Conti: WTS Motion re Appeal Bond - WTS Motion 10/26, Conti's Opposition 11/02, WTS Reply 11/06

by DNCall 57 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DNCall
• 

  Phizzy

  ??
• 

  RubaDub

  Great point.

  Thanks for the info.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  SadElder

  Please try again
• 

  wha happened?

  Hey big guy, we're all waiting on the news
• 

  ziddina

  
• 

  DNCall

  I posted this at work and for some reason I can only get the subject line to post. Knowing that, I simply laid out the briefing schedule in the subject line so that you will know when to check the Alameda Superior Court website. Usually the briefs post the day after they are due.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Thanks DNCall. I'm also keen to see both sides lay out their arguments for and against substituting WTS property as surety instead of having a cash bond, and how much of a cash reduction (if the substitution is denied) the WTS is asking for. I have the 'Register of Actions' page permanently open!
• 

  00DAD

  DNCall, thanks for clarifying. I was beginning to wonder if your posts were invisibly present!
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Here's the latest.

  10/26/12

  Motion Filed by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., a Corporation, The North

  </form>

  http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName=jsp/imgviewer.html&rofadt=10/26/12&Action=27990835

  Summary

  If the court does not grant the property substitution, the WTS want the bond to be reduced to compensatory damages only. This, the WTS argue, is to minimize the bond premiums which the Plaintiff would be liable for if they won the appeal. They also think that the punitive damages part is more susceptible to reversal.

  The rest is kind of as I suspected:

  The $86,000 premium on the bond is annual and not refundable after December 18. Obviously, if the appeal takes two years, they'll be paying at least twice that amount, ("estimated to be $170,000 to $200,000 over the life of this appeal") hence the desire to substitute property as security instead.

  Patterson is currently worth over $162 million. The WTS argues that using Patterson as surety will benefit the Plaintiff because it is "more that adequate security for the prompt payment of the Amended Judgment" if she prevails on appeal, as well as relieving her of the liability of having to pay back the bond premiums if she doesn't. Despite the attractiveness of that, the Plaintiff declined to agree to the substitution.

  If the court granted the substitution of Patterson, the WTS understands that there would be an order in place not to sell, transfer title or encumber the property involved.

  I may have missed some other interesting details as I only quickly went through it.