Bankruptcy court gave blanket immunity to executives in 9 out of 10 major cases

Post by bradleyjg » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 6:48 PM UTC

slavboj wrote: post #21

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.

Post by bradleyjg » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 6:49 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #27

Judge "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 bankr…

Post by naasking » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 7:28 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #37

naasking wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't see how that follows. A guarantee that "you will only get sentenced for X years regardless of what you admit" does not seem meaningfully different if X is zero or one. edit: not meaningfully different with respect to the 5th, obviously it's meaningfully different with respect to "justice", as getting off scott free rubs many people the wrng way.

If X is zero, you did not admit to the crime (and therefore, the 5th Amendment doesn't apply) If X is non-zero, you admit to the crime (and therefore, retain the ability to plead the 5th).

Post by whatwherewhy » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #47

delusional wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the owners what the market wants. Really you, the consumer, is responsible!

The consumer does what the marketeers want, which do what the executives want, and round we go. It's a vicious cycle of inefficiency from people trying to get larger parts of the pie rather than growing the pie.

Post by pessimizer » Mon, Nov 07, 2022, 8:06 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #34

naasking wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without the presentation of this evidence, you never get a guilty plea. Firstly, I don't necessarily agree that you could never get a guilty plea. The government has lots of resources and the threat of scrutinizing you and going after you for years is a significant pressure. For sure this can be abused, but my point is only that this blanket assumption that the government just has to grant immunity or throw up its…

> Why not trade a maximum penalty for that evidence Because of 5th Amendment issues. If there's a penalty associated with talking about evidence, then they'll just plead the 5th Amendment. Only with total immunity can you bypass the 5th Amendment and _FORCE_ them to talk.