Wellness International Network LTD Et al vs Sharif 2015

Wellness International Network LTD Et al vs Sharif 2015 Order Instructions: Sending Instructions by email.

Wellness International  Network LTD Et al vs Sharif 2015
Wellness International Network LTD Et al vs Sharif 2015

Wellness International Network LTD Et al vs Sharif 2015 Sample Answer


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 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 Sharif’s double and the assets of Sharif was his personal possessions (Sharif) and a part of his bankruptcy estate. Plaintiff and defendant filed many cases trying to outdo each other.


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 alter ego and that the assets should be treated as a 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 a request to discharge his debts. The court went ahead to declare that the assets held by Trust were the 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.

Wellness International Network LTD Et al vs Sharif 2015 References

Easley, D. (2014). Florida’s New Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Law Law Cases:       A Premier. Florida Bar Journal, 8894), 40-44.

Helveston, M., & Jacobs, M. (2014). Te Incoherent Role of Bargaining Power in Contract             Law.  Wake Forest Law Review, 49(4), 1017-1058.

Unlike most other websites we deliver what we promise;

  • Our Support Staff are online 24/7
  • Our Writers are available 24/7
  • Most Urgent order is delivered with 6 Hrs
  • 100% Original Assignment Plagiarism report can be sent to you upon request.

GET 15 % DISCOUNT TODAY use the discount code PAPER15 at the order form.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page: