutional index funds, single-issuer vehicles, and early-stage venture offerings designed to improve access, liquidity, and transparency in private investing. Its flagship “Megacorn” strategies focus on systematic exposure to high-quality, late-stage private companies.
Forge Global Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: FRGE) is a San Francisco–based fintech company providing infrastructure, data, trading, and custody solutions for the private markets. Founded in 2014, Forge enables investors, employees, and companies to buy, sell, and manage private company equity through its digital platform and fund products.
WilmerHale (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) is a leading international law firm with over 1,100 lawyers across 12 offices in the U.S. and Europe. Co-headquartered in Washington, D.C. and Boston, the firm provides premier counsel in litigation, regulatory matters, corporate transactions, intellectual property, and government affairs. Formed through a 2004 merger, WilmerHale has a long history of advising on high-stakes, high-impact legal matters, from landmark government investigations to complex cross-border deals.
The firm is recognized for its commitment to public service, pro bono work, diversity, and innovation, and is regularly ranked among The American Lawyer’s A-List firms. WilmerHale’s collaborative culture and cross-disciplinary expertise position it as a trusted advisor to global corporations, institutions, and government entities.
Idaho Criminal Defense: Legal Rights and Strategies Explained
Florida’s ‘Alligator Alcatraz’: Legal Storm Brews Over Detention Center
Wesley Snipes: The Hollywood Star Who Went to Prison for Tax Crimes
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit against Centene Corporation (NYSE: CNC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleges that Centene misled investors about its financial outlook and key market indicators, ultimately causing substantial shareholder losses when the company abruptly slashed guidance.
The lawsuit covers investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Centene securities between December 12, 2024, and June 30, 2025, inclusive. The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff is September 8, 2025.
According to the filed complaint, Centene executives gave the impression that the company had solid, reliable data supporting its projected revenue and membership growth. The company emphasized low morbidity rates and robust enrollment numbers across its Health Insurance Marketplace.
However, internal analysis told a different story.
Centene’s preliminary review of over two-thirds of its marketplace membership, spanning 22 states, revealed weaker-than-expected enrollment and elevated morbidity, undermining its previously confident financial guidance.
On July 1, 2025, Centene issued a press release withdrawing its full-year 2025 guidance. The company acknowledged that aggregate market performance had fallen short of projections and revised its adjusted earnings outlook to $1.8 billion and $2.75 in adjusted diluted EPS.
The financial markets responded swiftly and severely. Centene’s stock price fell more than 40% in one day, dropping from $56.65 to $44.78 per share on July 2, 2025. Investors lost billions in market capitalization virtually overnight.
The complaint alleges that Centene’s leadership violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material facts and by issuing misleading public statements. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. contends that had investors known the true enrollment and morbidity data during the Class Period, they would have made different investment decisions.
Investors who purchased Centene stock between December 12, 2024, and June 30, 2025, and experienced financial losses are encouraged to contact the firm to learn more about their legal options.
There is no cost or obligation to participate. Submit your claim here.
Investors seeking more information or wishing to join the case can contact:
Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore
(212) 355-4648
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm that represents individual and institutional investors in complex securities litigation, corporate governance actions, and consumer class cases. With a strong track record of recoveries, the firm is dedicated to protecting shareholder rights and holding corporations accountable.
Weil Advises on Superior’s $1.1B Deal with Oaktree Acquisition
Robbins Geller Files Class Action Against Rocket Pharmaceuticals
The Court of Public Opinion: Managing Reputation in Sex Crime Allegations
Wesley Snipes: The Hollywood Star Who Went to Prison for Tax Evasion
Wesley Snipes, a prominent Hollywood actor best known for his role in the Blade trilogy, became the subject of national headlines when he was prosecuted by the federal government for tax-related offenses.
His case, involving millions in unpaid taxes and reliance on discredited legal arguments, highlighted the intersection of celebrity status, misinformation, and the legal consequences of challenging federal tax laws.
Wesley Trent Snipes, born July 31, 1962, in Orlando, Florida, was raised in the Bronx, where he nurtured a deep love for martial arts, drama, and discipline. By the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, he was one of the most recognizable Black actors in Hollywood.
