Categories: world

CBS challenges Moonve's legal bills and gives him an incentive to fight

Goldman eventually ended, but not until it had paid to investigate the issue and also covered Mr Aleynikov's legal fees during this dispute. In theory, Goldman could have woken Mr.. Aleynikov to get back payments, but considering his circumstances – his savings are gone and his life was destroyed, his lawyer said – it has not attempted to do so. In the end, it would have been cheaper to simply pay Mr Aleynikov's charges without battle. Even CBS was able to repurchase the fees paid on behalf of Mr Moonve if eventually any arbitration proceedings or trials exist. But the importance of "prevails" can easily be subject to extra costly disputes. In another case involving Goldman, the bank paid millions of legal fees for Rajat Gupta, a former board member. He was sentenced for insider trading in 2012, but was also acquitted on several points, muddying the question of the government ruling. Goldman has not attempted to recover from Mr Gupta any of the legal fees it paid. Few companies want to run on the additional costs and risks of examining the issue of fees. "It's only fees in addition to fees," Henning said. "It creates this bizarre incentive for the company to pay." However, Moonve's situation can be a special case, where it is sensible for CBS to continue fighting his previous C.E.O. At the same time, his case bankrolls. Although it would be cheaper to settle, it is safe to pay too many people, given the widely published…

Goldman eventually ended, but not until it had paid to investigate the issue and also covered Mr Aleynikov’s legal fees during this dispute. In theory, Goldman could have woken Mr.. Aleynikov to get back payments, but considering his circumstances – his savings are gone and his life was destroyed, his lawyer said – it has not attempted to do so. In the end, it would have been cheaper to simply pay Mr Aleynikov’s charges without battle.

Even CBS was able to repurchase the fees paid on behalf of Mr Moonve if eventually any arbitration proceedings or trials exist. But the importance of “prevails” can easily be subject to extra costly disputes.

In another case involving Goldman, the bank paid millions of legal fees for Rajat Gupta, a former board member. He was sentenced for insider trading in 2012, but was also acquitted on several points, muddying the question of the government ruling. Goldman has not attempted to recover from Mr Gupta any of the legal fees it paid.

Few companies want to run on the additional costs and risks of examining the issue of fees. “It’s only fees in addition to fees,” Henning said. “It creates this bizarre incentive for the company to pay.”

However, Moonve’s situation can be a special case, where it is sensible for CBS to continue fighting his previous C.E.O. At the same time, his case bankrolls.

Although it would be cheaper to settle, it is safe to pay too many people, given the widely published claims of sexual abuse and other abuse against him. (Mr. Moonves has said that all sexual activity was in agreement and that he fully co-operated in CBS investigation.)

“If CBS pays him anything, it sends a terrible message to the organization,” said Charles Elson, a professor and corporate ruling expert at Delaware University. “Sometimes you have to be in principle, go away and sue to make your score. You must send the message that this behavior is unacceptable. The value of it is inexplicable.”

Share
Published by
Faela