Euler Posted July 30, 2021 at 01:55 AM Share Posted July 30, 2021 at 01:55 AM Part 1 is archived. CNN Gun manufacturer Remington has offered nearly $33 million to nine families of victims killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in a proposed lawsuit settlement, according to court documents filed Tuesday. ... In a statement, the lawyers for the victims' families say in part they will "consider their next steps." ... Lawyers for the plaintiff contended that the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices. ... [Plaintiffs' attorney Josh] Koskoff credited two insurance companies that once did business with Remington for realizing that promoting the use of AR-15-style rifles "as weapons of war to civilians is indefensible." So Remington isn't caving. (It's in bankruptcy, anyway.) Remington's insurance companies are caving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper13 Posted July 30, 2021 at 12:57 PM Share Posted July 30, 2021 at 12:57 PM Thanks for the info. I was trying to figure out who was caving to the left or getting some special treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted July 30, 2021 at 07:47 PM Share Posted July 30, 2021 at 07:47 PM Does not matter who is caving, just that they are caving and paying out what should not be paid. It will only encourage the next one to try for the same pay day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted July 31, 2021 at 05:51 PM Share Posted July 31, 2021 at 05:51 PM Contacted Remington how, a psychic? Bankruptcy is over Remington Arms as a company no longer exists. Let me know I'd like to contact them myself I have some unresolved legal questions i'd like answers to. Who owns the rights to all the publications? The settlements were offered by Ironshore and James River, two of Remington's insurers. I guess saying Remington Arms makes a better headlines p.s. Ironshore is owned by Liberty Mutual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted July 31, 2021 at 08:31 PM Author Share Posted July 31, 2021 at 08:31 PM ... Bankruptcy is over Remington Arms as a company no longer exists. ... ... Who owns the rights to all the publications? ... All of Remington's non-monetary assets were sold (or are still in the process of being sold) and all its employees were terminated, so the company is defunct, but the company itself still exists, even if only on paper. It will probably continue in a zombie-like state until all lawsuits have been settled and whatever monetary assets are divided up among the creditors. One of the lawsuits is an action by the former employees who are suing for their severance and accrued vacation, which Remington announced it wasn't going to pay when it fired them. I suspect that "the rights to all the publications" would have been owned by Remington Outdoors, rather than by Remington Arms, and would be among those assets sold. I suppose it's possible to find the buyer among the legal documents approving the various sales (the most recent of them dated 12 July 2021, as of this post). In other cases, when a bankrupt (non-media) company's assets were sold, the rights to publications, articles, etc., were typically bundled with something else, and the entity who bought the rights didn't even know it now owned them. Otherwise, if you're really that interested in finding out who bought what, you could probably try contacting Remington's bankruptcy attorneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted August 1, 2021 at 01:38 PM Share Posted August 1, 2021 at 01:38 PM So all those people that lost their sources of income, businesses, or other things related to COVID should be able to sue Pritzker or Illinois for shutting down businesses and causing the losses. He gave the order to IDPH. All the FFL’s in Illinois that closed down due to the new Illinois regulations, should be able to sue the state of Illinois for business losses?I would think this also means that the people/company who write automobile self driving software are now liable for accidents as a result of the owners actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 1, 2021 at 06:05 PM Author Share Posted August 1, 2021 at 06:05 PM So all those people that lost their sources of income, businesses, or other things related to COVID should be able to sue Pritzker or Illinois for shutting down businesses and causing the losses. He gave the order to IDPH. All the FFL’s in Illinois that closed down due to the new Illinois regulations, should be able to sue the state of Illinois for business losses? I would think this also means that the people/company who write automobile self driving software are now liable for accidents as a result of the owners actions? This lawsuit, although brought by an association of Sandyhook parents, wasn't about responsibility for the shooting or for the manufacture of the firearm involved. It was a suit about the advertising of the firearm involved. The ads for the firearm stated (or strongly implied) that ordinary people would become soldiers just by buying that particular firearm. Any reasonable person should recognize the ads as ridiculous marketing hype, but there was nothing about them to indicate that Remington wasn't completely serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted August 2, 2021 at 04:44 PM Share Posted August 