I hate law, part 793
 

Yes. That's not so bad. It's not like you are working on the weekends. At least the one's I knew.

And they occassionally got to punch other traders that they didn't like and the only penalty was they had to pay a fine. Like $10k. I'd pay $10K to punch some of my co-workers.

I hate law, part 793
 

I have been to Shea, does that count?

I hate law, part 793
 

Yes! Admit it: you're Brad, aren't you?

I hate law, part 793
 

I see I was right in not heeding your cries of poverty. Jesus.

I hate law, part 793
 

Yes, sort of, the real penske lent me this sock, sprezzatura style.

Busted on this blog,

Brad

ps: Don't let him sell himself short, Penske's a hellavu guy, for a lawyer.

I hate law, part 793
 

It's a good thing he's got you to pimp him. He's modest to a fault.

I hate law, part 793
 

Word!

:guitar:

I hate law, part 793
 

Bzzzzzzzzttt! dissent. I didn't say I would take it out of petty cash, but if the opportunity presented itself I go third mortgage on the house for a free shot at a couple of my co-workers (with Slave as witness for justification purposes).

This may explain why I made it to the 8th level.......

Not beatings it was herpes
 

NEW YORK - A judge threw out a $10 million civil assault lawsuit Monday filed against Liza Minnelli by her estranged husband, David Gest, who claimed she beat him so badly during alcoholic rages he had to be hospitalized.

State Supreme Court Justice Jane Solomon granted Minnelli’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that Gest’s doctor had failed to rebut the 60-year-old actress-singer’s medical expert, who said Gest’s headaches were caused by a strain of herpes that causes shingles and not by beatings.

Gest’s lawyer, Lorraine Nadel, said she would appeal the ruling. She said that although Minnelli’s physician diagnosed Gest’s headaches as being caused by herpes zoster, Gest’s doctor said he tested negative for the virus.

I guess that's easy to prove. Someone's got to have a test, right?

link

Not beatings it was herpes
 

Herpes is more FB ontopical, no?

Vibrating's a crime
 

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether a Texas law making it a crime to promote sex toys shaped like sexual organs is unconstitutional.

An adult bookstore employee in El Paso, Texas, sued the state after his arrest for showing two undercover officers a device shaped like a penis and telling the female officer the device would arouse and gratify her.

(He was arrested?)

Colorado, Kansas and Louisiana have held such laws unconstitutional, while Georgia, Mississippi and Texas have upheld them, said Acosta’s lawyer in urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

boo.

Vibrating's a crime
 

RT is quivering.

Vibrating's a crime
 

I might ask Martha Wong and Ellen Cohen what they will do to repeal the law in light of this disappointing inaction by the Supreme Court. It may decide the election.

Vibrating's a crime
 

Why not Kinky?

Vibrating's a crime
 

Well, cuz he's not looking to be a legislator.

I call bullshite
 

Former NYSE chief executive Dick Grasso will have to “return tens of millions of dollars” to the Big Board in the wake of a partial summary judgment handed down this afternoon by a New York State judge, according to an official in Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s office. -Here’s the WSJ Lawblog report.

Ramos should be drawn and quartered. Filthy socialist bastard!

I call bullshite
 

Take it to Gomorrah!

I call bullshite
 

Congrats on your 100th post! All of my socks crap out around 60.

I call bullshite
 

Why do you think me a sock, at least in any way in which you are not, too.

I call bullshite
 

The elasticity.

I call bullshite
 

Of supply, or demand?

I call bullshite
 

I think supply, yes?

eta: we are off topic here. What about Ramos? and gRasso? bullshite yes?

I call bullshite
 

If so, I haven't seen the returns.

Aren't most state court judgments involving 9 figures bullshite? Altho Grasso did manipulate a NFP corp for substantial personal gain. A reduction in the fees charged by the NYSE (which were necessary to pay Grasso's draw) would have had a more positive impact on the markets (and economy) as a whole than concentrating that $ with one person. Is the litigation the right remedy? I'm not sure. But I think that Grasso did all investors a disservice with what he gave himself in pay. If he's worth so much comp, he should have been doing something actually productive.

