Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine doing something that has pretty much no chance of succeeding (and not doing the proper DD) just cause. I'm curious, as a lawyer who handles multi-million dollar cases like this, do they often try for these lottery ticket wins? I doubt it, but I'm not a lawyer that works on these types of big tickets.
|
A lottery ticket implicitly assumes that the amount you're paying is dwarfed by the astronomical odds against winning. If you had a 1/1000 chance of winning a billion dollars, and it's only going to cost you, say, $50,000 to take that chance, you should take it, long odds or no. The high risk is balanced out by the low downside and high upside.
Different companies have different approaches. Remember, 95+% of disputes settle. Usually there are business relationships tied up in these things as well, and often you're still going to have to deal with your counterparty going forward, so often this sort of tactic is used for leverage. There's also almost no such thing as a "sure loser" - crazy positions sometimes succeed even when you yourself think "we're completely screwed here". This is especially true in arbitrations; even if one party ends up winning arbitrators are notorious for trying to throw the losing side a bone.
Doesn't mean they didn't do their due diligence. I mean, the Kings do have the league on their side and we may not be privy to additional facts. From where we sit it looks fairly absurd, though, I agree.