Reply With Quote
On such obviously weak accusations. What a shame.
Settle. That is what does the least amount of damage to the balance sheet.
Investors hate lawsuits with unknown amounts of potential damages.
If you are getting sued and might lose, you have to carry a liability on your books, and that doesn't help your ratios. Better to bite the bullet, and pull the band-aid off quickly. Pardon the mixed metaphors/cliches.
On such obviously weak accusations. What a shame.
Just because a claim is weak doesn't mean that it's not capable of being used to leverage another en y into settlement.
You do realize this is how litigation occurs in the context of large corporate en ies, right?
I guarantee that neither side wants to go through a full blown public discovery phase...both will end up covered in ...
I'm vaguely familiar with the custom.
Pretty much, but I'm no expert on litigation b/w large corporate en ies. Are you?
Yes. I'd say I am.
And if you were vaguely familiar with the custom, then you wouldn't imply that a weak claim is not capable of causing a corporate en y to settle.
Ignorant question of the day...
Please explain how a weak litigious claim would/could cause a corporate en y to settle?
This question assumes the defendant has an argument (which may not be the case in this instance).
Beause corporate en ies would not want to incur the expenses of discovery. You do realize that discovery costs have increased exponentially in the past 2 decades, right? For the largest of en ies, it can cost tens of millions of dollars to properly conduct discovery.
Add to that the fact that judges are rarely willing to dismiss an entire lawsuit (even weak ones) at the motion to dismiss/summary judgment level. This means that weak claims are still going to go to a jury - where there is a massive amount of uncertainty.
Corporate en ies don't want multi-million or multi-billion dollar claims to get to that point. Those claims are bull , but jurys are filled with people even more re ed than the idiots who post here.
No, I didnt.
Thanks for the answer.For the largest of en ies, it can cost tens of millions of dollars to properly conduct discovery.
Add to that the fact that judges are rarely willing to dismiss an entire lawsuit (even weak ones) at the motion to dismiss/summary judgment level. This means that weak claims are still going to go to a jury - where there is a massive amount of uncertainty.
Corporate en ies don't want multi-million or multi-billion dollar claims to get to that point. Those claims are bull , but jurys are filled with people even more re ed than the idiots who post here.
Lord knows that if I'm Bank of America, or any financial ins ution for that matter, the last thing in the world I would want to see right now is a jury comprised of normal citizens pissed off about the financial crisis.
Not only that, but a jury of regular people looking through all their turd mortgages...
That's why the jury system is ed.
Kind of a tangent here, but what are your thoughts on "loser pays"? Does that help?
Yep. I doubt you could assemble a 12 person jury where half of them aren't unemployed, have been foreclosed on, are upside down on their mortgage or closely related to someone who is.
nm
I think it's pretty sweet from my standpoint. If we win, we get paid.
I haven't seen much in terms of numbers, but I'd imagine that it's going to deter some people from filing suit; I'd be scared if I had to pay the other sides costs/fees if I lost. But then again, you can recover your attorney's fees for breach of contract causes of action in Texas, so it might not make that much of an impact.
I don't see it that way.
At some point, we have to trust the average person, for good or ill, and if the large banks and overpaid executives are generally regarded as culpable, they have only themselves to blame for taking record bonuses while the rest of the country is mired in unemployment.
It helps those who have the resources to afford to stall forever.
I see it as a blank check to companies so they can be even less responsible.
I have, in the course of my job, seen firsthand some *very* mercenary written conversations between the CEO, the board, and the attorneys regarding litigation. The only thing that mattered was settling the cases for as little money as possible, and at no point was the fact that settling or not for any given amount of money was an ethical or unethical thing to do.
For all the abuse of the current system, and it is not as widespread or costly as some would like us to believe, the fact exists that a "loser pays" system would very heavily favor those with money.
I couldn't think of anything more corrosive to the public good.
Were these cases tort or breach of contract matters? You do realize that prevailing parties already recover their fees in most breach of contract cases, right? How does that heavily favor the rich?
What is the alternative to a jury system?
A panel of elected judges? Corruptible.
A panel of appointed judges? Already corrupted with party politics.
Arbitration?
I'd say some combination of easier-to-meet motion to dismiss/summary judgment standards with appointed judges and a more ins utionalized system of arbitration.
I'm curious why you think that appointed judges become "corrupted" by party politics? Do you think judge's are capable of not having biases? Do you think any bias they have rises to the level of corruption?
That is one of the cornerstones of Democracy.
That said, I don't mind subs uting specialized courts with expert jurists for some more complex cases.
I'd say its a cornerstone for criminal cases but I'm not so sure that holds true for civil matters which is what VY65 is discussing. I think there is some merit to the idea that a jury of "peers" would be out of their depth in corporate lawsuits.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
