Comments on: American Apparel arbitration, cont’d

By: Dov Charney chronicles, cont’d

Dov Charney chronicles, cont’d — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:14:35 +0000

[…] into the papers. (Alex Ebner, Hollywood Interrupted, Nov. 30; WSJ law blog, Nov. 12). Earlier here, […]

By: scote

scote — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:42:45 +0000

“The lawyers had no duty to insure that the public got the facts or that the issues were resolved based on a real trial before a real tribunal with real evidence.’””

Interesting that a so-called ethicist would find no fault in a conspiracy to create a materially false public record of fact regarding the case.

By: Kchaz

Kchaz — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:56:53 +0000

Also, I agree Gillers’ wording is alarming. That’s strange because he’s sort of right. If you have a plaintiff willing to drop charges after admitting they don’t have merit, the results of the arbitration would be be known well before it actually happened. You still have to go though or else it looks like the settlement is a pay off.

By: Kchaz

Kchaz — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:48:32 +0000

From the Jezebel piece, it looks like Fink wanted to settle before the trial because the accusations were “bogus” (his words.) If the whole case was a settlement ploy, it’s reasonable that he’d get some nerves before the trial and try to see if there was a way out. Then he realizes it actually played out better than he could have imagined, backs out, leaks it all to the media and bam – American Apparel looks ridiculous again.

Nonetheless, this whole thing has to be a massive, massive slam dunk damages case for AA re: Keith Fink. I’m not even sure you can quantify what the negative media attention would be but millions of millions of dollars is a good guess.

By: Brad Ford

Brad Ford — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:44:18 +0000

Gillers is a tool. One of the reasons people hate lawyers (us) is the fact we cannot be counted on to tell the truth about anything. Lowering the “truth” bar is a monumentally bad idea.

By: Jaded Topaz

Jaded Topaz — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:01:09 +0000

Quite the unique arbitration agreement gone awry and astray.
But I still don’t understand why the plaintiff’s attorney Fink, supposedly contacted American Apparel on the eve of the trial “practically begging to settle the case and not proceed to trial”. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/04/the-story-behind-american-apparels-sham-arbitration/
And the same piece, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/04/the-story-behind-american-apparels-sham-arbitration/ has American Apparel claiming the scheme was “Fink’s idea in the first place”.

So its still not clear why Fink initially wanted to settle on the eve of the trial, and or why he changed his mind?
If the sham arbitration was actually American Apparel’s idea and exclusively for their benefit and cover up would complaining to the California appeals court about a possible breach of the original agreement be the best way to fix stuff or even make sense logically ?

Was the pseudo arbitration agreement and faux facts press release actually Fink’s idea? Has he responded anywhere to these claims ?
Are there any facts missing from the story ?
WSJ subscribers can read a more in depth piece by Nicholas Casey here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575572996695011.html

By: Attempt to Conjure Fake Victory Out of Settlement & Subvert Justice Foiled

Attempt to Conjure Fake Victory Out of Settlement & Subvert Justice Foiled — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:12:58 +0000

[…] note: see also Nov. 16 (American Apparel’s view of […]

By: Dov Charney, the sequel

Dov Charney, the sequel — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:09:16 +0000

[…] of the IP ADR Blog, has now posted a more extensive and detailed report on the case, & see Nov. 16 update with company’s side of the […]