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.

Is it too late to apologize for thinking you’re Jolly Juliet?

Don’t spend all of your hard earned winnings in one place.

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.

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?