Amazon HQ2 bid - Page 54

Halsted & Villagio · #**1061** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 1:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis

If Amazon truly has the HQ2 picked already and still acting like it hasn't and asked for the losing cities to spends resources to prepare for their bid...can Amazon be sued by these cities?

This is not my area of law but Amazon can MOST DEFINITELY BE SUED. Its called "misrepresentation". If you induce someone to take action and incur damages such as expend money under a false promise, that is a classic case of misrepresentation.

In addition, creative lawyers will add in a few (many) more legal theories as well to sue... off the top of my head I would think they would add Fraud (this one will probably get tossed out of court - but it may stick), they would add some type of Antitrust cause of action (don't know if this one would stick or not - as I said before, not my area) they would add the tort of Conspiracy (this one may stick)... etc., etc. Lawyers will load up on the legal theories and see which ones will stick.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WILL WIN any of this. But they will have a legitimate case... particularly if they have spent money based upon a false promise and (the key) can prove that the decision has already been made.

atlwarrior · #**1062** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 3:21 PM**

Thoughts and opinions on this as well. Per ABC

“Atlanta City Council late Monday introduced an ordinance to authorize “an exchange transaction” between the city and CIM Spring Street (Atlanta) Owner LLC.“

smArTaLlone · #**1063** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 4:58 PM**

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news...ta-cim-group-consider-land-swap-for.html

Quote:

Now, the city of Atlanta appears to be considering a land swap with CIM Group for another almost three acres along the Gulch. The property sits to the east of the state-owned land.

Atlanta City Council late Monday introduced an ordinance to authorize “an exchange transaction” between the city and CIM Spring Street (Atlanta) Owner LLC.

“The exchange will facilitate the redevelopment of the Gulch by CIM and provide the city with additional office space and parking for departmental operations or other uses,” says the proposed ordinance.

The city-owned property includes a parking lot and production and warehouse buildings that span from Centennial Olympic Park Drive to Fairlie Street and sit behind the State Bar of Georgia building and 2 City Plaza along Marietta Street. It also includes a parking lot along Fairlie and Forsyth streets.

Triptychtwo · #**1064** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news...ta-cim-group-consider-land-swap-for.html

Relative to most standard government processes (land swap, bid process), things in this area have the outside appearance to be moving very quickly.

ATLswede · #**1065** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 5:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

This is not my area of law but Amazon can MOST DEFINITELY BE SUED. Its called "misrepresentation". If you induce someone to take action and incur damages such as expend money under a false promise, that is a classic case of misrepresentation.

In addition, creative lawyers will add in a few (many) more legal theories as well to sue... off the top of my head I would think they would add Fraud (this one will probably get tossed out of court - but it may stick), they would add some type of Antitrust cause of action (don't know if this one would stick or not - as I said before, not my area) they would add the tort of Conspiracy (this one may stick)... etc., etc. Lawyers will load up on the legal theories and see which ones will stick.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WILL WIN any of this. But they will have a legitimate case... particularly if they have spent money based upon a false promise and (the key) can prove that the decision has already been made.

Regardless of whether they can "state a claim" that survives a motion to dismiss, none of these jurisdictions is dumb enough to sue. It would be expensive, time consuming, and would put the city on a blacklist for future relocations from other businesses. It would almost certainly bar the city from getting any of the other Amazon facilities/workers that will continue expanding throughout the country as Amazon grows and disrupt other industries.

daharris80 · #**1066** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

This is not my area of law but Amazon can MOST DEFINITELY BE SUED. Its called "misrepresentation". If you induce someone to take action and incur damages such as expend money under a false promise, that is a classic case of misrepresentation.

In addition, creative lawyers will add in a few (many) more legal theories as well to sue... off the top of my head I would think they would add Fraud (this one will probably get tossed out of court - but it may stick), they would add some type of Antitrust cause of action (don't know if this one would stick or not - as I said before, not my area) they would add the tort of Conspiracy (this one may stick)... etc., etc. Lawyers will load up on the legal theories and see which ones will stick.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WILL WIN any of this. But they will have a legitimate case... particularly if they have spent money based upon a false promise and (the key) can prove that the decision has already been made.

Not to mention other laws (state by state) with respect to making misrepresentations to government entities. Could even rise to the level of criminal misconduct depending on what is misrepresented and what action is taken by the city/state.

