24 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
DKL, I hope you collect. |
Congratulations on your victory and on your ability to tell a good story. Well done. |
Congrats – I know a couple of guys named Vinnie and Tony who could help you collect. They don’t charge much and “guarantee” their results… |
DKL, I think I told you a little about this already – but I have some relatives who went through a prolonged court case with a very dishonest person. Like you, they finally won their case. However, after hearing their story and reading your story, I am left with a question that I’ve never managed to enunciate. So here it is … If you are involved in a court case with someone who is so dishonest – who will lie and cheat and go through so many numerous machinations to avoid paying – what finally compels them to pay? What pressure finally motivates them? I suppose there are some obvious answers but it sounds like you might know some real answers to this question and have probably mulled those answers over quite a bit. |
danithew, |
Congratulations, DKL! I found a nice write-up on the verdict here. |
Thanks, everyone for the well-wishes. Brian D, thanks for the link to the article. It’s pretty accurate, though it makes it sound as though we won primarily because of their advice-of-counsel defense. We had an overwhelming case already, hence the summary judgment that we won earlier. The advice-of-counsel defense was just a desperate move on their part, an attempt to obfuscate the issues. It highlights how bad their case was. Danithew, there are some pretty good laws about judgment collection, because the court system has pretty much seen it all. But, as you point out danithew, they’re scoundrels and will do everything they can do avoid paying. (Incidentally, they didn’t start out that way. They had been, at one time, great guys. They changed. In a bad way.) |
So Dave, I’m assuming that now you’ll be taking all of your loyal readers out for a celebratory steak dinner, right? |
Sounds pretty hellish. What a nightmare to live for six years… |
Will you tithe on the verdict before or after netting out the attorneys’ contingency fees? |
Greg, I’ve already tithed on the lawyers’ fees. I paid for it out of pocket by the hour. No contingency. But I’m hoping to pay quite a lot of tithing in any case. Lupita, it wasn’t all that bad. We didn’t live it every day — mostly just once a month when we’d get the bill. Also, we really did feel like we got a lot of pennies from heaven. Kaimi, we’re not celebrating yet, because we still have to collect. Even so, anytime you come out to Boston, I’ll take you to a steak dinner — as long as you don’t bill me for your time. |
Huzzah and congratulations, DKL! I’m glad for you and your family that you no longer have this hanging over your head. I hope you get your money too! |
Nice work man, I hope you collect. Your question about what story they tell is one that I always ask myself in these kinds of situations. Hopefully someday they will have to face the reality of what they did without the aid of self-deception to curb the shame. |
DKL, Very well told, and there is a lot for people to learn from that story. I look forward to my steak dinner. |
Congratulations on winning your case, DKL! After six years, celebration is definitely in order. You can celebrate again when you collect. |
DKL, I always thought you were more Bentham than Kant, but it appears you may have taken then Kantian approach here. You could have settled earlier and actually walked away with some money, sparing yourself the agony of the past few years. Surely a utilitarian analysis would have recommended that course. Instead, it seems you were most concerned about seeing justice served, even if that meant a lot of time with ultimately little or no money to show for it. Is that how you saw it? |
Reading the write-up in Lawyer’s Weekly made me miss litigation! I had my fair share of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage cases. Fascinating tale. It will be interesting to read the facts as laid out in an appellate court opinion should they appeal it. |
Correction to (16): I just read the Lawyer’s Weekly article and saw the amount DKL was awarded. Wow. So maybe it was a utilitarian analysis after all. Go ahead and put me on the steak dinner list too, please. |
Allison, thanks. I probably will celebrate if we can find a night that our baby sitter is free. Jacob J and Dan E, thanks for the kind words. john f, since it was a jury verdict, in Massachusetts they can only appeal the judge’s instructions to the jury and his decisions to permit or withhold evidence. In other words, the facts as found by the jury are considered sacrosanct, and only the issues of law decided by the judge are open to appeal. The facts that were found when we obtained summary judgment against the company remain facts as well. As a procedural matter, my opponents failed to even offer a defense against Breach of Fiduciary Duty, since the advice-of-counsel and state-of-mind defenses that they offered do not cover fiduciary duty. Plus, the burden for the appealing party is to show both that the judge was wrong on the law and that it would have made a difference. Judge Van Gestel is an exceptionally well regarded judge. He runs the business session in the superior court, and he’s handled some of the most complicated business cases in history; e.g., several of the cases surrounding the Big Dig here in Boston. Last year, he reached the mandatory retirement age for a judge in Massachusetts, and the state legislature passed a measure to keep him on, which is unusual but there is a concern that he’s irreplaceable. He knows how to dish out appeal-safe law. Any attempt to appeal will just rack up more interest, which accumulates at 1% a month. It would be unwise for them to even bother with an appeal. (But, as I mention below and as I’ve told my opponents from day one, they get terrible legal advice. They’ll probably appeal.) Tagore, my opponents never made a serious offer to settle. They simply made attempts to force me to take substantially less. For reasons that mystify me, they put their trust in two very bad lawyers — a trial lawyer and a bankruptcy lawyer who both did a terrible job. This ended up being a double edged sword. One the one hand, it never hurts to go up against bad legal strategy in court, and thanks to their idiot bankruptcy lawyer they ended up being personal liable (isn’t personal liability what bankruptcy lawyers are supposed to help you avoid!?!?). On the other hand, their lawyers never seem to have communicated the full extant of the risk to them, making them less motivated to seek reasonable terms for settlement. But my guess is that they were shopping for people who would tell them what they wanted to hear. |
Another write up about the verdict here in the Boston Business Journal. |
Congratulations and best of luck collecting. Is it too late to apologize for thinking you’re Jolly Juliet? Don’t spend all of your hard earned winnings in one place. |
Congradulations DKL! Personally, I have never felt anything quite so smugly satifying as winning a long, hard-fought court case so enjoy the glow (and the dough) while it lasts. |
I would hope that they would all learn from the experience. I’m glad the one guy resolved matters with you. |
If you collect, can we all come to your house and have a party? Perhaps you could pay for our “first-class” tickets since you’re rich on paper. I know I’d appreciate it. Although I do have some free tickets coming. A big party. Baked brie in phyllo dough, crab stuffed mushrooms, boy could I do the appetizers. Seriously, I don’t like Shackleton’s quote. It bothers, for some reason. Can’t put my finger on it. And even more seriously, David, aren’t you heartbroken at the loss of the friendship and your illusions about these people? I lost a friend this year and it’s been awfully sad. Not regainable, but sad. |