The three-judge panel in San Francisco also upheld the fraud conviction of Holmes’ former business partner and lover Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani — as well as a lower’s court order for the two to pay $452 million in restitution.

Holmes was CEO throughout Theranos’ turbulent 15-year history, claimed her startup had developed a revolutionary medical device that could detect a multitude of diseases and conditions from a few drops of blood. But the technology never worked, and the claims were false.

A 41-year-old mother of two small children, Holmes began serving her 11-year sentence in May 2023 at a federal prison in Texas. Her listed release date at the Federal Bureau of Prisons is currently March 19, 2032.

Balwani, 59, was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison in California for his role in the scam and is set to be released in 2033.

The pair alleged in their appeal that legal errors were committed during their separate trials in 2022 when the court allowed some testimony, including that of a former Theranos employee, and improperly prohibited other testimony.

Judge Jacqueline Nguyen rejected the claims, writing in the 54-page ruling that they failed to prove any violations or major errors by the lower court.

Attorneys for Holmes and Balwani did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment by The Associated Press.

Holmes saw a meteoric rise in Silicon Valley that landed her on the covers of business magazines that hailed her as the next Steve Jobs and raised nearly $1 billion in investments from software magnate Larry Ellison, media mogul Rupert Murdoch and the Walton family behind Walmart, and many others.

While wooing investors, Holmes leveraged a high-powered Theranos board that included former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who testified against her during her trial, and two former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and the late George Shultz, whose son, Alexander submitted a statement blasting Holmes for concocting a scheme that played Shultz “for the fool.”

The deception came to light in 2015 after a series of explosive articles in The Wall Street Journal and a regulatory audit of Theranos uncovered potentially dangerous flaws in the company’s technology, leading to its eventual collapse.

One of Silicon Valley’s biggest scandals, the pair’s blood-testing hoax has been dissected in a book, an HBO documentary and an award-winning TV series.

The post Elizabeth Holmes fails to overturn her Theranos fraud conviction appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Bennett Estate—An empire! A testament to a life lived in the limelight, the estate is vast, comprising multi-million-dollar properties, lucrative royalties from film and music, and an art collection that would make even the most seasoned connoisseur envious. But it’s more than just wealth; it’s a complex web of investments, trusts, and intellectual property. The Tony Bennett was not only a household name but also a shrewd businessman who built an empire. But as the old saying goes, “With great power comes great responsibility”—and, in this case, a heap of legal trouble.

When the Tony died, he left behind not just a fortune but also a family on the brink of war. The Bennett daughters felt betrayed and sidelined, thus, filing a lawsuit against their brother, accusing him of mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty. They claim that their brother, who was entrusted as the executor of the estate, failed in his duty to protect the family’s legacy. Instead of safeguarding the assets, the girls alleged he siphoned funds, made questionable investments, and prioritized his interests over theirs. The lawsuit has turned into a highly publicized battle, with accusations flying and the media watching every move.

Now, let’s zoom out for a moment. The Bennett case is not unique to celeb’s. In fact, this fact pattern is one common among may families across all socioeconomic classes. But, its fun to talk about celebrities, so lets keep the limelight on them, and not us. The Bennett feud is just one example in a long line of celebrity estate disputes that have captured public attention. Celebrity estates are notoriously tricky—just ask the families of Prince, Aretha Franklin, or James Brown. Will contests, trust disputes, and questions about the role of executors and trustees are all too common. Executors and trustees have immense power, and with that power comes the potential for conflict. When a high-profile individual passes away, the vultures circle. But sometimes, the vultures aren’t outsiders—they’re family.

It’s often said that death brings out the best and the worst in people. And when money is involved—especially vast sums of it—the worst can be pretty bad. Add in grief, mourning, anger, rage, sadness and all of the feels… it’s a setup for disaster that can lead to irreparable damage among family relationships. Siblings who once played together, shared secrets, and supported each other through thick and thin can find themselves on opposite sides of a courtroom, locked in a bitter, public, and painful legal battle. To this, the Bennett’s are no different. The loss, grief, money and allegations left the family bonds strained and broken. What was once a tight-knit family has been shattered by greed, mistrust, and resentment.

So, how can such disputes be avoided? The key lies in foresight. Clear, unambiguous wills and regular updates to estate plans can prevent much of the confusion that leads to conflict. It’s also crucial to choose impartial executors—someone who won’t play favorites, who will act in the best interests of all parties involved. In some cases, it might even be wise to appoint a professional executor, someone with no personal stake in the estate.

Now, let’s get to the bottom line: the cost-benefit analysis. Estate disputes are expensive—not just in terms of money but also in time, energy, and emotional well-being. Litigation can drag on for years, draining the estate’s assets and leaving everyone involved exhausted. In contrast, settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options like mediation can be far more cost-effective and quicker. ADR offers a way to resolve disputes outside the courtroom, preserving family relationships and saving everyone a heap of money.

And here’s the kicker, As one lawyer famously quipped, “Why is it that the people who inherit a fortune always seem to end up needing one to settle the fight over it?” It’s funny because it’s true—and it’s a reminder of just how costly these battles can be.

The Bennett Estate serves as a cautionary tale. It reminds us of the importance of careful estate planning, the dangers of mismanagement, and the devastating impact that financial disputes can have on families. By taking proactive steps, families can avoid the heartbreak of a public feud and ensure that their loved ones’ legacies are preserved—not torn apart.

