And if it comes under $75,000, at $62,000, or $73,000, or whatever, then the plaintiff would have to pay the--because the median figure was not met. Now I know the gentleman agrees with me when I say to him and I say to the Members, ``This stimulates and urges negotiation because, when we're sitting on the other side of the table, you and I, and I'm at $100,000, and you're at $50,000, and we know that $75,000 is going to be the point at which the attorneys' fees costs are going to be relegated, then maybe I will--well, look, I'll settle for $87,500, or you move it up to $62,500, that type of thing.'' Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman agree with me that that does stimulate a negotiation?
Hon. George W. Gekas: “And if it comes under $75,000, at $62,000, or $73,000, or whatever, then the plaintiff would have to pay the--because…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of settlement amounts on negotiation during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Hon. George W. Gekas
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.
I have not been able to predict exactly what would happen. It seems to me that we ought to start a course on energy independence and go to it without respect to what OPEC does. All I am saying is we will have an extra dividend to lower…
I myself a few months ago was part of a scenario in which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued what it felt was a credible threat to Three Mile Island and reported the essence of that credible threat to the operators of Three Mile…
I think the gentleman would feel better if he recognizes, as I do, that in this bill there is a continued movement by the farm communities towards market orientation, and that should help the gentleman.





