Rig workers headed home ... Odessa went from hot to not!
“Ms. Wright used her position at Bank of the James to steal money from elderly customers,” United States Attorney Timothy J. Heaphy said today. “She deliberately targeted vulnerable individuals and used their money for her personal use. This office will do all we can to protect our seniors from fraud and other schemes like that perpetrated by Ms. Wright.”
It's close and it could go either way, 50/50, but I'm giving 15 more to "joint" because of the names: Club and parent were both named "Rick's Cabaret" at the time. Subs were RCI NY and Peregrine, right?
So ask the dancers who they thought they worked for. What do you think they are going to say?
What are you looking at? How can they pay all these liabilities? I think the plaintiffs might take a structured payout over time, but if the parent co. is liable, this doesn't look good.
What ... are you turning bullish?
Anyway, I did some research. In history, the Minn. attorneys have settled a lot of cases, but in other cases they have been relentless litigators. They really do go through with trials, appeals, etc. ... the whole nine yards. This case doesn't look like it will settle. Odds are, there will be a trial early next year. After five years, the Judge wants to get this case moving!
plenty banks prove otherwise by giving crummy service and making plenty of money. Banking is all about efficiency and risk controls.
Most of the other small banks waste too much money. As soon as you see a fancy picture of the Board of Directors in the Annual Report, you know you're headed for trouble!
Judge already said $10M is the floor. Final judgment is probably more, plus attorney fees. Paying a big judgment won't be a problem? I don't see it. There's very little positive net worth in the parent company. REIT isn't happening. No one is going to pay to buy stock in a capital raise. There's some cash on the books, but there's also a lot of current liabilities. Then you have the Pole Tax liability.
Plaintiffs might take a strucuted payout, but that could take years to pay off.
I'll try to get to the arbitration agreement is okay going forward case this week.
But I see the damages as more of a problem.
No, at least in New York and in some other circuits, IC model is okay going forward because Second Circuit ruled in another case that arbitration agreements are enfoceable ... so there can't be another class action. This is really one of the last big strip club cases. Plaintiff attorneys will have to move on to another industry.
However, I don't see how RICK is going to pay a big judgment if the parent is liable. It looks like anything over $5M is going to be a problem, because they still have the Texas Pole Tax to pay ... unless they are going to reverse that too?
Just face it, these guys are about to get squeezed ... but they like said, the final day of reckoning could be a couple of years off.
"Modest" does not mean "meaningful."
Let's say NY subs are pretty much worthless, and parent RCII is held liable as a joint employer. How much could RCII afford to pay? If you take the intangibles off the balance sheet, it's not that liquid, and the positive net worth is either small or questionable. RCII is going to have to keep appealing to the very end, since the numbers are too big for a realistic settlement. Press Release seems to indicate they already realize that.
This is the crucial issue for shareholders though. Doubt they really understand the magnitude of it.
See, here's the problem .... RCII liability will be decided at trial. You know, you still have that defense where the CEO of the sub had meetings with himself as the CEO of RCII.