For example, contractors can be found liable for violations of the False Claims Act by certifying a claim against the federal government seeking more than they are entitled to receive under a federal contract.

Bottom line, what some may consider to be ordinary "negotiations" between business entities, are not looked at in the same light when contracting with the government.

skyscraperpage17 · #**1067** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATLswede

Regardless of whether they can "state a claim" that survives a motion to dismiss, none of these jurisdictions is dumb enough to sue. It would be expensive, time consuming, and would put the city on a blacklist for future relocations from other businesses. It would almost certainly bar the city from getting any of the other Amazon facilities/workers that will continue expanding throughout the country as Amazon grows and disrupt other industries.

Exactly. I don't know why some are being obtuse about this.

Hell, I can technically sue the weatherman because it didn't rain despite their prediction of a 100% chance of rain. That doesn't mean I should nor it's a legitimate claim.

Same logic applies here.

Mentallect · #**1068** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis

If Amazon truly has the HQ2 picked already and still acting like it hasn't and asked for the losing cities to spends resources to prepare for their bid...can Amazon be sued by these cities?

Yes, because it is fraud.

Mentallect · #**1069** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

This is equivalent to a job interview.

You knew going in that there would be a bunch of hoops to jump through when you applied and yet there still be the possibility that you not get the job.

Because there were no promise made that you had the job, you can't claim any damages.

So to answer to your question in a nutshell, no. And any reasonable judge would toss out such a silly lawsuit.

All of that said, I do think what Amazon's doing to these cities *IS* unethical, even if not illegal. But Bezos doesn't come across as the type who gives a fuck about that.

BTW, I have an HR degree and work in purchasing, so I'm not just shooting what I say out of my ass.

If the applicant was selected prior to the interview process, resources used for transportation, etc can be sued for because fraud was committed.

Mentallect · #**1070** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATLswede

Regardless of whether they can "state a claim" that survives a motion to dismiss, none of these jurisdictions is dumb enough to sue. It would be expensive, time consuming, and would put the city on a blacklist for future relocations from other businesses. It would almost certainly bar the city from getting any of the other Amazon facilities/workers that will continue expanding throughout the country as Amazon grows and disrupt other industries.

Jurisdictions spending millions of dollars in man hours, travel, etc. will sue, and win 100% plus damages. The oppurtunity costs alone is massive. Ethical businesses have no motivation to blacklist states for demanding hinest business practices, only dishonest corporations would. Also, to deter future fraud against taxpayers, suing is preferable. All 269 losing jurisdictions may unite under a class action lawsuit if Amazon willfully lied about the selection criteria causing those jurisdictions financial loss.

atlwarrior · #**1071** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 6:57 PM**

No lawsuit will happen! Atlanta and Georgia have went after many projects that went to another state or city. Legally a case would not be on point or warrant a lawsuit against Amazon since other companies were offer concessions by the city or state but went elsewhere.

Halsted & Villagio · #**1072** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by daharris80

Not to mention other laws (state by state) with respect to making misrepresentations to government entities. Could even rise to the level of criminal misconduct depending on what is misrepresented and what action is taken by the city/state.

For example, contractors can be found liable for violations of the False Claims Act by certifying a claim against the federal government seeking more than they are entitled to receive under a federal contract.

Bottom line, what some may consider to be ordinary "negotiations" between business entities, are not looked at in the same light when contracting with the government.

Smart post. I totally agree. I tried to be circumspect in my initial post by shying away from terms such as "fraudulent" misrepresentation (which is exactly what the charge will be) because I did not want to gaslight an already sensitive topic in this forum. But you, my friend, have correctly and boldly took it a step further into the criminal arena... which is exactly what would happen. Not that Amazon would be charged criminally but that would absolutely be one of the considerations should Amazon be found to be fraudulently inducing government entities, vendors or whomever to spend money based upon a knowingly false promise.

Amazon did not get where it is by being foolish. The legal bloodbath that would ensue if Amazon is found to have already made its selection and is inducing people/entities to spend money with no possibility of realizing the promised potential outcome, would be catastrophic for Amazon. The PR blow back from that alone would prevent Amazon from doing something so foolish. That's to say nothing of the potential civil (definitely) and criminal (possible) charges that they would be opening themselves up to.

A suicide move like this would be the move of a recklessly foolish and desperate company. Amazon is too smart for that. Hell, the mom and pop store down the street is too smart for that.