Hits like New Jack City, White Men Can’t Jump, Demolition Man, and Blade brought both fame and fortune. By the turn of the millennium, Snipes had reportedly earned tens of millions of dollars.
But beneath the surface of his cinematic success, a troubling pattern was emerging one shaped by skepticism, spiritual inquiry, and a growing belief in anti-establishment ideology.
In 1999, Wesley Snipes stopped filing his federal income tax returns. He had become convinced partly through the influence of two anti-tax promoters, Eddie Ray Kahn and accountant Douglas Rosile, that a section of the Internal Revenue Code known as "861" proved that U.S. citizens did not owe taxes on money earned within the United States. This interpretation was widely considered a fraudulent misreading of tax law.
Over the next several years, Snipes filed more than $11 million in refund claims for taxes he had never paid. He submitted so-called “bills of exchange,” non-negotiable documents intended to appear like payment but legally worthless.
He declared himself a "non-resident alien," claiming exemption from tax jurisdiction. His advisers were already on the IRS’s radar, and eventually, so was Snipes.
On October 17, 2006, Snipes was indicted on eight counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and willful failure to file income tax returns. The indictment spanned the years 1999 to 2004, during which Snipes earned tens of millions from acting jobs—including the Blade films—and other ventures.
Wesley Snipes outside the federal courthouse in Ocala, Florida, in 2008, moments before his tax trial began.
When the trial began in January 2008 in Ocala, Florida, Snipes adopted a bold legal strategy. He did not testify. His legal team presented no witnesses. Instead, they focused on discrediting the prosecution’s intent and framing Snipes as a man misled by charlatans. They argued that his beliefs, however misguided, lacked criminal intent.
This defense sometimes summarized by the phrase "kooky is not criminal", had mixed success. While he was acquitted of felony conspiracy and filing false refund claims, the jury found him guilty on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file federal tax returns for 1999, 2000, and 2001.
In April 2008, a federal judge sentenced Snipes to the maximum three years in prison - one year per count. Despite his celebrity status, or perhaps because of it, the court was firm. The prosecution argued that a stiff sentence was necessary to deter other high-income individuals from attempting similar tax protest schemes.
Snipes remained free on appeal until December 9, 2010, when he reported to the Federal Correctional Institution McKean in Pennsylvania. He served 28 months in prison and was released to home confinement on April 2, 2013. His supervised release ended on July 19, 2013, marking the full completion of his sentence.
Throughout the ordeal, Snipes maintained that he had been duped but not defiant. His public statements painted him as an idealist, gullible, ambitious, and spiritual.
He had long been associated with philosophical groups like the Nuwaubians, known for their Afrocentric and often conspiratorial ideologies.
Whether these influences contributed to his anti-tax beliefs remains speculative, but the patterns are suggestive.
Wesley Snipes broke red carpet convention at the 94th Academy Awards in 2022, sporting a custom burgundy Bogard by MikeB shorts suit, complete with matching leggings, floral lapel pin, hoop earrings, aviator shades, and high-top sneakers.
His distrust of the system, amplified by America’s long history of systemic racism, may have made him more susceptible to pseudo-legal reasoning cloaked in the language of sovereignty, natural law, and spiritual liberation.
Celebrity may have exacerbated this. Wealthy, isolated, and surrounded by enablers, Snipes seemed to live in a world where fringe ideologies went unchallenged until it was too late.
Appeals to overturn his conviction were denied by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 and by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. Notably, his team argued that the trial venue (Ocala, FL) was inappropriate and potentially biased, a claim the courts dismissed.
In 2018, five years after his release, Snipes attempted to settle his remaining $23.5 million tax debt through an offer in compromise of $842,000. The IRS refused, and a tax court judge ruled that Snipes' claim of financial hardship lacked credibility.
His tax woes continue to shadow him, raising deeper questions about how celebrity, ideology, and the legal system collide in the American psyche.
As someone who grew up watching Snipes carve out his own lane in action cinema, it's surreal to look back and see how fame, ideology, and bad advice collided to bring down a superstar.
