Comments on: Ken Feinberg’s other job A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: hsvkitty Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:19:11 +0000 You missed the last part of his sentence, which may add a lot more meaning.

“And if I package it right, people will see that it makes no sense to fight it out in court.”

This is wise, given court costs can eat up the majority of your claim and there is no guarantee of an outcome. Businesses who claim they were ruined, should take a payout to compensate if it means the business is close to being bought out.

He said at one point, and that means once both parties are aware of the damages. If the payout covers your damages, then you would be wise to take the payout. Why would huge lump sums be offered unless there was a waiver? This is not a trough, it is compensation for those who are damaged and everyone who deserves it should get it.

In other words, payouts for damages won’t ask for a waiver, but huge payouts or ‘packages’ he offers in a lump sum will.

After reading about the Exxon Valdez this sounds like a much better plan then promising payout that never came and then having to go to court for damages and still be in litigation 20 years later.

By: HBC Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:11:11 +0000 Ignoblesse s’oblige pas, roughly translated, could mean “Feinberg was here” which denotes the manifest indignity of people having to grovel and supplicate after being royally screwed in broad daylight as destined to persevere.

When the chips are down, what’s so special about Feinberg – that he could be even worse, or that he can be exonerated from knowing any better?

By: klhoughton Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:07:03 +0000 This is the same Feinberg who decided that the 11 Sep 2001 funds would go disproportionately to the already well-paid.

Your faith in his desire to do right to small businesses may be charming, but it’s not based on reality.