This is my last post on this. You guys are free to believe what you want. Just know that what you believe does not mean its the law. There is a difference.

skyscraperpage17 · #**1073** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 8:04 PM**

I feel this is a pointless discussion, because no lawsuits will come from this for the reasons myself and others have already stated.

But just to make one last comment, then I'm moving on, even if Amazon already has a city in mind, it doesn't matter as long as the process to select them transparent and fair. It's just like a company having an internal candidate in mind for a job opening, but still going through the motions to interview outside candidates. If the internal candidate applied and interviewed just like everyone else and met the qualifications, then tough cookies for the external candidates.

As far as the so-called "selection criteria" people keep referring to, if you actually read the entire RFP carefully, most of the so-called "requirements" are really preferences (meaning nice to have, but not neccessary), which is a big difference. There's nothing "fraudulent" about that.

BTW, the RFP clearly states the following as well:

"Amazon may select one or more proposals and negotiate with the parties submitting such proposals before making an award decision, or it may select no proposals and enter into no agreement."

montydawg · #**1074** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 8:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

BTW, the RFP clearly states the following as well:

"Amazon may select one or more proposals and negotiate with the parties submitting such proposals before making an award decision, or it may select no proposals and enter into no agreement."

I don't think this clear, common sense language will stop some lawyer from having a wet dream of the possible billable hours they could charge some corrupt city with vengeance on their mind in some case destined to get thrown out. Just another lawyer trying to get their name in the papers.

Calidreaming01 · #**1075** Posted **Aug 8, 2018, 9:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by montydawg

I don't think this clear, common sense language will stop some lawyer from having a wet dream of the possible billable hours they could charge some corrupt city with vengeance on their mind in some case destined to get thrown out. Just another lawyer trying to get their name in the papers.

No city is going to be paying any attorney $400+ an hour to pursue a legal claim that has virtually no chance of success. There’s also a chance that city could take a hit for bringing a frivolous claim.

Even if they tried to get a contingency arrangement, no plaintiff’s attorney s going to waste time pursuing a claim where there will be no payday. You get your name in lights for winning, so I see no reason why any sane attorney would take this type of case.

Folks need to let this idea go. It’s already been explored far beyond its lgical limits.

daharris80 · #**1076** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 12:30 AM**

Let me be clear on my post and where I think the disconnect is on this discussion. I'm not saying a losing city or state should or even could sue Amazon. In fact, I think it is very unlikely Amazon has "made a decision" and is simply trying to drive up offers. Could they have an internal ranking? Yes, absolutely. A favorite? Yep. But that is completely different than some of the absolutism in this forum saying that Amazon has "known" who they are picking and are "extracting" higher bids. The legal analysis provided on misrepresentations relates to the "facts" represented by those comments (which are unfounded) and not based on any actual thought that Amazon has misrepresented anything.

skyscraperpage17 · #**1077** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 12:39 AM**

Well this is interestng speculation...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dispatch....in-hunt-for-amazon-hq2%3ftemplate=ampart

Quote:

Amazon may cut the list to as few as five cities by Labor Day, said K.C. Conway, chief economist for the commercial real-estate group CCIM Institute and director of research at the Alabama Center for Real Estate at the University of Alabama. He has tracked the project closely.

He also said he wouldn't be surprised to see a city added to the list as a way to recreate the kind of buzz Amazon had when first announced the project.

Not sure our hearts could take that, lol.

BlueSangha · #**1078** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 1:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Well this is interestng speculation...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dispatch....in-hunt-for-amazon-hq2%3ftemplate=ampart

Not sure our hearts could take that, lol.

No no no no...

Calidreaming01 · #**1079** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 3:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Well this is interestng speculation...

https://www.google.com/amp/www.dispatch....in-hunt-for-amazon-hq2%3ftemplate=ampart

Not sure our hearts could take that, lol.

I think Amazon has milked this thing for all it's worth so I don't think they are going to create more buzz, but they may be able to eke out a few more incentives out of the winner.

mhays · #**1080** Posted **Aug 9, 2018, 4:01 PM**

Two near impossibilities...

File suit to protest a site selection? Not only difficult to win, but a horrific message to other companies you might want to pursue.

Add a city? The new city would look like a huge longshot, even with the understanding that Amazon's criteria could be in flux. As a PR ploy it would be jumping the shark, and for what?