Digital Doctor
Well-known member
This isn't how the law works.
California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
Carlos
Well-known member
It happens. This is United States.
If you don't want to believe me... Don't be mad when those Press Releases are out on the wild, and it says an agreement is made... But it reads the terms of the deal, or "terms of the deal is not disclosed."
Morgain
Well-known member
This may help:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/settleconf
From other sites it appears the use of magistrate judges to conduct settlement conferences like this is something like the latest fashion in legal circles.
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/settleconf
From other sites it appears the use of magistrate judges to conduct settlement conferences like this is something like the latest fashion in legal circles.
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
A settlement is a contract between parties. The content can be whatever the two parties agree to. If they can't agree then there is no settlement. Arguing over whether a settlement is good or bad is strange since we don't know what the content will be.
In the meantime the settlement talks are neither good nor bad. We simply don't know. There might not even be a settlement in which case it goes to summary judgment or jury trial.
In the meantime the settlement talks are neither good nor bad. We simply don't know. There might not even be a settlement in which case it goes to summary judgment or jury trial.
Carlos
Well-known member
That's what I've been saying, but the thing is, IB is a large company. xenForo doesn't have anything to offer vBSI/IB, but a quality technology. I mean, I think this is overkill.
It helps, but then again, it echos what I've been saying. In the recent new episode of The Good Wife, a magistrate judge was used to mediate a case, problem is, neither side is willing to budge, or agree to the other party's willing agreement. So, the judge makes a decision, but one of the lawyers prolonged the mediation by reasoning with the judge about the settlement. The judge hits back and makes a final judgement; this ends up leaving the new creditor for this example to buy debt (their way of saying "stock" in legal layman's terms), so the competing lawyer to the firm bought it up.
Taylor J
Well-known member
I was about to say the exact same thing.
DRE
Well-known member
No. Just saying your seeing the bright side. Helps balance out my outlook, which is a lil more pessimestic. He's a judge, he should judge something. smh
Stuart Wright
Well-known member
Yeah, and Mike and Kier are going to beam over to California where Mr. Data will present their argument for IB issuing a full and frank apology and a million dollars compensation (to avoid being sued for libel by XF), as well as Michael Grace's costs.
psTubble27
Well-known member
Settlement is good for xf IF the case is so far in their favor that IB stands to win from KAM not countersuing; KAM can offer that "concession" in the settlement, in return for IB immediately dropping all charges. Thus if there's nothing xf needs to give, if the case is so overwhelmingly toward their side that what they can "give" is a damaging countersuit, and they give that in return for return concessions, then that is a good settlement for XF.
If the case is muddled and there is no clear transgressor, then there's little threat of a KAM countersuit. In that case, if a settlement happens, KAM will now have to give something actually tangible and material from current xf assets. Not sure what that could be, and it's not an ideal alternative for us.
Jake is tending towards the former case, while 8thos is tending towards the latter. The evidence unambiguously points towards the former. I just hope Judge Real sees it that way too.
If the case is muddled and there is no clear transgressor, then there's little threat of a KAM countersuit. In that case, if a settlement happens, KAM will now have to give something actually tangible and material from current xf assets. Not sure what that could be, and it's not an ideal alternative for us.
Jake is tending towards the former case, while 8thos is tending towards the latter. The evidence unambiguously points towards the former. I just hope Judge Real sees it that way too.
A realistic settlement in this situation would be an agreement of both parties to close all law suits and each of them paying their own costs. If there is very much pressure at IB, maybe some costs are returned to XF.
There is no way for a settlement outcome to reimburse all costs to XF and to close all law suits. This is the most worst outcome for IB if the trial gets lost completely for them. And they would rather fight it to the end before agreeing to such a settlement.
Anyway, IF there is a settlement, we all will never know any details of it because it won't be released to the public. So the only outcome we'll see will be if XenForo will stay after the settlement and if development will start again.
Once again, it is my opinion that XenForo would be a prosper and good money earning company today (despite the law suit) if the decision to stop development wouldn't have been made. They simply would have more choices to get their best outcome of it.
There is no way for a settlement outcome to reimburse all costs to XF and to close all law suits. This is the most worst outcome for IB if the trial gets lost completely for them. And they would rather fight it to the end before agreeing to such a settlement.
Anyway, IF there is a settlement, we all will never know any details of it because it won't be released to the public. So the only outcome we'll see will be if XenForo will stay after the settlement and if development will start again.
Once again, it is my opinion that XenForo would be a prosper and good money earning company today (despite the law suit) if the decision to stop development wouldn't have been made. They simply would have more choices to get their best outcome of it.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
Personally, IB should be fronting the costs for the suit. Not both sides fronting their own costs. Kier, Mike and Ashley should not have to bear the burden of litigation because they didn't ask for it.
As for the settlement being public or not, it always depends on the terms agreed by both sides. Both parties may choose to make it public. Others may not.
