Extending the sentencing date for a month could mean a settlement is under negotiation. Here's just a scenario of what might occur:
1. Sinovel makes known that a large judgment could result in a bankruptcy filing, which would set aside the judgment altogether.
2. Sinovel then proposes that if the court would vacate the jury verdict and dismiss the case, Sinovel would pay a certain amount, say perhaps $500 million.
3. And in return for AMSC agreeing to this settlement, which is about one-tenth of actual damages, Sinovel would sign a long term agreement to buy a minimum number of AMSC devices for existing or new wind power turbines.
4. AMSC, in turn, would withdraw its ongoing litigation in China, thereby saving Chinese courts from the difficulty of finding a Chinese company guilty, or if not guilty, then sending a message to the rest of the world that you can't trust justice in China.
My assumption here is that the true damages are at least $5 billion (if you also include reasonable interest on the lost revenue), and punitive damages could even exceed that amount considerably. But such large amounts, along with very possibly jail time for Sinovel management that participated in the theft, would be so costly that Sinovel would go broke. Thus, a settlement might find some interest from AMSC because it would assure AMSC of getting substantial payments up front, without delays from appeals, etc., or worse, getting nothing after Sinovel declares bankruptcy.
I doubt that an acquisition of AMSC by Chinese interests would be permissible in today's climate.
Art |
