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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9172199" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So talking about this issue, and so-called "strategic" bankruptcy filings, I thought I'd add this as to why, from a general litigation perspective, a lot of this has been baffling.Please note that I am going purely on my memory, have not reviewed any of the relevant filings in months, and I apologize if I overlook or forgot something.Early on, before WoTC filed their response, I made a prediction- that if WoTC wanted to get "serious," they would not only file counterclaims, they would add LaNasa individually. Which they did. So here's the thing- normally, a bankruptcy filing can seriously gum up the works of litigation. Here's a typical scenario-A sues B. During the pendency of the proceeding, B files for (certain qualified types of bankruptcy, including Chapter 7). Not only does the case itself gets completely stopped in its tracks, but the end result is that at the end of the process, your monetary debt will be discharged (again, I am speaking in generalities here).Here's the rub, though. When A sues B, C, and D .... A can still recover from C and D.In this example, B is nuTSR, while C and D are Justin and the Museum. We can ignore the Museum, because, again, C is Justin. Personally.Normally, the proper litigation strategy would be to try and get the individual out of the action- file a Motion to Dismiss (for example) on behalf of Justin, and at least see if he can be dismissed in an individual capacity prior to the bankruptcy filing. But that was never done. Instead of accruing any possible benefit from the Bankruptcy filing, the following has happened-nuTSR (and nuTSR's financial records) have been put under scrutiny by the Trustee and the Court. WoTC (as a creditor) has also been able to have a seat at the table w/r/t those financial documents and issues.and ... most importantly, even if the Court keeps the stay in place ... it will eventually end, and Justin is still an individual defendant in the original action. Again, I may have forgotten some salient detail, but from a "legal stgrategery" standpoint, this is a game of 4-D chess I simply do not understand.</blockquote>

Verification