set back for cohen in court case

[Reuben]

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/sit ... ewsLang=en

[CT]

Rats.

[Paula]

OK I don't understand US law arbitration means talkng things through doesn't it. Surely he can make a civil claim against Kelley they can't stop him from doing that can they?

[lizzytysh]

Yes, Paula, arbitration does mean 'talking things through' here. The way I read it, though, it doesn't mean Leonard is restricted to civil court; but that now it will go to full-blown trial, with the whole thing getting very ugly, as well as costly. Arbitration is a kinder, gentler, more truly 'civil' way of doing things. A last resort would be civil court, but it would be ugly and publicized, too. I don't think Leonard could have legal representation in civil court, though. It would have been much better all the way around had it been resolved through arbitration.

If I misread anything, however, it may be that none of this applies. I'm very sorry to hear that the judge did not grant the motion and petition requests, even though he gives legal reasons for not doing so.

~ Lizzie

[Young dr. Freud]

All this ruling means is that Leonard doesn't get the home court advantage and the privacy he wanted to cut a deal with Agile. Everything will have to be out in the open.

Bombs Away!


YdF

P.S. Lizzy,...yes, you can have representation in a Civil suit.

[lizzytysh]

Thanks, YdF ~ Isn't there something about your having to do all your own talking, though? They can sit there for you to consult, but that's it? Or is that not right, either?

[Young dr. Freud]

It's my impression that lawyers get paid to talk.

However, you present an interesting scenario. Imagine, Leonard at the Bar of Justice, speaking in his own defense. His voice low, intense and anguished. There could only be one outcome. Victory!


YdF

[Adrian]

this "news" is bought and paid for by the Agile players - they've sent it out on the PR service, "BusinessWire" - so, one can be certain this is the best spin they can give things...

[Fljotsdale]

The way it's looking, it spells Cohen having to spend a lot more money, and possibly get no come-back anyway.

Open court means nastiness, lying, backbiting, slander, metaphorical knives in the back... all that Cohen - or any of us - would hate most.

What a way to get treated in your old age.

[Fljotsdale]

this "news" is bought and paid for by the Agile players - they've sent it out on the PR service, "BusinessWire" - so, one can be certain this is the best spin they can give things...

So let's hope we get something from Leonard's side pretty soon.

[John K.]

There really isn't much to this article, and there's nothing for the other side to opine on.

What it's saying is that LC's contract with Agile called for certain types of disputes to be settled with binding arbitration vs. a court case. Agile, as you may remember, has sued LC. LC and his lawyers argued that their contract with Agile requires that this dispute be settled out of court. Agile disagreed, and the judge sided with Agile. The judge indicated that the arbitration relates to misconduct in the handling of the investment account.

For example (this doesn't relate here since the details of LC's investment account haven't been released yet), if I tell my broker that he is only to invest in AAA rated stocks, and he invests in a speculative company, he has violated the agreement. My action against the broker would be handled in arbitration and I wouldn't be able to sue him.

This decision has no bearing on the merits of anybody's arguments, nor does it relate in any way toward Kelley Lynch. The case against Kelley Lynch would have been in a court regardless, this only related to Agile vs. LC. It also has nothing to do with civil vs. criminal cases.

I hope that helps.

John K.

[Nightstalker]

this "news" is bought and paid for by the Agile players - they've sent it out on the PR service, "BusinessWire" - so, one can be certain this is the best spin they can give things...

This was my impression of the press release also.

I am certain that LC has representation in all this, maybe different attorneys in different venues even. Those attorneys even in a civil action would certainly handle all the arguments in and out of court and they are well paid. LC might be called to testify but would not address the court representing himself. The attorneys could be working under strict 'time spent' contracts with or without a retainer, or they might be working for a percentage of funds recovered (I doubt that in this case). They may work and bill Leonard hoping to be paid from any future assets he acquires. BUT some group(s) of attorneys are handling all this for him. That brings us to the judges decision on this particular motion.

I am piecing together the following comments based upon what I have read about this whole case and I may be 'way off base'. This was a ruling against a motion for forced binding arbitration on all parties to settle the Agile tort against LC and also LC's torts against whomever. Read carefully the pertinent portion (albiet from Agile's viewpoint) of the judge's comment:
"these claims are not covered by any of the arbitration clauses found in any of Cohen's personal investment or financial planning contracts with Agile". (This does seem to be at the very least an important part of the ruling and is a defeat for Leonard.)
The reference, "these claims", are those which Agile is persueing against LC for the suits that he has filed against them, thus the reference to "Cohen's alleged tortious conduct" (this means that LC has filed many suits in this issue -- I do not know whether that is a fact or not). I think LC's attorneys erred in content of their motion becuase they apparently included in the motion arbitration of torts brought against LC by Agile. These are not covered under any contract with Leonard but ensued after LC sued them. The attorneys might have won a motion to only force binding arbitration on the issues pertinent to the contractural agreements between LC and Agile and should have sought this. They may yet file another motion addressing those issues only, or they may pack their bags and go home. Perhaps, perhaps, they and LC (or under his instructions) were hoping to bundle all the issues together to settle all proceedings quietly, quickly and economically. This ain't gonna happen!

These legal matters get very confusing and confounding. In businesses over 25 years I have been through a few civil cases. I hope LC can prevail and recover what appears to be funds, managed by Agile, that were taken from him through some subtrafuge that Agile could have stopped. If you have funds being managed by some firm you have a right to expect them to make very aggressive efforts to protect those funds when they see some apparent malfeasance occuring. From way outside looking in I think that Agile failed miserably to protect LC. It is rather obvious that his personal manager bilked him but she probably has little and recovering significant amounts from her may be impossible. LC filed the actions he did with this knowledge and also because often one must include all parties 'jointly and severally' that may have been responsible. He has likely filed several different actions simply because this was what he needed to do.

Then Agile filed civil action against LC because he was hurting their public image, affecting their business image, etc.

I hope the distinctions are clear at least on this one issue.

I hope Leonard recovers a significant portion of what was taken from him.

[Young dr. Freud]

It is rather obvious that his personal manager bilked him but she probably has little and recovering significant amounts from her may be impossible. LC filed the actions he did with this knowledge and also because often one must include all parties 'jointly and severally' that may have been responsible. He has likely filed several different actions simply because this was what he needed to do.

Then Agile filed civil action against LC because he was hurting their public image, affecting their business image, etc.

So, are you saying LC filed first and then Agile filed their suit? I thought it was the other way around.


YdF

[John K.]

It is rather obvious that his personal manager bilked him but she probably has little and recovering significant amounts from her may be impossible. LC filed the actions he did with this knowledge and also because often one must include all parties 'jointly and severally' that may have been responsible. He has likely filed several different actions simply because this was what he needed to do.

Then Agile filed civil action against LC because he was hurting their public image, affecting their business image, etc.

So, are you saying LC filed first and then Agile filed their suit? I thought it was the other way around.


YdF

YdF, I seem to recall that Agile filed first, preemptively. This was the story where the broker claims that LC tried to convince him to file an insurance claim.

[Dem]

Nightstalker wrote:

“From way outside looking in I think that Agile failed miserably to protect LC”

I am afraid you have to add to this, that unfortunately from way outside looking in it seems that Leonard also failed miserably to protect himself and I think this will make things hard for him in the court.

I hope time to prove I was wrong on this but…

Dem