Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
Perhaps I am giving Rempel and "the 71%" too much credit, but unless there is a breakdown of what the $10.5 million represents, I think it reasonable for people to question the number.
|
It's not that it's unreasonable to wonder what the basis for the number is. It's that someone performed an analysis of the damages figures that are potentially available in the circumstances and came up with a range, and the decision to accept 10.5M was based on that. You'll never see that analysis, I assume, because it's privileged.