Wesley Snipes’s descent from action hero to convicted tax protester is not just a tale of legal missteps but a cautionary narrative about the power of belief, the seduction of fringe ideologies, and the vulnerabilities of fame.
The line between misguided idealism and criminal conduct is razor-thin and in Snipes’s case, it landed him behind bars.
Wesley Snipes returned to the screen in 2021 as General Izzi in Coming 2 America, marking a high-profile comeback after his release from prison.
Since completing his sentence in 2013, Snipes has slowly returned to public life. He appeared in Coming 2 America (2021) and has taken on select roles in independent projects. Now in his 60s, he maintains a lower profile, focusing on film development, spiritual interests, and staying out of further legal trouble.
In later interviews, Snipes reflected on his prison experience with humility and spiritual clarity. "I came out a clearer person," added Snipes. "Clearer on my values, clearer on my purpose, clearer about my relationship with my ancestors and the great god and the great goddess above, and clearer on what I was going to do once I had my freedom back."
"The biggest thing I got from it was learning the value of time and how we often squander it ... I understand that very clearly now, having been away from my family and loved ones two and a half years." said the father of five.
While my entire 29-year career has been focused on the practice of family law, it was not until after about 10 years of practicing that I more adamantly focused on resolving issues outside of court.
I would frame myself in those first 10 years as a young attorney trying to prove herself in a predominantly tough and masculine field where being called a pit bull was a compliment.
It was not until I had plenty of courtroom experiences that I realized how unhappy I was with myself as a person and how debilitating the process could be for people caught in a system geared toward destroying the other party. At this point now in my career, I don’t enjoy being called a pit bull. That name points to someone who approaches disputes with overt anger and aggression which to me, is more theatrics than problem-solving.
I have never felt I made the best choices when fuelled with anger and aggression. I have far more satisfaction in results when problems are solved with cooler heads. Fortunately, about 10 years into my career, the collaborative law process was emerging in Chicago. I took the training to become a Fellow and learned how much more private, respectful and creative solutions could be for individuals.
I approach collaborative and mediation cases in much the same way I approach litigated cases because regardless of the divorce process, there are four main components. These are (1) determining or isolating the critical issues, (2) information gathering, (3) negotiating and (4) finalizing all the paperwork. These are all very important steps and how long each step takes, various from case to case.
What is most important to understand about mediation and collaborative law is we do not get to the negotiating stage until everyone is comfortable with the information which has been exchanged.
For example, I may hear from a client that she does not believe her spouse will share all his compensation information or about all the assets in that spouse’s name. That client will express apprehension about commencing negotiations because she will not feel ready to negotiate and worry that she will feel bullied into making decisions.
"I let everyone know we will NOT start negotiations until everyone feels satisfied with the information that has been exchanged."
If we don’t know something, we ask questions and gather information until all our questions are answered. This is important for both parties to understand because any agreement reached that is based on incomplete information will be precarious and subject to falling apart or not followed later. It is simply not worth it.
Mediation in action: a couple formalizing their divorce agreement under the guidance of a professional mediator.
In general, mediation involves a mediator, the two parties, and their respective lawyers. The collaborative process involves a financial neutral, a coach, the parties and their respective lawyers. A significant difference between the two is participation in collaborative divorce requires the signing of a participation agreement.
This agreement provides that if the parties are unable to resolve all of their issues within the collaborative process and if they then chose litigation, then none of the professional participants in the process can continue in the case.
The parties will each need to retain new attorneys and none of the information shared in the collaborative process can be used by the newly retained lawyers later in litigation. Many professionals refer to the collaborative agreement as the glue which keeps the process together.
Mediation, on the other hand, can be started at the beginning, middle or end of a case to resolve individual or the global issues. For example, parties may participate in mediation to finalize their parenting agreement, then return to traditional litigation to resolve financial issues, all the time with the same lawyers.
If someone wants their divorce to be collaborative, they need to seek out a lawyer who is collaboratively trained. In Illinois, this can be done by going to the Collaborative Divorce Illinois website.