Brent W
Well-known member
You are correct about the development stopping part. Either there were internal issues, money issues that pushed them to other sources of income or legal reasons not to continue development. I tend to not lean on money issues being the reason because continued development would have fixed that.
My appologies for replying to this thread as it is closed. However having had my Skype and MSN go crazy with people wanting clarification.
Settlement talks do not have to suit both parties to be agreed upon. Settlement talks can be exceptionally 1 sided and as good as a Judge ruling one way or the other and can simply be a way of reducing further costs to a party where the evidence is not in their favor.
Just because the Judge has ordered settlement talks, does not mean XenForo have to give anything up. It also does not mean a settlement has to be reached. A deffered judgement means that it is basically "on hold" and if the settlement talks come to nothing then the judgement could be given regardless.
Given the following points:
XenForo's terms of settlement are probably nothing less than all claims in both England and the US are dropped and all costs are awarded to them. (Note that costs means what they have spent to defend themselves, not additional reward as compensation for being wronged).
However we may never know the exact details, as these are usually kept confidential.
Settlement talks do not have to suit both parties to be agreed upon. Settlement talks can be exceptionally 1 sided and as good as a Judge ruling one way or the other and can simply be a way of reducing further costs to a party where the evidence is not in their favor.
Just because the Judge has ordered settlement talks, does not mean XenForo have to give anything up. It also does not mean a settlement has to be reached. A deffered judgement means that it is basically "on hold" and if the settlement talks come to nothing then the judgement could be given regardless.
Given the following points:
- IB has already stated XF was in an "already favorable" possition before the application for summary judgement.
- The judgement has been deffered (and not denied) most likely means that it would be granted in XenForo's favor, as if it was against XenForo it would most likely have been outright denied.
XenForo's terms of settlement are probably nothing less than all claims in both England and the US are dropped and all costs are awarded to them. (Note that costs means what they have spent to defend themselves, not additional reward as compensation for being wronged).
However we may never know the exact details, as these are usually kept confidential.
Adam Howard
Well-known member
This is nothing to be upset about and was to be expect (this is normal).
The courts wants both sides to try to work this out and so they're going to add 1 more month (from February to March) for them time to do just that. This also helps prevent either side from later claiming no extra time was given and also helps restrict the allowed time, by the court its self setting the deadline.
If an agreement is not reached in the allowed time the judge will now have the grounds to finally make a ruling, which was deferred for the time being (so that there could be 1 last attempt to work it out).
This was expected and is standard given how everything is now set up.
No worries.
The courts wants both sides to try to work this out and so they're going to add 1 more month (from February to March) for them time to do just that. This also helps prevent either side from later claiming no extra time was given and also helps restrict the allowed time, by the court its self setting the deadline.
If an agreement is not reached in the allowed time the judge will now have the grounds to finally make a ruling, which was deferred for the time being (so that there could be 1 last attempt to work it out).
This was expected and is standard given how everything is now set up.
No worries.
Morgain
Well-known member
Note "final" pre trial conference. Last one.
Meanwhile the two sides have been directed to settle by the judge.
On the other case thread there is good analysis that this directive to settle is the judge allowing IB its last chance to save face and not get bashed in court.
Although IB have deep pockets and can pay costs easily = theior shareholders will NOT like it if they have a court case awarded against them. That kind of thing counts: it can dip their market value
(like us as individuals having an unpaid County Court charge on our personal record which downs our credit rating.)
If settlement negotiations are happening now as that announcement about directive to settle, it suggests (to me) the Court REALLY wants IB to settle by making a good offer. Judge is NOT going to approve if they persist in foot dragging unproductively ... which is all their lawyers know how to do.
Again IB is responsible to its shareholders if they dont like how it behaves - which has more clout USA than elsewhere.
Meanwhile the two sides have been directed to settle by the judge.
On the other case thread there is good analysis that this directive to settle is the judge allowing IB its last chance to save face and not get bashed in court.
Although IB have deep pockets and can pay costs easily = theior shareholders will NOT like it if they have a court case awarded against them. That kind of thing counts: it can dip their market value
(like us as individuals having an unpaid County Court charge on our personal record which downs our credit rating.)
If settlement negotiations are happening now as that announcement about directive to settle, it suggests (to me) the Court REALLY wants IB to settle by making a good offer. Judge is NOT going to approve if they persist in foot dragging unproductively ... which is all their lawyers know how to do.
Again IB is responsible to its shareholders if they dont like how it behaves - which has more clout USA than elsewhere.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
I think thats a pretty flawed analysis. Its more likely that the judge sees fault on both sides otherwise, he wouldn't impede XF's public defense of themselves after they have been so publicly accused.
I think its more likely the judge is saying that no side is completely right, get a room and work this out so that their dirty laundry doesn't need to be exposed tot he public.
- Status