Question:
Scott W. Rothstein (born June 10, 1962) is a disbarred lawyer and the former managing shareholder, chairman, and chief executive officer of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm. He was accused of funding his philanthropy, political contributions, law firm salaries, and an extravagant lifestyle with a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme, one of the largest such in history. On December 1, 2009, Rothstein turned himself in to authorities and was subsequently arrested on charges related to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Although his arraignment plea was not guilty, Rothstein cooperated with the Government and reversed his plea to guilty of five federal crimes on January 27, 2010.
General counsel David Boden was present for at least one of the swindles, and negotiated the final papers with the investors' lawyers. Rothstein greets and informs the investor his firm was the preeminent sexual harassment law firm in the country. He says he'd figured out a basic formula which was that someone with $10 million net worth was usually willing to pay $2 million in cash to pay off their mistress. The key was confidentiality. Rothstein tells the investor that he would meet potential defendants in his office and would question them about affairs they had with an employee. The defendants would deny it. He pointed to artwork, and said there was a television screen behind it. He tells the investor he turned on a video of the guy having sex with his mistress, and told his client "We can either settle this now, or I can depose your wife, your mistress, you and your son about it." Since defendants" often couldn't or wouldn't pay the entire settlement up-front, Rothstein tells the investor that his first harassment case many years ago, involved a $3.5 million settlement and a million-dollar legal fee, so Rothstein assigned the settlement to a good friend and the plaintiff settles for $3 million without a trial. The "good friend" stood to be paid $3.5 million once the defendant paid up, a half-million dollar profit.  "In 20 years, I have never seen a defendant sue on breach of settlement," Rothstein told them. "The whole idea is that it's secret. Why would they sue?"  Although it did not appear completely legitimate, and it might have appeared that the plaintiffs were short-changed, it makes sense to the potential investor. The idea seems solid. The investor thinks that with enough of these cases at Rothstein's law firm, he could make huge sums of money.  Rothstein then discusses other larger cases: Eli Lilly and Company, involving $1.4 billion with plaintiff representation by Gary Farmer, a firm attorney who negotiated the settlement and who brought the case with him when he arrived at the firm. Several inside whistleblowers went to the fed with unlawful practices regarding the marketing and sales of an anti-psychotic medication called Zyprexa. It was one of the largest qui tam cases in history.  He tells the investor about a potential (allegedly fabricated) case where investors would buy whistle-blower million dollar settlements with a sixty percent short term investor profit. The arrangement would be completely secret; the investor would never know the name of the company or the whistle-blower. The settlement money would be deposited into a trust account at TD Bank, accessible only to the investor at the appropriate time. David Boden follows up with all questions and negotiates the contract.
Answer this question using a quote from the text above:

Anything else interesting about the article.

Answer:
potential defendants


Question:
Michael Philip Jagger was born into a middle-class family in Dartford, Kent. His father, Basil Fanshawe "Joe" Jagger (13 April 1913 - 11 November 2006), and grandfather, David Ernest Jagger, were both teachers. His mother, Eva Ensley Mary (nee Scutts; 6 April 1913 - 18 May 2000), born in Sydney, Australia, of English descent, was a hairdresser and an active member of the Conservative Party. Jagger's younger brother, Chris (born 19 December 1947), is also a musician.
Jagger's relationship with bandmate Keith Richards is frequently described as "love/hate" by the media. Richards himself said in a 1998 interview: "I think of our differences as a family squabble. If I shout and scream at him, it's because no one else has the guts to do it or else they're paid not to do it. At the same time I'd hope Mick realises that I'm a friend who is just trying to bring him into line and do what needs to be done."  The Rolling Stones album Dirty Work (UK No. 4; US No. 4) was released in March 1986 to mixed reviews, despite the presence of the US top five hit "Harlem Shuffle". With relations between Richards and Jagger at a low, Jagger refused to tour to promote the album, and instead undertook his own solo tour, which included Rolling Stones songs. Richards has referred to this period in his relations with Jagger as "World War III". As a result of the animosity within the band at this time, they almost broke up. Jagger's solo records, She's the Boss (UK No. 6; US No. 13) (1985) and Primitive Cool (UK No. 26; US No. 41) (1987), met with moderate success, and in 1988, with the Rolling Stones mostly inactive, Richards released his first solo album, Talk Is Cheap (UK No. 37; US No. 24). It was well-received by fans and critics, going gold in the US. The following year 5x5: The Continuing Adventures of the Rolling Stones, a documentary spanning the career of the band was released for their 25th anniversary.  Richards' autobiography, Life, was released on 26 October 2010. According to a 15 October 2010 article published by the Associated Press, Richards described Jagger as "unbearable" within the book, noting that their relationship has been strained "for decades". By 2015, Richards' opinion had softened, while still calling Jagger a "snob" (providing supporting evidence from Jagger's daughter Georgia Mae), he adds "I still love him dearly ... your friends don't have to be perfect."
Answer this question using a quote from the text above:

why was it love/hate?

Answer:
"I think of our differences as a family squabble.