Most States have a collaborative community, and an internet search should provide resources for individuals in different areas. The reason most people should resolve their case outside of court as opposed to trial is agreements reached outside of court tend to have fewer post-decree issues, tend to preserve the relationship between the parties, and tend to cost less in terms of time and money overall.
A couple who has dissolved their marriage through the collaborative process or mediation enjoy these benefits as well as increased privacy of intimate family issues, more control over the outcomes, and greater bandwidth to pick up and move forward once all is said and done.
Yes, this can happen. The main focus of collaborative divorce is to dissolve the marriage and resolve all issues of support, parenting, and property division without resorting to the court process. So long as the parties do not turn to court to resolve any of the issues, mediation can be part of the process.
I have mentioned the benefits of resolving a divorce outside of court earlier in this article. These points cannot be overstated when compared to what litigation does to families.
When parties are unable to resolve their issues amicably and must turn to court, it is probably because trust and/or communication between the parties is completely gone. In those cases, an individual with a black robe is necessary to order someone, for example, to turn over documents, pay support or visit their children.
That is not good place to be, of course, but add to that the chance your judge has a full schedule and must continue your highly anticipated and necessary hearing date for maintenance or child support to a later date because another hearing took longer than expected or the judge was sick.
Add to that a judge who knows nothing about why you are getting a divorce and does not want to know even though you may believe it is vitally important. The bottom line is in-court solutions take many issues out of your control and that can be a very frightening and distressing place to be.
Even at the start of her family law career in 1995 as a fierce litigator at a well-known matrimonial firm in Chicago, deep down Nanette knew she would be most effective at helping families if she led her own firm.
Realizing that goal eight years later, she founded what today is GMR Family Law LLP - a highly respected boutique divorce practice in Chicago. Since then, Nanette has worked with individuals in highly complicated divorce situations, including those involving main wage-earners with complex compensation structures, overseas assets, special needs children, and mental health issues such as borderline personality disorder, narcissism, and bipolar disorder.
Nanette has been appointed by the Cook County Court to act as a child's representative and guardian ad litem in custody and visitation proceedings. As a result of this, Nanette’s experience includes hearing and understanding the perspective of children caught in the middle.
Nanette guides her clients toward alternative dispute resolution settings such as collaborative divorce and mediation; however, Nanette understands not every client is able to take advantage of these processes.
As a skilled and experienced litigator, Nanette can masterfully guide clients through traditional litigation if the alternatives do not prove fruitful. Lawyer Monthly caught up with Nanette to discuss the Benefits of Collaborative Law and Mediation in Chicago.
What are the main benefits of collaborative divorce in Illinois?
Collaborative divorce offers couples greater privacy, lower costs, and more control over outcomes compared to traditional litigation. By resolving issues outside of court, parties often experience fewer post-divorce disputes and preserve better communication, which is especially beneficial when children are involved.
How does collaborative divorce differ from mediation?
While both approaches avoid courtroom litigation, collaborative divorce involves a team approach—including attorneys, a financial neutral, and a coach—whereas mediation typically involves a single mediator helping both parties negotiate with or without attorneys present. Collaborative divorce also requires a participation agreement that encourages resolution within the process.
When should mediation be used during a collaborative divorce?
Mediation can be incorporated at any point in a collaborative divorce to help resolve specific issues, as long as the case stays out of court. It can serve as a useful tool when progress stalls on particular matters, allowing parties to continue working toward a full agreement without resorting to litigation.
Why do many Illinois families choose alternatives to traditional divorce litigation?
Besides the significant cost savings—an average of $20,700 in Illinois when children are involved—alternatives like collaborative divorce and mediation give couples privacy, flexibility, and greater emotional control. These methods often lead to more sustainable agreements and reduce the emotional toll typically associated with contested court battles.
Email Inquiries
To contact a specific attorney, please visit our attorney directory and select their profile.
For general inquiries, email us at info@gmrfamilylaw.com or use our contact form.
