Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is just humiliating for Blake. I don’t know why she would even want to be involved in Hollywood anymore

That may be your opinion. But she certainly shined a light on the sleazy PR world and their underhanded ways.

Agree. And also how weaselly and narcissistic her husband is. Also revealed her former bff to be a mean girl

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Blake did

What did she say?

She dropped her lawsuit and walked away with nothing but severe and self inflicted reputations and financial damage

Sounds like she got an acknowledgment for her complaint, that's not nothing.

Wayfarer could have just given that two years ago when she asked for it instead of hiring Wallace and TAG. They could have negotiated Ryan's OTT apology letter to a statement like this and saved themselves a big scandal. They also could have settled this case early instead of filing their actually frivolous, bad faith claims that were completely dismissed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is just humiliating for Blake. I don’t know why she would even want to be involved in Hollywood anymore

That may be your opinion. But she certainly shined a light on the sleazy PR world and their underhanded ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Blake did

What did she say?

She dropped her lawsuit and walked away with nothing but severe and self inflicted reputations and financial damage

Sounds like she got an acknowledgment for her complaint, that's not nothing.

Wayfarer could have just given that two years ago when she asked for it instead of hiring Wallace and TAG. They could have negotiated Ryan's OTT apology letter to a statement like this and saved themselves a big scandal. They also could have settled this case early instead of filing their actually frivolous, bad faith claims that were completely dismissed.

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 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.

It is nothing of the sort. Keep dreaming

Of course it is. If "concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard" that means they were actual concerns, that were not lies that she made up to steal the movie. (That doesn't mean she would have won at the trial, but that her concerns were in good faith and therefore not lies).

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is just humiliating for Blake. I don’t know why she would even want to be involved in Hollywood anymore

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Blake did

What did she say?

She dropped her lawsuit and walked away with nothing but severe and self inflicted reputations and financial damage

Sounds like she got an acknowledgment for her complaint, that's not nothing.

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 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.

It is nothing of the sort. Keep dreaming

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Blake did

What did she say?

She dropped her lawsuit and walked away with nothing but severe and self inflicted reputations and financial damage

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The PP is saying that if they wrote the original statement without a leak, they could be sued for defamation by one of the parties because it's just something they made up.

But if someone actually leaked, then that person could be sued and the "teeth" in the NDA probably means a huge amount of money.

So either way, it was a dumb thing to print. There's evidence either way that is publicly known, and any insider info would violate the settlement agreement itself.

I'm not convinced they actually did print the statement without the words "it appears." I actually think that might just be a cope from the Baldoni side.

Anonymous wrote:

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

The PP is saying that if they wrote the original statement without a leak, they could be sued for defamation by one of the parties because it's just something they made up.

But if someone actually leaked, then that person could be sued and the "teeth" in the NDA probably means a huge amount of money.

So either way, it was a dumb thing to print. There's evidence either way that is publicly known, and any insider info would violate the settlement agreement itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Blake did

What did she say?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, Blake did