data leak, as “intended to bring attention to the abuse of offshore shell corporations and tax shelters, and it is an indictment of the legal system that permits them”.
It calls Mossack Fonseca’s motion a “virtually unheard of prior restraint on speech” and an “affront to established First Amendment principle”. The filling claims the pair “have utterly failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm that is an essential prerequisite to the emergency relief they seek”, and that the timing of the motion, which comes more than a month after the film’s premiere at the Venice Film Festival and also after its limited theatrical run, “compels the conclusion that there is no urgency or irreparable harm”.
The document describes the partners’ claims of “tarnishment” of reputation [by use of the firm’s logo] as “laughable, given that the Complaint acknowledges that their reputations have already been so blackened as a result of the spotlight that the international press has been shining on Plaintiffs for the last three and a half years – the result of which was the loss of all of their clients, banks refusing to do business with them and the shuttering of their business.
“Plaintiffs should not be allowed to benefit from a purported emergency of their own making; if anything, they should be penalized for their delay, which eviscerates their assertions of irreparable harm,” the document adds.and keep your inbox happy.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: DEADLINE - 🏆 109. / 63 Read more »
Source: THR - 🏆 411. / 53 Read more »
Source: THR - 🏆 411. / 53 Read more »