161 N Clark Street
Suite 3500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Phone: (312) 782-4244
401 S Frontage Road
Suite A
Burr Ridge, Illinois 60527
Phone: (630) 320-3302
250 Parkway Drive
Suite 150
Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069
Phone: (312) 782-4244
A federal grand jury in Columbia, South Carolina has returned a 15-count indictment against four individuals from the Charleston area, following a multi-year investigation into sex trafficking, money laundering, and conspiracy offenses.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Orville and was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in coordination with the Charleston Police Department.
The indictment names Johnathan Dais, 33; Calvin Wolfe, 54; Rose Stoner, also known as Rose Wolfe, 50; and Alexis McInnis, 20, all of Charleston. Prosecutors allege that the defendants participated in a trafficking operation that began in 2016 and continued through 2025.
At least five victims, including one minor, were allegedly recruited, harbored, transported, and forced into commercial sex acts through coercion, deception, or fraud.
Dais faces the most extensive list of charges, including conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, attempted sex trafficking of a minor, and multiple financial crimes. He is also accused of making false statements to law enforcement and laundering proceeds generated from unlawful activity.
Wolfe and Stoner are both charged with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. McInnis faces charges related to the use of interstate facilities to promote unlawful activity, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and making false statements.
According to the indictment, Dais acted as the primary organizer of the operation, with Wolfe and Stoner allegedly assisting in recruiting and controlling the victims. McInnis and Dais are both accused of using online platforms and communication tools to advertise or facilitate prostitution.
Investigators also allege that both individuals misled federal authorities during interviews and attempted to conceal financial gains through laundering schemes.
If convicted, the defendants face significant penalties. Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Money laundering and related conspiracy charges carry a maximum of 20 years in prison.
Dais, Wolfe, and Stoner are currently being held in federal custody pending trial. On July 7, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly Cherry granted McInnis a $5,000 unsecured bond, allowing her release under court-imposed conditions.
Homeland Security Investigations and Charleston Police are continuing their efforts to identify additional victims. Authorities are asking anyone who may have been exploited by Dais or the other defendants to contact them confidentially at Charleston_ExploitationTips@hsi.dhs.gov with the subject line referencing Johnathan Dais.
All charges in the indictment are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
(Source: U.S. Department of Justice – Southern District of South Carolina)
Tucker Carlson Interviews DOJ Whistleblower on Epstein and Iran's President
Ronnie Oneal Sentencing: What Happened in the Riverview Murders Case?
Weil Advises Superior Plus on $1.1 Billion Oaktree Acquisition
Rocket Pharmaceuticals Class Action: Robbins Geller Leads the Charge
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is advising Superior Industries International, Inc., a leading global aluminum wheel supplier, on its acquisition by a group of term loan investors led by Oaktree Capital Management.
The deal represents a major strategic reset, reducing Superior’s funded debt by nearly 90% from approximately $982 million (including preferred stock) to $125 million.
As part of the transaction, the investors will convert around $550 million in term loan claims into 96.5% of the equity in a new parent entity. Preferred stock will be extinguished, with common shareholders receiving roughly $3.1 million in cash and preferred holders receiving $6.2 million and 3.5% of the new equity.
The acquisition, structured as a merger with an entity indirectly owned by the investors, is expected to close in the third quarter of 2025, pending regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions. Once completed, Superior will become a privately held company.
Its revolving credit and factoring facilities are expected to remain in place or be refinanced before closing.
“This transaction represents a pivotal milestone for Superior. Our term loan investors are reaffirming their confidence in the business and stepping in to provide the necessary financial foundation to support our long-term success."
“With the broadest portfolio in the industry, a strategically advantaged footprint, and a newly minted best-in-class balance sheet, we are well positioned to capitalize on growth opportunities with both existing and new OEM customers."
"More than ever, we are seeing unprecedented levels of RFQs as customers seek to de-risk long supply chains and respond to evolving tariff dynamics.” said President and CEO Majdi Abulaban.
Robert LaRoche, Managing Director at Oaktree, added: “Despite recent headwinds with certain of its customers, the demand for high-quality, costcompetitive, in-region manufacturing capacity is greater than ever, and we are excited to support the Superior leadership team in this next phase.”
