Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 3695198" data-attributes="member: 20741">Mistwell, I'm in the business - like you - and my suspicion that many of Jackson's allegations are probably correct stems  from my experience representing plaintiffs in similar cases, not the identity of the plaintiff.However, when you add in the very significant blow to the deal-making ability of Jackson on a going forward basis as a result of pursuing the litigation, and evaluate the comments from New Line that Jackson has been "blacklisted" as a result of this litigation? That indicates to me a plaintiff who is very convinced of the rightness of his cause and a defendant who is playing the only card it has.  Put that together: it looks EXACTLY like a defendant who has been a bully and is continuing to be one. Having litigated oppression cases in the film and TV industry and having seen how international distribution agreements with associated corporations are typical and pervasive devices used in the industry to channel profits away from the corporations that are otherwise obliged to share them, yes, I am inclined to think that many of Jackson's accusations of oppression and self-dealing are more likely than not to be true.Add in hundreds of millions in revenue flow and the motivation to use self-dealing distribution agreements as are frequently (if not typically) employed in the industry = yes, I'm going to assume that many of Jackson's allegations have merit. Not because they are made by Jackson, but because I have seen and represented plaintiffs in similar situations. As for the suggestion that plaintiffs run to the courtroom and defendants run away-  that's true in virtually every case, without any gloss.  Similarly, the observation that nothing fosters settlement like an imminent trial is also true.  You can etch those statements in stone. I wish I could claim that I invented them - but we both know that's not true.</blockquote>

Verification