I say to the gentleman, ``You and I had discussed, even before markup, the possibility of utilizing the Michigan rule, to which I referred to before. In that case let me give the hypothetical and see if you agree. I offer--as a claimant I claim $100,000, and you, the defendant, offer $50,000, just like in your example that you gave the gentleman from Virginia. But in applying the Michigan rule, which I looked upon with favor, if we stopped there and were hard set that those two figures, and it moves into trial, the figure, for the purpose of loser pays, becomes the median between the two at $75,000. So then, if the verdict comes in at $76,000 or above $75,000, then the defendant has to pay all the costs.'' Correct; under the Michigan law?
Hon. George W. Gekas: “I say to the gentleman, ``You and I had discussed, even before markup, the possibility of utilizing the Michigan rule…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Michigan rule in relation to negotiations and trial costs.
Share
More from Hon. George W. Gekas
We are not certain of that. Let me assure the gentleman that indeed this deletion of the judges does not in any way sway us away from our commitment to have these judges appointed and to assume their positions as bankruptcy judges. This…
It is on the creditor, and that really conforms to the general state of the law in such cases. There has to be affirmative evidence of fraud having been committed so that the creditor must come forth.
Mr. Chairman, the point is that the substitute wrecks bankruptcy reform. What I am trying to get across, and what I hope is the message to all the Members is that any amendments practically that would harm the basic reforms that we put…
We are not adverse to developing a plan of tax incentives to give our fellow Americans, the entrepreneurs, the incentive to go ahead and drill where they might fail; but we ought to give them that incentive to do so and to otherwise bring…





