California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Deebs, leave the history lesson for school, eh?
We don't really need to know how great we once were.

Deebs said:
Hehe, not many people around the world get the British sense of humour unfortunately.
Click to expand...
However, this is very true! ;)

On the subject of insurance, you can get professional indemnity insurance to protect the company against lawsuits, but knowing how insurance companies like to squirm out of paying, I wouldn't be surprised if XF couldn't get any due to the likelihood of being sued when they launched XenForo.
 
MGSteve said:
Deebs, leave the history lesson for school, eh?
We don't really need to know how great we once were.

However, this is very true! ;)

On the subject of insurance, you can get professional indemnity insurance to protect the company against lawsuits, but knowing how insurance companies like to squirm out of paying, I wouldn't be surprised if XF couldn't get any due to the likelihood of being sued when they launched XenForo.
Click to expand...

But I miss school :p

Regardless of insurance, a Limited Company in the UK can only be sued for it's assets, not the assets of any employee or Director. I highly doubt that any insurance company would have asked "Do you think that you have an impending lawsuit, if so, tick here".
 
MGSteve said:
On the subject of insurance, you can get professional indemnity insurance to protect the company against lawsuits, but knowing how insurance companies like to squirm out of paying, I wouldn't be surprised if XF couldn't get any due to the likelihood of being sued when they launched XenForo.
Click to expand...
Actually I'd be extremely surprised. To this day I'm quite sure that XF and its members firmly believe that IB has no claim whatsoever and the likelihood of being sued for an actionable claim was zero since there was nothing to be gained.

Unlike the English courts where there are much more severe repercussions for frivolous lawsuits, the US seems to tolerate it to the point where any dolt with enough money to pay the filing fee can tell the world that he thinks you're a crook with limited consequences for having virtually nothing to back up that claim. This case is the quintessential example of having barely anything to show for a case, costing all involved perhaps in excess of a million dollars and months if not years of wasted life. This video sums up the last 7 months and what the plaintiff has disclosed thus far about the substance of the claim:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Deebs said:
Regardless of insurance, a Limited Company in the UK can only be sued for it's assets, not the assets of any employee or Director. I highly doubt that any insurance company would have asked "Do you think that you have an impending lawsuit, if so, tick here".
Click to expand...

Not quite right, the property of directors can be at risk if there was a charge over them. Obviously we don't know if this is the case, nor really do we have any need / right to know and if the directors work from home as in this case, the situation can be a bit more complicated. But yes, generally that's what the Ltd means - limited personal liability.

However, having filled out a Professional Indemnity form, I can say there is such a tickbox with near enough that exact wording.
 
Deebs said:
Sigh. That is what I have been saying all al0ng, it is not Kier but XenForo Ltd. Kier can pass his personal stuff along to his Company. i know US law is so lax and ****e compared to UK law. In the UK I can guarantee you that Kier (from a personal point is NOT liable, ie his house is not as risk).
Click to expand...

I am not sure you are right here, several of the claims involve matters that are alleged to have occurred before XenForo Ltd was formed and are in specific relationship to the contracts of employment that K/M & A had with Jelsoft, so I think that they can indeed be sued in the UK as individuals in addition to the company. Not sure why it's only Kier named in the US action, whilst all three are named, I believe, in the UK action.

Deebs said:
Basically most UK people have insurance against any type of claim with their house insurance. For example I have 5 million pounds of protection against someone who will sue me due to the fact that a cat ran over the world in front of me.
Click to expand...

The case I've mentioned before that I was involved with after selling a business to a large UK media group, I was advised that I could sue them for breach of either the (1) sale of business, or (2) the employment contract - as I was retained as an employee as part of the sale.

Option 1 wasn't covered under by household legal expenses insurance as it was a business/commercial matter, however the policy did cover disputes for employment matters, so needless to say I took option 2.

The beauty of the insurance was it would pay out both sets of legal fees if the case failed, which meant I could turn down the first three offers of 80%, 90% & 95% of my claim, and hold out for 100%, whereas if I had been paying my own legal fees and the court awarded less than an offer that I had turned down I could have been liable for, at least part, of both sets of legal costs.

As K/M & A are being sued over employment matters, it's likely that those costs could well be covered if they have legal expenses cover on their household policy, but it's unlikely to extend to covering costs concerning the case against the company.
 
DoctorWatsOn said:
I am not sure you are right here, several of the claims involve matters that are alleged to have occurred before XenForo Ltd was formed and are in specific relationship to the contracts of employment that K/M & A had with Jelsoft, so I think that they can indeed be sued in the UK as individuals in addition to the company. Not sure why it's only Kier named in the US action, whilst all three are named, I believe, in the UK action.

The case I've mentioned before that I was involved with after selling a business to a large UK media group, I was advised that I could sue them for breach of either the (1) sale of business, or (2) the employment contract - as I was retained as an employee as part of the sale.

Option 1 wasn't covered under by household legal expenses insurance as it was a business/commercial matter, however the policy did cover disputes for employment matters, so needless to say I took option 2.

The beauty of the insurance was it would pay out both sets of legal fees if the case failed, which meant I could turn down the first three offers of 80%, 90% & 95% of my claim, and hold out for 100%, whereas if I had been paying my own legal fees and the court awarded less than an offer that I had turned down I could have been liable for, at least part, of both sets of legal costs.

As K/M & A are being sued over employment matters, it's likely that those costs could well be covered if they have legal expenses cover on their household policy, but it's unlikely to extend to covering costs concerning the case against the company.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a case where the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing?
 
DoctorWatsOn said:
Not sure why it's only Kier named in the US action, whilst all three are named, I believe, in the UK action.
Click to expand...

Because only Kier has ever been to IB head office. The courts in the US don't have authority over something that's happened in the UK whereas with Kier going to the IB office they are saying some of the claims happened in the US thus a US court having authority.
 
Let's just be clear:

UK: Jelsoft & VBSI vs XenForo Ltd., Kier, Mike & Ashley

US: VBSI vs XenForo Ltd. & Kier
 
Kier said:
Let's just be clear:

UK: Jelsoft & VBSI vs XenForo Ltd., Kier, Mike & Ashley

US: VBSI vs XenForo Ltd. & Kier
Click to expand...
I would assume that the others are covered under the DOES 1-10 in the US suit?
Or is there a different purpose for the DOES 1-10?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom