Remington offers $33M to settle Assault Weapons suit by Sandy Hook families

[Aim1]

This is a bad precedent. Perhaps they believe it will cost more to keep defending against the lawsuit or that they will lose in court in the end.


Either way, now more people will sue gun makers hoping to also get windfall victories.


I believe if they had taken this ro SCOTUS they could have won and set a precedent thus preventing future frivolous lawsuits.


This is akin to when S&W agreed to put lock mechanisms in their guns.




https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/gun-maker-offers-33m-settle-suit-sandy-hook-79116736

 

[mcb]

This is a bad precedent. Perhaps they believe it will cost more to keep defending against the lawsuit or that they will lose in court in the end.


Either way, now more people will sue gun makers hoping to also get windfall victories.


I believe if they had taken this ro SCOTUS they could have won and set a precedent thus preventing future frivolous lawsuits.


This is akin to when S&W agreed to put lock mechanisms in their guns.




https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/gun-maker-offers-33m-settle-suit-sandy-hook-79116736





View attachment 1014547

But Remington does not exists anymore. This a legal case that is simply diving up the money from the sale of the various parts of what use to be the Remington Outdoor Company. The company sold off in parts created ~157 Millon dollars and the lawyers are fighting over how much they get and how much goes to debt holders and settling this and a few other lawsuits.

Remington before the 2020 bankruptcy that ended the company did take this to the SCOTUS and SCOTUS declined to hear the case, allowing it to continue. That denial was the bad precedent not that the lawyers for the former Remington Outdoor Company are trying to settle the lawsuit out of court. That is just greed. The less they give to that case the more will go to the other cases and debt holders, and their own pockets.

 

[CDW4ME]

Incident that happened was a tragedy but they should not be able to sue the gun maker.

 

[Aim1]

But Remington does not exists anymore. This a legal case that is simply diving up the money from the sale of the various parts of what use to be the Remington Outdoor Company. The company sold off in parts created ~157 Millon dollars and the lawyers are fighting over how much they get and how much goes to debt holders and settling this and a few other lawsuits.

Remington before the 2020 bankruptcy that ended the company did take this to the SCOTUS and SCOTUS declined to hear the case, allowing it to continue. That denial was the bad precedent not that the lawyers for the former Remington Outdoor Company are trying to settle the lawsuit out of court. That is just greed. The less they give to that case the more will go to the other cases and debt holders, and their own pockets.

Interesting......I think I recall SCOTUS rejecting their case.

I was wrong about that.

 

[danmc]

Interesting......I think I recall SCOTUS rejecting their case.

I was wrong about that.

What good are laws when courts ignore them.

 

[.38 Special]

Hardly unprecedented, as obnoxious as it is. Businesses regularly "buy their way out" of litigation, purely as a business decision, and I believe a certain type of attorney counts on this outcome. Sue for a gazillion dollars, try to make a big splash in the media, and then hope for a quick settlement.

 

[1942bull]

This is a bad precedent. Perhaps they believe it will cost more to keep defending against the lawsuit or that they will lose in court in the end

Either way, now more people will sue gun makers hoping to also get windfall victories.

I believe if they had taken this ro SCOTUS they could have won and set a precedent thus preventing future frivolous lawsuits.

This is akin to when S&W agreed to put lock mechanisms in their guns.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/gun-maker-offers-33m-settle-suit-sandy-hook-79116736

View attachment 1014547

They did take it to SCOTUS in the immediately past term. SCOTUS did not take the case but sent it back to the State court to conclude it findings. SCOTUS was likely waiting to see the State resolution. If the state had continued to rule that the suit was proper under state law, then Remington could have petitioned again to seek a reversal on ground of preemption by federal law which protects the makers and sellers of guns from such suits. It think, as someone remarked above, that Remingtom was trying to get out from under the fiancial burden. However whatever the outcome is/will be applicable in CT only.

 

[reddog81]

However whatever the outcome is/will be applicable in CT only.

However you can guarantee more than a few lawyers across the country are now researching what they can do to get a slice of the action when the next big shooting happens.

 

[FL-NC]

All bad.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There’s an open thread in The Legal Forum.