correct on the jury - one side or the other has to
Post# of 15187
Posted On: 04/11/2016 11:09:57 AM
Re: Goodspeed65 #4204
correct on the jury - one side or the other has to specifically request it. it doesnt mean the case will go to a jury but it means a judge can not bypass it. the judge can certainly push for mediation/settlement before it gets to that point and in this case - i think a judge would try to persuade one or both sides to settle.
i agree that KBM should not want this to go to trial. their only argument is that they had a contract and HJOE failed to follow it to the letter even if the spirit of the contract was intact. i do not see a jury being sympathetic to KBM as being "damaged" given their rate of return nor will they consider $4K/day in late fees as being "reasonable". it will seem further usurious if HJOE has proof of coercion and/or proof of them being tied to MMs/iLie or other boards designed to induce selling/shorting to maximize conversion amounts. that will be much tougher to "prove" and would more than likely have to be done by the government/SEC/FBI with much tougher subpoena power.
remember - HJOE has the number of shares they converted and the price range they converted at. that provides a return amount already and can be compared to original loaned amount. further, they had to pay "advisory" fees and such to "close" these loans. they could argue these advisory fees were usurious in nature and a breach of the original good faith agreement based on their ensuing actions (not to mention prior bad acts).
i agree that KBM should not want this to go to trial. their only argument is that they had a contract and HJOE failed to follow it to the letter even if the spirit of the contract was intact. i do not see a jury being sympathetic to KBM as being "damaged" given their rate of return nor will they consider $4K/day in late fees as being "reasonable". it will seem further usurious if HJOE has proof of coercion and/or proof of them being tied to MMs/iLie or other boards designed to induce selling/shorting to maximize conversion amounts. that will be much tougher to "prove" and would more than likely have to be done by the government/SEC/FBI with much tougher subpoena power.
remember - HJOE has the number of shares they converted and the price range they converted at. that provides a return amount already and can be compared to original loaned amount. further, they had to pay "advisory" fees and such to "close" these loans. they could argue these advisory fees were usurious in nature and a breach of the original good faith agreement based on their ensuing actions (not to mention prior bad acts).
(3)
(0)