|Judicial "error" huh? During an election. 'Sounds like using 'Crat judges as political weapons began back then.|
|Re: (nya-nya) -- TEEBONE||Post Reply||Top of thread||Forum|
Posted by: LateForLunch ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
The NYT had better sock away some cash (tens of millions) for a rainy day - when the verdict reads, "We the jury of the above entitled action...do find that the defendants did defame the plaintiff...awards $150 million..."
See, in such cases, the awards are generally commensurate with the financial wherewithal of the defendant. IOW, the more powerful/rich the offender, the higher the award. This is in line with the philosophy that punitive financial awards should have a significant negative impact on the defendant.
So if the defendant is a huge corporation worth a billion dollars, any punitive award must be very large or there will be no deterrent effect felt.
So the NYT will dip deep darlings into their cash reserves when they lose. And now the financial wizards plowing their balance sheets will have to plan for that. heh
Too bad they got away with what was effectively political espionage using a major media company (gee, what a novel concept) and then a corrupt judge to try to cover it up after the fact.
Modified by LateForLunch at Tue, Aug 06, 2019, 17:15:25
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||Where am I? Original Top of thread||Previous | Next | Current page|