6 ms·

"when the truth is Thiel provided financing and likely got an economic interest in the final judgment/settlement but he still had zero influence on the case its

"when the truth is Thiel provided financing and likely got an economic interest in the final judgment/settlement but he still had zero influence on the case itself" Zero influence? Wasn't his $10m incredibly influential?

will_brown 10y ago
No, at any point "Hogan" could have settled his case instead of take it to trial. Thiel did not have any influence over litigation decisions (accept settlement vs go to trial), just as Legalist would have zero influence over litigation decisions. Alternatively, besides speculation Thiel had influence, in the face of Rules of Professional Responsibility that would result in the disbarrment of "Hogan's" lawyers, explain the exact influence Thiel had that interfered with "Hogan's" attorney-client relationship. Specifically, how would the case have been any different if Thiel did not finance some or part of the litigation and how would it have been different if a bank, with no history with Gawker, financed some or all of the litigation?
- somenomadicguy 10y ago
  Quite simply, a bank would have done a risk analysis and quickly pushed for a settlement, whereas Thiel was motivate by hatred, and the kind of entitlement which comes from power and wealth. He was to happy to carry all the risk and let Hogan reap the rewards give the reward to Hulk out of pure hatred for Nick Denton. Decision makers at banks always report to somebody. Thiel knows that being a billionaire means that he doesn't have to justify his actions to anybody.
  - will_brown 10y ago
    >a bank would have done a risk analysis and quickly pushed for a settlement That is exactly what is wrong with this whole line of thinking. Whether an unbiased bank or likely biased Thiel (in that case) neither would legally be allowed to dictate any of this, it is all between the litigant (Hogan) and his lawyer. Further, there would be no incentive to listen to either Thiel or a bank before ones own lawyer, $10M financing or not, one will not cut their nose of despite their face. In fact this is a fine example, if Hogan were to have accepted a quick settlement, instead of listening to his lawyers, it would have been the wrong choice as he received more at trial.
    - somenomadicguy 10y ago
      Perhaps Thiel offered a minimum return on investment to Hogan? "If you win, you get 100% of a 9+ figure reward. If you lose, I give you $25m, either way we exact our revenge".

will_brown 10y ago

No, at any point "Hogan" could have settled his case instead of take it to trial. Thiel did not have any influence over litigation decisions (accept settlement vs go to trial), just as Legalist would have zero influence over litigation decisions. Alternatively, besides speculation Thiel had influence, in the face of Rules of Professional Responsibility that would result in the disbarrment of "Hogan's" lawyers, explain the exact influence Thiel had that interfered with "Hogan's" attorney-client relationship. Specifically, how would the case have been any different if Thiel did not finance some or part of the litigation and how would it have been different if a bank, with no history with Gawker, financed some or all of the litigation?

somenomadicguy 10y ago
Quite simply, a bank would have done a risk analysis and quickly pushed for a settlement, whereas Thiel was motivate by hatred, and the kind of entitlement which comes from power and wealth. He was to happy to carry all the risk and let Hogan reap the rewards give the reward to Hulk out of pure hatred for Nick Denton. Decision makers at banks always report to somebody. Thiel knows that being a billionaire means that he doesn't have to justify his actions to anybody.
- will_brown 10y ago
  >a bank would have done a risk analysis and quickly pushed for a settlement That is exactly what is wrong with this whole line of thinking. Whether an unbiased bank or likely biased Thiel (in that case) neither would legally be allowed to dictate any of this, it is all between the litigant (Hogan) and his lawyer. Further, there would be no incentive to listen to either Thiel or a bank before ones own lawyer, $10M financing or not, one will not cut their nose of despite their face. In fact this is a fine example, if Hogan were to have accepted a quick settlement, instead of listening to his lawyers, it would have been the wrong choice as he received more at trial.
  - somenomadicguy 10y ago
    Perhaps Thiel offered a minimum return on investment to Hogan? "If you win, you get 100% of a 9+ figure reward. If you lose, I give you $25m, either way we exact our revenge".