On Jan. 31, 2007, we published an article entitled, “Fraud kills $75 million hotel deal/Buyer sued for allegedly ‘manipulating’ agreement,” in which we reported on legal proceedings pending in California state court. It has come to our attention that the article has been misread as suggesting that the allegations made by the plaintiffs in that case regarding the alleged actions of Los Angeles businessmen Richard Alter and Eddie Chan are true or have been established to be true, which is not correct. To be clear, to the extent the article discusses the “facts of the case,” it repeats the plaintiffs’ complaint allegations, which have not been proven or endorsed by any court. Indeed, it should be noted that the California Court of Appeal, in the published decision referenced in the article, held that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine the true facts, reversing the trial court’s decision and remanding the case back to the trial court to conduct such evidentiary hearing.
We apologize to the individuals in the article for any confusion our article may have caused.
What’s your opinion? Send your Letter to the Editor to email@example.com.