As an attorney, I can tell you that satisfactory conclusions to a case are not always a victory. I suppose you can spin it to suit your needs, but a victory makes you victorious, not merely extracting yourself from a fight with a minimum amount of bloodshed. Although getting out without getting killed may be a satisfactory result, it doesn't mean victory.
And I'll reiterate that this is probably the best outcome the WN3 could hope for under the circumstances. A satisfactory result? Indeed. A victory? I don't think so. And once again, my point is not that the Webnode 3 should in any way be anything but elated. I think they should be very happy. My point is that BW nailed a bunch of individuals to the wall, they may have caused Mr. Mitchell's insurance premiums to increase, and overall they exacted a toll on these individuals. BW didn't pay out any money except to its attorneys, and given the financial status of the defendants (no offense), I doubt they ever hoped to get back those fees anyway. Moreover, Mr. Lokey got to proclaim to the world that "he got what he wanted."
I'm sorry, but I don't think this was a victory for the Webnode 3. BW got too damn much satisaction out of it.
And using your example, shareholder suits are almost never brought by the shareholders themselves (except the named one), but instead are driven by the law firm's desire to obtain attorney fees, which are often paid by the corporation's insurance. So the lawyers win by extracting money. That's what BW did in this case. They won by extracting money from the WN3 and their insurance company. Sure the insurance company did what it had to. Most businesses settle lawsuits for nuisance value to avoid litigation fees. But if you call those victories, you have never gotten a big verdict against an opponent. Sending a plaintiff like BW home with nothing is a victory, paying him money to go away is not. |
