Jackson could still make The Hobbit

[Joker]

Lawyers...

 

[Mistwell]

Why wouldn't they want an audit if they are not in the wrong?

Lets say there is a 10% chance they are wrong, and 90% chance they are correct.

Why would they want the audit if they think they can win without it? Why risk a 1 in 10 chance of a massive precedent being set that could have a devastating impact on not just this matter but dozens of other projects they have done?

They could be very confident they audit would show they are correct, and yet still logically oppose an audit.

It's what I would advice them to do if I were representing them. You don't do an audit, even if you think you will be fine. There is no reason to risk it.

Heck, one easy way to figure out what the defense is going to do in any case is ask if the plaintiff wants it to happen. If the plaintiff wants it to happen, odds are defense will oppose it, if for nothing else simply because plaintiffs want it to happen. It's folly to assume the defense doesn't want to do something because they are hiding things. Motivation is often a heck of a lot more shallow than that. If you want to get to a good settlement, the advantage goes to the defense the longer things get dragged out.

 

[qstor]

Frankly, I think Jackson should just press forward with his claim and march straight to trial. He has the money to do it and that's really the only barrier to this sort of commercial litigation. Go get 'em.

When he gets to the courtroom door, the smart money is on New Line blinking.

There is nothing like the focus provided by a trial that is about to commence where there is a hundred million plus on the table - payable by one party to the other - that motivates parties to stop being asses and frickin' settle. If he allows his case to be dicked around in disclosure and discovery issues, this will go on and on and on.

Plaintiffs run to the courtroom; defendants run away. It has ever been thus. Get the bastards to trial.

95% of all types of cases settle before trial. I hope they settle things ASAP with a figure that they can both live with as the other poster said. As one attorney in my old office said to me when my old LL tried to screw my wife and I over. "Do you really want to litigate your oersonal life?" So I worked out a settlement. Suing someone isn't fun even for lawyers...

I hope some of the cast from LOTR returns in the Hobbit. I'm not so sure about Jackson's plans for a movie about the time between the Hobbit and the FOTR however but hopefully we'll see...

Mike

 

[Particle_Man]

What does LL mean? Landlord?

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

Lawyers...

For the most part, I tend to think Shakespeare had it right.

 

[Particle_Man]

Interesting insight on Shakespeare's line here:

http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html

 

[Umbran]

Why would they want the audit if they think they can win without it?

Um, how about because it is standing in the way of developing the next in the line of the biggest cash-cow properties known to film making? If they are doing this for outright economic reasons, the delay in producing The Hobbit sits as a huge opportunity cost against them, and must be weighed against the audit risk.

 

[qstor]

What does LL mean? Landlord?

Oh yeah landlord LT is lawyer short hand for landlord/tenant

Mike