Better?

I call bullshite
 

I thought the board approved the pay package? Are they are not responsible?

I call bullshite
 

Yes, therefore my reluctance to say that the litigation against Grasso alone is the proper remedy. But doesn't the CEO of a NFP corp have a fiduciary duty as well? And how were the board members nominated? Did Grasso really not have influence in picking his pals for the board?

I call bullshite
 

Assuming that they were otherwise qualified, which they all were, I dont think that alleviates their director duties in the slightest. He was paid what they set as market, and in relation to CEOs of comparable orgs who ran entities with comparable performance, he was arguably underpaid over the course of his tenure.

I call bullshite
 

Name one (ONE!) NFP corp with "comparable performance" (reasonably defined) and CEO pay in excess of $100MM over the relevant period and I will agree with you.

I call bullshite
 

I dont think other NFPs are necessarily comparable to this particular one. CErtainly your average one isn't nor would your average one need a person with the talents or expertise of a grasso.

I call bullshite
 

But I'm not asking for average. I'm asking for one. Do you admit that there is not one NFP which was comparable for performance or compensation purposes?

And as to your point that the directors' duties were not mitigated, are you suggesting that the proper defendent is the board as a whole?

I call bullshite
 

I will think about the one question. I am not an encyclopedia of NFPs.

on the latter, yes. And Ramos should have recused himself, he tried to get on that board once and was still harbouring resentment.......

I call bullshite
 

Not actually trying to put you on the spot. I recognize that it's an exceptional case, but $130MM+ smacks of opportunism and greed when running an NFP.

Fine then, I can buy into going after the board, too. And, not knowing those facts, I cannot disagree that Ramos should have recused himself. But, unless Grasso held the keys to the board, why would Ramos have animosity toward Grasso?

I call bullshite
 

He is bitter and petty. And the $130MM was conceptually in consideration for a career of service.

I call bullshite
 

So Grasso wanted to play catch-up with those who he considered his peers. But he didn't actually generate profits for an enterprise, just used his orgainzation to skim off of real profitable companies. Sounds like racketeering.

I call bullshite
 

How he could play catch, the board set the comp.

I call bullshite
 

Sure, w/o any suggestion from Dick.

I call bullshite
 

is it really that easy? I suggest my raises all the time and never get them.......

I call bullshite
 

You're a CEO? At a highly profitable NFP where you hold the keys to admission to the board? I had no idea.

I call bullshite
 

dissent. doesn't rewarding the occasional NFP CEO increase the chance that good greedier people will be more likely to go into the NFP arena? hell the Salvation Army should drop a few mil on some schmuck- they'd have all the Santas they need in a minute.

I call bullshite
 

Huh, so you're theory is that, if you pay the top guy enough, you can attract tons of talent for next to nothing? You should form a start-up law firm under that theory--overpay yourself and watch the worker bees flock to you. You could seek guidance from that girl nox4 posted on fashion.

I call bullshite
 

The ruling came as a big surprise to lawyers following the case, quoted in this morning’s WSJ:


“Stunning” is how Jim Barrall, head of the executive-compensation and benefit practice at Latham & Watkins, described the findings. “I have never heard of a court decision finding a breach of fiduciary duty based on the failure to disclose all the numbers” about the size of a supplemental pension. The opinion, suggests Barrall, means that at a minimum CEOs will have to make sure “the board understands the numbers and all the elements of the [leader’s] pay package and how they work together.”

“Extraordinary” was how Christopher Clark, a white-collar defense lawyer at LeBoeuf Lamb, described the ruling. “I’m not used to seeing cases with this many facts and this many depositions decided without a trial.” Clark thinks Grasso has strong grounds for an appeal. Said Clark: “I can’t image the parties will be able to get close to a [settlement] agreement with the ruling hanging out there.”