I've posted several times about Robert Emmel, a whistleblower who has previously testified to evidence of wrongdoing by his former employer, News America Marketing. News America prevailed in a court case against him, and the court entered an injunction preventing Emmel from disclosing confidential News America information, effectively preventing him from testifying in person at the Valassis or Insignia trials. Emmel appealed the injunction, but his appeal was stayed after he filed bankruptcy. Over two months ago, he filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to lift the stay, but has recently withdrawn that motion. In his recent filing he laments the delayed resolution and News' tactics:
NAM's sole major objective in delaying Emmel's motion has been to prevent, for as long as possible, the Emmel live trial appearances as a witness at three pending trials against NAM so that he cannot testify to previously unknown and non-disclosed (except to government regulators and officials through previous Emmel disclosure) additional allegations in the areas of NAM's deceptive business practices, fraud, improper revenue recognition and other areas of wrongdoing concerning NAM's alleged criminal conduct against competitors, NAM's own sales clients and retailers under lease agreement contracts with NAM, and, lastly, the consequences of the wrongdoing to cause NAM actions detrimental to the shareholders of the public corporation News Corp. of which NAM is an operating entity. And, further, NAM desires to prevent Emmel from providing even greater detail --as Emmel was a former employee insider of almost 8 years at NAM—of alleged abhorrent NAM business practices and actions against its own customers and against competitors that has now entered the public record from emergence of discovery previously under seal, and now evidence coming into court proceedings and through trial testimony of Emmel and various other third parties at a recent trial that has concluded.While live testimony by Emmel would be helpful to the plaintiffs, the recent Valassis verdict shows that it's not entirely necessary.