The post The Bennett Estate appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration calls it a “student loan safety net.” Opponents call it a backdoor attempt to make college free. And it could be the next battleground in the legal fight over student loan relief.

Starting this summer, millions of Americans with student loans will be able to enroll in a new repayment plan that offers some of the most lenient terms ever. Interest won’t pile up as long as borrowers make regular payments. Millions of people will have monthly payments reduced to $0. And in as little as 10 years, any remaining debt will be canceled.

It’s known as the SAVE Plan, and although it was announced last year, it has mostly been overshadowed by President Joe Biden’s proposal for mass student loan cancellation. But now, after the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s forgiveness plan, the repayment option is taking center stage.

Since the ruling Biden has proposed an alternate approach to cancel debt and also shifted attention to the lesser-known initiative, calling it “the most affordable repayment plan ever.” The typical borrower who enrolls in the plan will save $1,000 a month, he said.

Republicans have fought against the plan, saying it oversteps the president’s authority. Sen. Bill Cassidy, the ranking Republican on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, called it “deeply unfair” to the 87% of Americans who don’t have student loans.

The Congressional Budget Office previously estimated over the next decade the plan would cost $230 billion, which would be even higher now that the forgiveness plan has been struck down. Estimates from researchers at the University of Pennsylvania put the cost at up to $361 billion.

Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decision on cancellation, some opponents say it’s a matter of time before the repayment plan also faces a legal challenge.

Here’s what to know about the SAVE Plan:

WHAT IS AN INCOME-DRIVEN REPAYMENT PLAN?

The U.S. Education Department offers several plans for repaying federal student loans. Under the standard plan, borrowers are charged a fixed monthly amount that ensures all their debt will be repaid after 10 years. But if borrowers have difficulty paying that amount, they can enroll in one of four plans that offer lower monthly payments based on income and family size. Those are known as income-driven repayment plans.

Income-driven options have been offered for years and generally cap monthly payments at 10% of a borrower’s discretionary income. If a borrower’s earnings are low enough, their bill is reduced to $0. And after 20 or 25 years, any remaining debt gets erased.

HOW IS BIDEN’S PLAN DIFFERENT?

As part of his debt relief plan announced last year, Biden said his Education Department would create a new income-driven repayment plan that lowers payments even further. It became known as the SAVE Plan, and it’s generally intended to replace existing income-driven plans.

Borrowers will be able to apply later this summer, but some of the changes will be phased in over time.

Right away, more people will be eligible for $0 payments. The new plan won’t require borrowers to make payments if they earn less than 225% of the federal poverty line — $32,800 a year for a single person. The cutoff for current plans, by contrast, is 150% of the poverty line, or $22,000 a year for a single person.

Another immediate change aims to prevent interest from snowballing.

As long as borrowers make their monthly payments, their overall balance won’t increase. Once they cover their adjusted monthly payment — even if it’s $0 — any remaining interest will be waived.

Other major changes will take effect in July 2024.

Most notably, payments on undergraduate loans will be capped at 5% of discretionary income, down from 10% now. Those with graduate and undergraduate loans will pay between 5% and 10%, depending on their original loan balance. For millions of Americans, monthly payments could be reduced by half.

Next July will also bring a quicker road to loan forgiveness. Starting then, borrowers with initial balances of $12,000 or less will get the remainder of their loans canceled after 10 years of payments. For each $1,000 borrowed beyond that, the cancellation will come after an additional year of payments.

For example, a borrower with an original balance of $14,000 would get all remaining debt cleared after 12 years. Payments made before 2024 will count toward forgiveness.

HOW DO I APPLY?

The Education Department says it will notify borrowers when the new application process launches this summer. Those enrolled in an existing plan known as REPAYE will automatically be moved into the SAVE plan. Borrowers will also be able to sign up by contacting their loan servicers directly.

It will be available to all borrowers in the Direct Loan Program who are in good standing on their loans.

WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS?

Supporters say Biden’s plan will simplify repayment options and offer relief to millions of borrowers. The Biden administration has argued that ballooning student debt puts college out of reach for too many Americans and holds borrowers back financially.

Opponents call it an unfair perk for those who don’t need it, saying it passes a heavy cost onto taxpayers who already repaid student loans or didn’t go to college. Some worry that it will give colleges incentive to raise tuition prices higher since they know many students will get their loans canceled later.

Voices across the political spectrum have said it amounts to a form of free college. Biden campaigned on a promise to make community college free, but it failed to gain support from Congress. Critics say the new plan is an attempt to do something similar without Congress’ approval.

IS IT LEGAL?

That depends on who you ask, but the question hasn’t been taken up by a federal court.

Instead of creating a new payment plan from scratch, the Biden administration proposed changes to an existing plan. It cemented those changes by going through a negotiated rulemaking process that allows the Education Department to develop federal regulations without Congress.

It’s a process that’s commonly used by administrations from both political parties. But critics question whether the new plan goes further than the law allows.

More than 60 Republicans lawmakers urged Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to withdraw the plan in February, calling it “reckless, fiscally irresponsible, and blatantly illegal.”

Supporters argue that the Obama administration similarly used its authority to create a repayment plan that was more generous than any others at the time.

The Biden administration formally finalized the rule this month. Conservatives believe it’s vulnerable to a legal challenge, and some say it’s just a matter of finding a plaintiff with the legal right — or standing — to sue.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post A Biden plan cuts student loan payments for millions to $0. Will it be the next legal battle? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.