Business Law Reflection
WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK, LTD., ET AL. v. SHARIF, (2015)
Nature of the case
Plaintiff, Richard Sharif, brought an action at the U.S. Supreme Court on 14 Jan 2015
against the defendant, Wellness International Network Limited, for violation of a payment
BUSINESS LAW REFLECTION 2
contract (Helveston & Jacobs 2014). Defendant sought inter alia, a declaratory judgment
from the Bankruptcy Court challenging that a trustee to Sharif argued to administer was i a
Sharif’s double and the assets of Sharif were his personal possessions (Sharif) and a part of
his bankruptcy estate. Plaintiff and defendant filed many cases trying to outdo each other.
Facts
Wellness International Network Limited is a manufacturer of health and nutritional
items. Both plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract under which Sharif was to
distribute products on behalf of the accused. However, the correlation between the applicant
and the defendant became worse at the onset of 2015 when Sharif sued Wellness in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of Texas. The relationship continued to become
sourer as Sharif repeatedly continued ignoring Wellness’’ discovery request, as well as other
litigation responsibilities (Helveston & Jacobs 2014). This resulted in an entry of default
judgment for Wellness. Consequently, the District Court aware Wellness $650,000 in
attorney fees.
In Feb 2009, Sharif filed a case based on Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the other District
of Illinois. The case listed Wellness as a creditor. Instead, Wellness demanded documents
relating Sharif’s assets, which Sharif denied. Later, Wellness obtained a loan application
Sharif had filed back in 2002, giving more than $5million in assets. When confronted, Sharif
told Wellness as the Chapter 7 trustee that he had lied on the loan application. Soad Wattar
Living Trust (a firm Sharif admitted he managed on behalf of her mother and for his sister)
owned the listed assets, as Sharif claimed. Wellness coerced Sharif for information regarding
the Trust, but Sharif again refused. Wellness went ahead to file a petition that Sharif had
concealed his property behind the name of a Trust (Easley, 2014). Being a five-count
adversary complaint, Count V of the complaint sought a declaratory judgment that Sharif
BUSINESS LAW REFLECTION 3
alter ego and that the assets should be treated as component of the bankruptcy estate. Sharif
withheld the information of Trust up to 2010, where the Bankruptcy Court could not take it
more and issued a ruling terming Sharif’s actions as a violation of the court’s discovery order
(Helveston & Jacobs 2014). In addition, Sharif was denied request to discharge his debts. The
court went ahead to declare that the assets held by Trust were property of Sharif’s bankruptcy
estate because Sharif treated Trust’s property as his.
Contracts are very crucial when seeking justice at the court of law. They form the
basis for filing a complaint. However, when the court makes a final verdict, certain judges are
not contended by such decisions (Helveston & Jacobs 2014). For instance, the case between
Wellness and Sharif, certain justices in the District disagreed with the verdict of the majority
judges to affirm the earlier judgment of Trust’s property to be part of the bankruptcy estate
(Easley, 2014). This disagreement was because, although Sharif appealed to the District
Court, the court resulted to be Stern. The judges also disagreed with the other judges when
they made their decision arguing that Sharif being on leave to file a supplemental brief was
untimely, and, therefore, affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment. In my opinion, I
disagree with the court decision, as Sharif should have been allowed to file the supplemental
brief.
References
Easley, D. (2014). Florida’s New Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Law Law Cases:
A Premier. Florida Bar Journal, 8894), 40-44.
BUSINESS LAW REFLECTION 4
Helveston, M., & Jacobs, M. (2014). Te Incoherent Role of Bargaining Power in Contract
Law. Wake Forest Law Review, 49(4), 1017-1058.
