Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

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

#51

Post by AcerbicZero »

raincom wrote: post #26

Collusion 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.

This is likely a big part of it; take a trip to any traffic court in a medium sized town early in the day and you're almost certain to see some exceptionally chummy lawyers and judges hanging out.

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

#52

Post by yunohn »

whatwherewhy wrote: post #17
feet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, "executives" don't sound like lower level

Aren't executives just doing what the board wants, and the board just following what the owners want?

TFA is about Board Executives.

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

#53

Post by legulere »

delusional wrote: post #19
whatwherewhy wrote: post #17

Earlier 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!

You might enjoy reading meditations on moloch: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

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

#54

Post by dragontamer »

naasking wrote: post #46
dragontamer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I don't understand. Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour. That is an admission, and admission is the whole reason immunity is granted. Edit: the point being that the limit on their sentence is contingent on not pleading the 5th.

> Any immunity deal entails revealing criminal behaviour.

You are mistaken.

Lets say "Alice" is the boss you're after, and Bob is a close associate of Alice, and Bob _MIGHT_ have committed a crime. Nobody knows if Bob is actually a criminal (and indeed, Bob is in that weird grey-zone of the law, skirting legal issues and just barely being legal). You give Bob immunity so that he's more comfortable in testifying in court. "Just in case" his actions constitute a crime. Especially if Bob knows something about Alice (just in case Alice is "The Boss")

Immunity doesn't "entail" criminal behavior. It just entails likely criminal associations (which is NOT a crime). Immunity protection ranges from everywhere from "Completely innocent but they wanted immunity, so might as well give it to them", to "Completely guilty, but getting their testimony will get bigger fish", and everything in between. Its a tool, like any other tool it has proper and improper uses.

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

#55

Post by delusional »

legulere wrote: post #53
delusional wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You might enjoy reading meditations on moloch: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

After reading the first two chapters I'm hooked. Thanks a ton for recommending it.

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

#56

Post by cool_dude85 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40
cool_dude85 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is a civil proceeding and the point of bankruptcy is to draw a line under liability. This is a bankruptcy proceeding regarding the liability of Weinstein's company. What's that got to do with Harvey Weinstein's, the living person's, liability, other than the fact that you can convince a judge to waive it? Much less the people who served as the company's BoD?

> What's that got to do with Harvey Weinstein's, the living person's, liability Weinstein the person caused the company’s liability. The insurers paying out for the latter are also connected to the former. They won’t agree to a bankruptcy plan that leaves them on the hook for further litigation.

>Weinstein the person caused the company’s liability

His actions on behalf of the company, and the actions of others also acting on behalf of the company. He is just one of the individuals whom one could reasonably expect to be held liable in a civil suit.

>They won’t agree to a bankruptcy plan that leaves them on the hook for further litigation.

They will if a plan that doesn't absolve these covered individuals of liability is not offered, or is not able to be offered. And if they don't agree to a plan, oh well.

Remember that if there's a policy choice between allowing this practice, which allows for a liability cap to be negotiated in bankruptcy court , or disallowing it, the insurers have every reason to rattle their sabers about refusing bankruptcy or going out of business, because the status quo benefits them greatly. So they might say they won't agree to any other plan, but that could be just talk until you refuse to offer them such a sweet deal.

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

#58

Post by marginalia_nu »

delusional wrote: post #19
whatwherewhy wrote: post #17

Earlier 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!

To be fair, this is how causality works. It's not only about who did it. In practice the ball rolls as much because it was kicked as because it is round and because it isn't made of solid lead.

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

#59

Post by Spooky23 »

naasking wrote: post #32
dragontamer wrote: post #3

It 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,…

> 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…

The law is so broad, it’s not in anyone’s interest to make a narrowly scoped deal.

The prosecutors need the win. The smart move is to extract every bit of value.

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

#60

Post by scotty79 »

dragontamer wrote: post #3

It 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,…

> you can be __forced__ to talk

How, if you have immunity?

Post reply on HN