2, 2021 at 04:44 PM ... Bankruptcy is over Remington Arms as a company no longer exists. ...... Who owns the rights to all the publications? ...All of Remington's non-monetary assets were sold (or are still in the process of being sold) and all its employees were terminated, so the company is defunct, but the company itself still exists, even if only on paper. It will probably continue in a zombie-like state until all lawsuits have been settled and whatever monetary assets are divided up among the creditors. One of the lawsuits is an action by the former employees who are suing for their severance and accrued vacation, which Remington announced it wasn't going to pay when it fired them. I suspect that "the rights to all the publications" would have been owned by Remington Outdoors, rather than by Remington Arms, and would be among those assets sold. I suppose it's possible to find the buyer among the legal documents approving the various sales (the most recent of them dated 12 July 2021, as of this post). In other cases, when a bankrupt (non-media) company's assets were sold, the rights to publications, articles, etc., were typically bundled with something else, and the entity who bought the rights didn't even know it now owned them. Otherwise, if you're really that interested in finding out who bought what, you could probably try contacting Remington's bankruptcy attorneys. Remington's bankruptcy attorneys. - tried unsuccessfully. I don't think they are fielding any questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted August 2, 2021 at 05:03 PM Share Posted August 2, 2021 at 05:03 PM the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices.So if its deceptive to market it as a combat weapon, what does that mean for all the people who keep calling it a military-grade weapon of war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 2, 2021 at 06:00 PM Author Share Posted August 2, 2021 at 06:00 PM the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices. So if its deceptive to market it as a combat weapon, what does that mean for all the people who keep calling it a military-grade weapon of war? It would have been interesting to have an anti-2A litigant argue in court and on the record that AR-15s are most definitely not weapons of war to have precedent established so. Unfortunately, if the case settles out of court, that will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted August 3, 2021 at 03:18 PM Share Posted August 3, 2021 at 03:18 PM the company marketed rifles by extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle and reinforcing the image of a combat weapon -- in violation of a Connecticut law that prevents deceptive marketing practices. So if its deceptive to market it as a combat weapon, what does that mean for all the people who keep calling it a military-grade weapon of war? Was thinking the same thing. This appears to be an admission that the AR platform is NOT a weapon of war r suitable for combat - in deference to the many claims of such by the anti-gun crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted February 16, 2022 at 01:50 AM Author Share Posted February 16, 2022 at 01:50 AM NY Times NY Times said: The families of nine Sandy Hook school shooting victims settled a lawsuit for $73 million on Tuesday against the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the massacre, in what is believed to be the largest payout by a gun manufacturer in a mass shooting case. ... In addition to the financial settlement, lawyers for the families said that Remington agreed to release thousands of pages of internal company documents, including possible plans for how to market the weapon used in the massacre -- a stipulation that had been a key sticking point during negotiations. ... The families contended that Remington violated state law by promoting the weapon with an approach that appealed to so-called couch commandos and troubled young men like the gunman who committed the Sandy Hook massacre. ... The financial settlement is being paid by insurance companies that had represented Remington, which is in bankruptcy. As a result, gun industry officials said that Remington Outdoor Company "effectively no longer exists," and the decision to settle "was not made by a member of the firearms industry." ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted February 16, 2022 at 10:10 PM Share Posted February 16, 2022 at 10:10 PM Liberal turd court said it promoted its sales to someone who didn't even buy it. SCOTUS let us down again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted February 16, 2022 at 11:13 PM Share Posted February 16, 2022 at 11:13 PM On 2/16/2022 at 4:10 PM, SiliconSorcerer said: Liberal turd court said it promoted its sales to someone who didn't even buy it. SCOTUS let us down again. My read of the situation was that the Connecticut courts had to ignore the PLCAA and find for the plaintiffs before SCOTUS would take it up. They would have overturned a verdict but not the potential for one. My understanding is the PLCAA would have required the plaintiffs to pay Remington's legal fees so no harm that could not be remedied to Remington in letting it continue. Since the insurance companies settled there's nothing to ask SCOTUS to review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.