Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It's an extremely bland PR statement thay doesn't say much of anything. It's a "being the bigger person" negotiated nod to her not an admission of guilt.

The "being the bigger person" phase ended a long time ago. This doesn't sound like the type of settlement where everyone just walked away, at least one side made a concession.

Anonymous wrote:She wasted her met gala moment. She should have used to signal a wiser, better Blake 2.0. Shows up with the same hair she's had for 20 years and the same pink/pastel colors. Could have appeared with a new maturity and sophistication. Is Hollywood going to take back the same Blake?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It's an extremely bland PR statement thay doesn't say much of anything. It's a "being the bigger person" negotiated nod to her not an admission of guilt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It's an extremely bland PR statement thay doesn't say much of anything. It's a "being the bigger person" negotiated nod to her not an admission of guilt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

It says her concerns deserved to be heard. Which means her concerns were not lies, were not exaggerated or trumped up, were not a manipulation to take over a movie.

It validates her.

Notice the statement doesn't validate any of Baldoni's or Wayfarer's defenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This is an admission she didn't make things up to steal the movie (this argument was always so dumb). That reaffirms that Wayfarer's defamation and extortion claims were not in good faith, not that this wasn't apparent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There clearly was a strategic leak to tmz about no money changing hands. The article has been edited since it was originally published to add the “it appears” language.

Oof. If TMZ wrote that without a leak, they could get sued. If someone actually leaked, there could be a round 2 of this. The NDAs would have teeth.

TMZ is not a party to the NDA so cannot be sued

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

This statement doesn’t say what you seem to think it does

Anonymous wrote:"We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard."

You don't make this concession on a frivolous lawsuit. There would be no reason to do so. This sentence strongly indicates that Wayfarer felt they had more to lose at trial than Lively did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There clearly was a strategic leak to tmz about no money changing hands. The article has been edited since it was originally published to add the “it appears” language.

Oof. If TMZ wrote that without a leak, they could get sued. If someone actually leaked, there could be a round 2 of this. The NDAs would have teeth.

Anonymous wrote:There clearly was a strategic leak to tmz about no money changing hands. The article has been edited since it was originally published to add the “it appears” language.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll just keep saying it again. 10 of the 13 claims got kicked out with two more being getting ready to be kicked out. The trial would’ve been essentially a contract dispute.

Justin and Jamie and all the folks no longer defendants - this was about a company versus Blake lively. Lively’s team just faced a series of losses, including unsealed documents that they didn’t want and jury instructions that they didn’t want.

Add on, if you’ve been paying attention to Steve Sorowitz he has $3 billion and absolutely no incentive to settle with a payout of any kind to Lively. Sure a trial is always somewhat of a risk but with one minor claim going forward really not a risk for him.

Sorry, but ridiculous to think that Blake and Ryan aren’t on the hook for all their attorney fees and ridiculous to think WF gave them one cent. It’s been in the news for months that Ryan has been ready to settle and wrap this up. And let’s face it. He’s footing the bill, not Blake, and he clearly calls all the shots in everything that she does. People saying that the anti Blake side is anti-woman are ignoring Ryan Reynolds instrumental role in all of this.

If the Met Gala was the goal, she could’ve just stayed out of this lawsuit, not run to the New York Times and happily gone to the Met Gala last year. Could’ve saved herself 50 million in attorneys fees and a friendship with Taylor.

I keep seeing some of you claim that 2 of Blake's 3 remaining claims were "about to be" kicked out. But if that were true, the settlement statement would not have leaned towards her narrative. If she was really about to be down to one flimsy claim plus headed into trial with the narrative being that the judge was against her, there's no way Wayfarer would have agreed to a statement that gives credence to her complaints, which this one definitely does.

I think some of the pro Baldoni people are really delusional about where the case was at before settlement. Yes there were absolutely risks for Lively in moving to trial. But there were also major risks for Baldoni and Wayfarer, probably more risks because of the liabilities in the form of Jed Wallace and Melissa Nathan and all of them potentially getting painted with the broad brush of what those two actually do for a living.

The settlement statement indicates that Lively had more leverage than Baldoni/Wayfarer in the final agreement. If her lawsuit was a guaranteed loser, that would not be the case.