“A lawyer for consumers said he was prepared to bring cases to trial.”
A lawyer is ALWAYS prepared to bring actions. Not necessarily only for consumers. But ALWAYS for the lawyer for himself or herself.
“Chhabria criticized the company’s description of the settlement in June and said on Thursday he was inclined to make public several confidential letters from consumer lawyers complaining that Bayer’s Monsanto unit is reneging on the deal, Bloomberg News said.”
A judge should not make such threats unless they have specific, credible evidence that one party to a negotiated agreement is about to reneg on the agreement for selfish reasons. The ‘snag’ in the settlement negotiations is likely due to small details that are considered significant by one or both parties. And, those details may be used by one party to sweeten the deal they previously agreed to, at the disadvantage of the other party.
If the judge knows nothing about the post-agreement discussions, it is publicly harmful (to injured parties, defendant, and plaintiff) to make such a threat without substantial evidence of malfeasance by the defendant or plaintiff.
“A lawyer for consumers said he was prepared to bring cases to trial.”
A lawyer is ALWAYS prepared to bring actions. Not necessarily only for consumers. But ALWAYS for the lawyer for himself or herself.
“Chhabria criticized the company’s description of the settlement in June and said on Thursday he was inclined to make public several confidential letters from consumer lawyers complaining that Bayer’s Monsanto unit is reneging on the deal, Bloomberg News said.”
A judge should not make such threats unless they have specific, credible evidence that one party to a negotiated agreement is about to reneg on the agreement for selfish reasons. The ‘snag’ in the settlement negotiations is likely due to small details that are considered significant by one or both parties. And, those details may be used by one party to sweeten the deal they previously agreed to, at the disadvantage of the other party.
If the judge knows nothing about the post-agreement discussions, it is publicly harmful (to injured parties, defendant, and plaintiff) to make such a threat without substantial evidence of malfeasance by the defendant or plaintiff.