Upon appeal though most of that money will be dwindled away. Thats how most of these cases work. Though it will be in apeals court for a few years probably. Not to discredit your point, I completely agree. Even ifr it is taken down to 20 million in the long run it would have been cheaper to taske the settlement, unless you take value of money into it over time.
Adam H On 6/15/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone was saying how they thought people who didn't go to court to > prove their innocence were fools and it meant they were guilty. A few > of us pointed out how, sad as it is, sometimes it's better to run than > to fight. > > Well I've got a great example of this: > > The embattled MorganStanley was just handed a $1.45 Billion judgement > against them in a suit brought by Ron Perelman. Morgan insisted > they're not at fault (still do) and during the trial was offered a $20 > million settlement by Mr. Perelman's side which they declined (since > they were sure they were innocent). > > The moral of the story is this: legal fees are expensive and juries > are unpredictable no matter what your guilt is. It's ALWAYS better to > take a relatively low cost settlement than to gamble. > > Unfortunately settlements are a cost of doing business in America and > don't indicate guilt, IMO. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:160886 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
