Reply to AG Racine suing Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "AG Racine suing Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Now Saylor has agreed to pay DC $40 million

https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024.05.31%20Consent%20Order_Bilateral_signed.pdf

So much for the posters claiming this lawsuotw was groundless— maybe they are the same ones thinking Trump did nothing wrong[/quote]
 Don’t think you bothered to read the consent order. [/quote]

Don’t be coy. Saylor agreed to pay DC $40 million. No one does that unless they have some real potential liability. [/quote]
Defendants were both Sailor and Microstrategy. Both parties agreed to a settlement without admission of guilt or wrongdoing, as the consent order states, “to avoid the time, expense, and inconvenience of any further
litigation”.

The litigation was not even brought by DC. DC hired a private company to pursue the case on their behalf and it is not disclosed how much DC will actually keep, if anything. 
[/quote]

huh? you mean DC hired outside counsel? or are you trying to refer to the qui tam plaintiffs? in any event nobody settles for $40 mil unless they did it. we all know that. especially rich people! [/quote]
No. The case was brought on behalf of DC by a company called Tributum LLC. The consent decree specifically stipulates that DC will direct the Defendant to make payment in an unspecified amount directly to an escrow account controlled by Tributum LLC under a separate agreement between DC and Tributum LLC. The amounts and terms of that agreement were not disclosed. Furthermore, the funds paid to DC will not go to the general fund but will go to and be solely controlled by the DC AG.

Y’all are celebrating while Schwalb is making secret deals with companies and running a slush fund outside Council control. [/quote]

Tributum is the qui tam plaintiff, dummy. [/quote]
Yes, which is why the post says that the “case was brought on behalf of DC”.

I do love that you are using a term but don’t seem to understand what it means. [/quote]

I understand very well what it means. The post was trying to suggest that because this was a false claims suit where the plaintiff is not DC, that somehow detracts from the wrongdoing against DC and amounts to a “secret deal with a private company” and a l”slush fund.” That’s just a laughably ignorant take on qui tam cases which have existed for almost 160 years as a way to address fraud on the federal government, with state analogues. A private individual (the relator) brings the case in court for fraud on the government. If the government things the case is solid, it intervenes in the case and proceeds in court. The relator gets a share of the settlement or judgment if any. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act_of_1863

About the only unique thing about this case is that the relator is a corporation. Apparently this has become common. I can see it as a way to protect yourself against liability from countersuit although I’m not sure how effective it would be. [/quote]
Sure, all true. Except what does any of this have to do with the proceeds going back to the DC AG instead of the general fund?[/quote]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. The money goes to the DC treasury as far as I’m aware. [/quote]
Of course you have no idea. Maybe you should read the Consent Order first. But I do love your insulting and condescending posture as you continue to make a fool of yourself. The Consent Order clearly says that the DC AG retains sole discretion on the use of the proceeds.

“20. All funds paid to the District pursuant to this Consent Order may be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to: deposit to the District’s litigation support fund; defrayal of the costs of the inquiry and litigation leading hereto; defrayal of the costs of administration or distribution; or for other uses permitted by District law, at the sole discretion of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.”[/quote]

Ok and so ….? Do you think the AG is going to use the money for a big party? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics