Key issue is whether facilities are separate or intertwined?
Commonwealth says tunnels and MLK are intertwined: "The tolls obviously will generate project-related revenues – just like any other tolls in use throughout the history of the Commonwealth – but they will not raise general revenues. They will benefit the historically and functionally intertwined transportation network providing passage between the inner-port cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk."
Cases from other states say they're going to win on that. All they have to show is that use of toll funds will decrease congestion. Put some commuters on a bus, done! Better buy that E-Z pass!
Hearing is on Wednesday ... satellite picture shows all these facilities are very close together ... that can't be good for setting aside tolls. But that's okay; you'll be able to drive in bumper to bumper traffic on High Street 24/7 to save a buck!
Commonwealth has a good point! If you look at the Mid-town and Downtown tunnels from the International Space Station, they are right together!!!
In the case the plaintiffs (Meeks etc) argued tolls are taxes for three reasons:
First, they are revenue-generating.
Second, they will be imposed on the users of one facility to pay for another separate and independent facility.
Third, the setting of the tolls in this case involves the exercise of true legislative discretion in the consideration and balancing of several factors, not simply the cost of the facility on which the tolls are imposed.
Last argument is the best ... but new tunnel to be built should count as part of the cost. And the new tunnel is expensive!
- Employment stats down.
- RICK earnings MISSED!
- Volume can't be sustained ... bull manipulation.
- NYC summary judgment ruling ... coming soon!
- Restaurants complaining about rising commodity prices.
- Breasturant market already saturated.
Wait ... I forgot the Pole Tax. So, what do you think RICK is worth if they lose the Pole Tax case? Well, guess what? The odds of winning are less than 10%. GET REAL:
First, the trial court said it's a constitutional "occupations tax," because you pay 25% over to the public schools whether the legislature said to or not.
Second ... it's not even an occupations tax ... it's a USER FEE, which is almost invariably constitutional. An occupation tax is a fixed charge, levied usually as a license fee, on professionals such as architects, attorneys, and doctors. The Pole Tax (excuse me ... patron fee) isn't a fixed charge; it's imposed per patron. Even the RICK CEO has dropped THE POLE TAX terminology and calls it the PATRON FEE now. He's trying to tell you something ... don't blame him when the Pole Tax near-bankrupts the company.
All the growth will be in Norfolk and Va. Beach. Commuters will move north ... houses won't sell south of the river. Portsmouth and Suffolk will soon be toast!
"NYC summary judgment ruling ... coming soon!"
So ... who was right about that?
The Order did not resolve questions of whether all of the Defendants (including parent Rick's Cabaret) are employers ... the Judge left that for trial.
Judge Paul Engelmayer could very well be headed to the Second Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. His only agenda is not to be reversed on appeal. It looks like he only ruled on the matters he was sure he was 100% right on. So good luck on that appeal!
"Consistent mortgage loan closings" is refi ... purchase mortgages won't be that good from here on. Mortgage Bank rode the Monarch ... now the butterfly is dying ... SUCKERS!!!!
... the Judge left that for trial. That's a lot different than a finding.
That looks like part of Issue No. 5: The dancers' attorneys moved for summary judgment on Issue No. 5 but didn't brief it?
So they must have lost on that issue, right?
Oh wait ... the Judge is going to allow them to still submit a brief on it. What's up with that? Deck looks stacked against RICK.
That's what it comes down to:
New York sub goes bankrupt; that wouldn't be good, but it's maybe only 15% of the total enterprise value.
On the other hand, if the Parent company is liable ... get the jelly out ... it's "toast."!
The issue of "corporate disregard" is almost always submitted to the jury in the Second Circuit. American Protein Corp. v. AB Volvo.
1. Can the parent company be held liable?
2. Can RICK still de-certify the class?
3. Can the plaintiffs get a refund of the floor fees and tip-outs?
From the Press Release: "The attorney representing Rick’s Cabaret International and Peregrine,..., said ...:"
Think about it: If you were trying to argue that RICK and Peregrine are separate corporations with separate control, would you have the same attorney for both?