The entire point of bankruptcy proceedings is to arrange a final resolution of outstanding claims when there aren't enough assets to cover them. Someone is going to get screwed, because the money simply isn't there, including the money that would be used to pay for ongoing D&O (directors & officers) insurance that would pay civil claims against directors for actions taken in the course of their employment.
Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
21–30 of 62 posts
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#22It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate. So once you sign that immunity document,…
Aren't the executives generally the ringleaders?
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't executives just doing what the board wants, and the board just following what the owners want?
And the owners what the market wants. Really you, the consumer, is responsible!
Well not really. The owners are ultimately responsible for the company's behavior.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes? Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target. If Weinstein had a close "ally", who was less important for justice but important to testify for the case... even if that "ally" had crimes associated with him, you'd want to give that "Hypothetical ally" imm…
>Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target. In the article it says that Weinstein was practically given immunity to personal lawsuits related to the class action. Individual members of the class were able to retain the right to sue him personally in exchange for taking 1/4 of their payout in the bankruptcy proceedings. Anyway, aside from the specific inaccuracy of what you'r…
> the article it says that Weinstein was practically given immunity to personal lawsuits
Weinstein is in jail. (The victims "could opt out of giving lawsuit immunity to Harvey Weinstein himself - but only if they agreed to reduce their portion of the settlement payout by 75%," which seems fine, this is a civil proceeding and the point of bankruptcy is to draw a line under liability.)
The "blanket immunity" in the HN title misleadingly refers to Board members being released from liability.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the owners what the market wants. Really you, the consumer, is responsible!
Well not really. The owners are ultimately responsible for the company's behavior.
And yet the owners rely on the market/consumer giving them money to put food on the table and afford a roof over their head. Which is to say, user?id=delusional above was mostly joking.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#26Collusion among judges, lawyers, and prosecutors helps explain this phenomenon. This collusion occurs due to "revolving door". None of these parties (judges, lawyers and prosecutors) receive any bribes--so it is legal. However, the system is set up in a collusive way: lawyers for defendants become judges; prosecutors become a big law partner, representing defendants; etc.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#27Judge "Walrath argued that the majority of women who supported the deal might receive nothing in a settlement if she denied the legal shields because insurers refused to pay without them and the studio had only $3 million to dispense to all creditors. The settlement’s collapse would leave Weinstein’s accusers with only the dicey prospect of pursuing further litigation."
This is a story about insurance claims in bankruptcy. To the degree there is scope for reform, it's in exempting insurers from liability in cases of sexual misconduct. The downside: there will be less cash and a longer route to settlement for victims.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bankruptcy isn't a criminal matter.
If you admit to a crime while testifying in a non-criminal matter, you can be charged with that crime and that testimony can be used against you. Therefore you can take the 5th in non-criminal cases - as you have a right not to incriminate yourself in future criminal matters. Therefore non-criminal courts can and do grant immunity against future prosecution (although I'm not sure if it's jurisdictional, ie whether fe…
TFA is a bout civil immunity though, not criminal immunity.
The first paragraph talks about the board of TWC allegedly knowing about Weinstein paying off people accusing him. One could make the argument that not acting on this knowledge to protect the value of the is an abrogation of their duties as board members.
However the board was granted immunity in Chapter 11, so no such arguments can be advanced in court now.
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#29>blanket immunity. From civil lawsuits. They can still be charged criminally.
pointless. Most of those things are not crimes (mismanagement, bankruptcy) unless you can start the civil case for damages first to find the fraud that then becomes criminal. It's a well thought of plan.
[deleted]
Re: Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases
#30It should be noted that giving criminals immunity is the entire damn point of the system. The point of "immunity" is so that the lower-level criminals lose their 5th Amendment rights, and are therefore compelled to present evidence against their boss. The 5th Amendment in the USA states "Right against self-incrimination", but if you have immunity, you cannot self-incriminate. So once you sign that immunity document,…
Aren't the executives generally the ringleaders?
No.
Lets say Weinstein was the target. Then all the executives around Weinstein are the lackeys. So you offer immunity to the lackeys (aka: the executives in the inner-circle) so that you get Weinstein.
Offering immunity to the low-level janitor doesn't do any good. You need someone high-enough that they're in the "inner circle" of the target. Someone with real dirt on your target.
---------
Its very common in criminal court to give immunity to mob bosses, to get dirt on even bigger mob bosses.
Making an article saying "Only mob bosses get immunity" is counterproductive. That's the damn point of the grant-immunity system. You grant it to criminals to help catch other criminals.
------
Lets put it this way: lets say there's some innocent bystander who happens to know what is going on. Police / Investigators don't even offer immunity to them, because they committed no crime, so there's no point offering immunity. You just ask the innocent dude to come to court and answer a few questions / testify on what they know.