How? Does the WTS say, 'Well, we'll forget the appeal if you agree to accept, say $5 million' or something like that? And wouldn't such an offer have to go through the court and be a matter of public record? Tell me how it works.
Conti v Watchtower - Court Denies Watchtower Motion re: Substituting Bond - November 16 court documents in pdf
by jwleaks 102 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
St George of England
The WTS has just sold the Bossert Hotel for $81M, they cannot be short of cash.
The appeal is about saving face to their members.
George
-
wha happened?
anything in the settlement can be sealed, not for public viewing
-
wha happened?
and discouraging similar lawsuits George
-
cobaltcupcake
Thanks for the good news!
-
Scott77
The WTS has just sold the Bossert Hotel for $81M, they cannot be short of cash. The appeal is about saving face to their members.
St George of England Iam thinking about this as stated above although financial incentives cannot be excluded.
Scott77
-
AnnOMaly
Another thing. Even if a settlement were possible, it doesn't negate the verdict - it's on record that Candace won. Right?
-
-
besty
thanks for the feedback 144001 and dncall - valuable comments from people that know!
-
besty
Another thing. Even if a settlement were possible, it doesn't negate the verdict - it's on record that Candace won. Right?
The settlement deal can be done on the courthouse steps at the last possible moment.
The WTS is in a bind here - not settling or otherwise prolonging the appeal process is at risk of costing them $100k per month in post-verdict interest IF they lose the appeal. On the other hand, losing the appeal will cost them $11m cash, PR nightmare and likely future suits - maybe even class actions led by Simons etc.
Their best option IMNSHO :-) is to settle quickly allowing them some control over PR messaging, cost avoidance on post-verdict interest and potentially lower amount of cash payout.
Therefore the WTS must consider their chance of winning on appeal to be good, otherwise they wouldn't have pursued the Patterson nonsense - bear in mind the bond premium is $86k per annum - not even a drop in the ocean for the WTS - set against the $500k per annum investment return on the $11m they haven't had to surrender to Conti. (Never mind that $11m is pocket change with the rest of their assets)
it would be interesting to hear DNCall or 144000 estimate the legal costs attached to pursuing this particular motion.
