Here is some Madison Timber porn. If you have been keeping up with the Madison Timber Receiver's lawsuit against Baker Donelson, perhaps you can read this response and shed some light on it.
Receiver Alysson Mills and Baker Donelson are in the second week of trial.
11 comments:
how dare they pull back the curtain on this grift! and the clawbacks start right after this?
Judge basically struck expert and baker trying to save expert and have her testify for bakers points. I’ve tried to pull my fat out of the fire too. Panicked motion.
Let the clawbacks begin. That's where the real souce of recovery lies.
BD supplemented their damages expert's report in response to a Court order granting a Receiver motion on who's included in the pot. Supplementation liberally given if not due to a lack of due diligence. Receiver says not fair. BD argues no prejudice and perfectly allowable per the Rules. Receiver preserving objection to supplementation for appeal.
I’m glad I’m not paying the attorney fees(for either side) in this mess.
Second week of trial?
After years of legal manouvers?
Lawyers is getting paid!
If your gains were ill gotten, you should be on the hook to return them. Bottom line.
Do we know who all these people and corporate entities fighting the timberscam clawback are?
While the promotors of this scam are nakedly crooked and should be hung high, there should be no sympathy for the "investors." Anyone who believed this scam (that was widely circulated a decade ago to anyone in NEJ/Madison County that could rub more than a few nickels together, including me and my entire golf group) was greedy, dumb, or both. Those with fictitious "gains" should be forced to pony up just like those in Madoff and other Ponzi schemes. Hopefully the names will come out in the end so we can see which local luminaries believed in magical trees that paid consistent double-digit interest!
This is about damages, not liability. In other words, this particular battle is over how much Baker Donelson will owe, if they lose at trial.
It isn't about "clawbacks" either.
I essentially agree with 10:01--there is precedent. I also will point out, that alot of the 'winners' are likely BD clients, whom they wish to retain. If they are forced to disgorge via a clawback, I assume there will be another round of litigation against BD.
Post a Comment