Weil’s cross-disciplinary team was led by M&A partners Michael J. Aiello and Amanda Fenster and Restructuring partners Gary Holtzer and Lauren Tauro. The team also included attorneys across practices including Capital Markets, Banking & Finance, Tax, Real Estate, Executive Compensation, IP, Cybersecurity, Employment, Antitrust, and Regulatory Transactions.
Superior Industries International, Inc. is a global leader in the design and manufacture of light-vehicle aluminum wheels, founded in 1957 and headquartered in Southfield, Michigan. With nine manufacturing facilities and approximately 8,000 employees across North America and Europe, the company delivers innovative, high-quality wheel designs, lightweighting technologies, and finish options to OEMs and the aftermarket—operating key brands like ATS, RIAL, ALUTEC, and ANZIO
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is a leading global law firm founded in 1931 and headquartered in New York. With approximately 1,200 lawyers across offices in North America, Europe, and Asia, Weil advises top public companies, private equity firms, and financial institutions on complex matters in corporate, litigation, restructuring, tax, and executive compensation. Known for its “one-firm” approach, Weil is committed to client service, inclusion, pro bono work, wellness, and social responsibility.
Rocket Pharmaceuticals Faces Class Action Led by Robbins Geller
Arrested in Pennsylvania? What to Know If You’re Facing Charges
Carlson, DOJ, and Epstein: Fallout from Iran President Interview
Trump Tower Chicago Hit with $300K Fine Over River Violations
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP has welcomed Kyle Smit as a Partner in its New York office, strengthening the firm’s Energy and Infrastructure Practice. He joins the team with a focus on M&A and complex transactional work across the energy sector.
Kyle Smit brings significant experience advising private equity funds and developers on deals involving power generation, renewables, and infrastructure, including solar, wind, hydro, and EV charging networks.
“Our clients are actively pursuing transformative deals to further their strategic priorities and business goals across industries."
"This includes major players across the energy value chain who turn to the firm time and again to navigate complex transactions across the full lifecycle of energy and infrastructure projects.” said Eric Swedenburg, Head of Global M&A.
Breen Haire and Eli Hunt, Co-Heads of the Energy and Infrastructure group, called the hire a major boost to the firm’s cross-sector capabilities.
Kyle Smit said he was drawn to the firm’s global platform and collaborative culture: “I’m thrilled to join a team that pairs incredible sector experience with a deep dedication to seamless client service.”
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP is one of the world’s leading law firms, providing cutting-edge legal advice to corporations, financial institutions, private equity firms, investment funds, and governments. Founded in 1884 and now home to approximately 1,500 lawyers, the firm is known for handling high-stakes matters across M&A, banking, capital markets, private funds, real estate, litigation, and regulatory law. Its global footprint spans offices in New York, London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and other key financial centers. With over 135 years of experience, Simpson Thacher has earned a reputation for navigating some of the most complex legal and business challenges of the modern era.
Rocket Pharmaceuticals Faces Class Action: Robbins Geller Leads Suit
Dentons Advises NEPI Rockcastle on $290M Sustainability Loans
Carlson Talks DOJ, Epstein, and Iran’s President in Explosive Interview
Tucker Carlson’s newest broadcast has reignited public debate over two deeply controversial subjects: the U.S. government’s final word on Jeffrey Epstein, and a rare interview with Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who claims Israel attempted to assassinate him during recent regional conflict.
The independently released episode, posted to Carlson’s X channel, continues his trend of bypassing traditional news outlets to deliver highly polarizing content directly to a global audience.
The episode opens with Carlson addressing a new Department of Justice memorandum, which concluded that federal investigators found no evidence of a so-called Epstein “client list,” no blackmail scheme involving high-profile figures, and reaffirmed that Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while in federal custody.
Why is Pam Bondi’s Justice Department covering up Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and murder? Saagar Enjeti has a theory.
(0:00) Apparently Jeffrey Epstein Is Innocent Now?
(9:20) The Suspicious Life of Robert Maxwell
(11:00) How the Kennedy Assassination Broke America
(13:34) The Dark… pic.twitter.com/MkkscleGoQ— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) July 8, 2025
Tucker Carlson responded critically to the report, raising concerns about transparency and suggesting that major questions remain unanswered. While he did not make specific claims, his commentary underscored the public’s ongoing skepticism surrounding Epstein’s ties to prominent individuals and the lack of further prosecutions following his death.
The second half of the broadcast features Carlson’s exclusive interview with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, conducted remotely with the assistance of a translator.
When asked if Israel had attempted to assassinate him during the June conflict, Pezeshkian responded directly.
“They did try, yes. They acted accordingly, but they failed.”
He claimed that while he was in a meeting, Israeli forces targeted the area.
“I was in a meeting … they tried to bombard the area in which we were holding that meeting.”
Pezeshkian went on to describe damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
“Our nuclear centers were severely damaged. We have no access to them now.”
Addressing regional tensions and the possibility of further military escalation, Pezeshkian said Iran was not seeking conflict with the United States or Israel.
“We did not start this war and we do not want this war to continue in any way.”
He also signaled that Tehran would be open to restarting nuclear negotiations under the right conditions.
“We see no problem in re‑entering the negotiations.”
However, he questioned whether the U.S. could be trusted after allowing what he described as Israeli aggression.
“How are we going to trust the United States again? … How can we know for sure that … the Israeli regime will not be given the permission again to attack us?”
The Pezeshkian interview adds to Carlson’s growing portfolio of high-profile global conversations, including recent interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele.
While critics have accused Carlson of giving a platform to authoritarian leaders, supporters argue that he’s offering a rare chance to hear directly from world figures often filtered through government and media narratives.
Carlson’s tone in the Pezeshkian interview was restrained and focused, and he later explained that he avoided certain topics, such as Iran’s domestic human rights record, because he did not believe he would receive honest answers.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCKT) securities between February 27, 2025 and May 26, 2025 (the “Class Period”).
The case, Ho v. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 25-cv-10049 (D.N.J.), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to recover damages for investors who suffered losses due to misleading statements and material omissions by the company and a top executive.
According to the complaint, Rocket Pharmaceuticals misrepresented or failed to disclose serious safety concerns tied to its Phase 2 pivotal trial of RP-A501, a gene therapy for Danon disease.
Specifically, the lawsuit claims the company:
Introduced a new immunomodulatory agent into the trial protocol without notifying shareholders
Knew of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), including a patient death, but concealed these risks
Amended the clinical protocol without disclosure, misleading investors on trial progress and safety
On May 27, 2025, Rocket revealed the FDA had placed a clinical hold on the trial after a patient died, causing the company’s stock to decline significantly.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors have until August 11, 2025, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is typically the investor with the largest financial loss who meets certain legal standards to represent the class. That person or entity can direct the litigation and select counsel.
You do not need to serve as lead plaintiff to be eligible for any potential recovery from the class action.
If you purchased Rocket Pharmaceuticals securities during the Class Period and want to learn more, contact:
J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
Phone: 800-449-4900
Email: info@rgrdlaw.com
Case Info: Rocket Pharmaceuticals Class Action
Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCKT) is a clinical-stage biotech company developing gene therapies for rare, life-threatening diseases using both AAV and lentiviral platforms. Based in New Jersey, Rocket’s lead program targets Danon disease and is in a Phase 2 pivotal trial.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is a leading law firm specializing in securities class action litigation, shareholder derivative actions, and consumer protection cases. Established in 1992, the firm has earned a reputation for its expertise in handling complex legal matters on behalf of institutional investors, individuals, and consumer groups. With a team of skilled attorneys, Robbins Geller is known for its dedication to securing justice and maximizing recoveries for clients, often representing those who have suffered significant financial losses. The firm has a history of success in landmark cases, and its attorneys are recognized as leaders in the field of securities litigation. Robbins Geller operates nationwide and has offices in major U.S. cities.
Dentons Advises NEPI Rockcastle on €290M Sustainability Loans
Robbins LLP Pursues Legal Action Against Sarepta Therapeutics
Facing Criminal Charges in Washington? Here’s What You Need to Know
San Antonio Landlords Confront New ADA Hurdles in Historic Buildings
