Herman Cain, Politico, and the Sexual Harassment Claims Story Continuum

Right now, I assume you've heard about the Politico story about two women who settled sexual harassment claims involving Herman Cain, and got some kind of payment in exchange for not pursuing the matter further and for keeping their mouths shut about the whole thing in the future.

It's causing a lot of controversy. 

Here's the thing:  first of all, I'm betting we are all going to know the gory details sooner or later, confidentiality agreement or not.

Second, after the facts are known, I am not at all sure that this will mark the end of  Herman Cain.  Some think it will (or that it should).  

Maybe it will if the facts are analogous to the case of Judge Samuel Kent.  I don't know that it will if the facts are analogous to those of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Justice Thomas survived those televised hearings with Anita Hill’s testimony about the Diet Coke, among other things. Sure, some sordid details.

Didn't matter.

However, it was a different story for federal district judge Samuel Kent once all the facts came to light in his case.   There was testimony of years of aggressive sexual misconduct on the part of Judge Kent provided by two of his female employees to the House Judiciary Committee as part of his impeachment hearings (there was a criminal proceeding in Texas, too). 

Former Judge Kent sits in home confinement right now, after serving all but three months of his 33 month sentence in a federal jail cell -- far far away from where Justice Thomas sits today up in Washington.

Bottom line:  IMHO, if the Cain story is closer to Kent than to Thomas, and that story is revealed to the public, then I agree, he’s a goner.    However, right now, with just the Politico story … I don’t think Herman Cain’s campaign is doomed.  At all. 

Third Party Litigation Funding: Outside Investors Fund Litigation for a Piece of the Pie

Companies opening their checkbooks to pay for lawsuits? Yepper, looks like Third Party Litigation Funding has crossed over the pond. Attorneys in the United States appear to be following the trend set by litigators in Great Britain and Australia with Third-Party Litigation Funding. Seems there are a couple of companies already offering to finance American business lawsuits in exchange for a cut in the settlement proceeds or judicial award. (They also share the risk of loss if their side loses the case.)

It's reasonable to think that there will be other financiers entering the fray. After all, Great Britian has been testing the waters on this lawsuit funding investment option for several years now (albeit not without controversy).

Two Front Runners: Juridica Investments Ltd and Burford Capital

Juridica Investments Limited explains that its goal is to "make the legal system better for business claims." And its risk analysis is simple: Juridica has funding for business claims only -- it's not interested in personal injury matters, toxic torts, or the like. Ewww.

Burford Capital is a British company that is also ready to invest in business litigation, both in the United States and across the globe. Burford is traded on the London stock exchange as BUR, in case you'd like to check the company out. These aren't fly by night organizations by a long shot.

What are they looking for? In one interview with Juridica CEO Richard Fields, it was suggested that the British third party financier (TPF) was interesting in disputes ranging between $15 and $25 million involving business causes of action.

Can torts be far behind? Just think of the Toyota class action litigation, ponder the inevitable Oil Spill claims .... I'm thinking that the question of when Third Party Litigation Funding enters into the American Tort arena is sooner rather than later.

They Settled Virginia Tech Today

They've reached a settlement in the Virginia Tech killings, and the Judge approved the agreement today. I'm not sure how I feel about this, or what I think.

I hope that these 24 families get some closure from today's ruling. What happened on that campus was such a horror, with so many of the victims, so young. So many years stolen from them.

I think about the legal fees. I wonder what the cut was. Forty percent - fifty? Plus expenses before the families see a dime? That's not unreasonable, that's sorta standard these days. How much of that $11 million will the 24 families really get?

I think about litigation from a legal perspective, and how being an attorney turned into a business somewhere in the past 30 years or so, and reading this newstory today makes me sad.

Did anyone sue the University of Texas after the sniper, Charles Whitman, shot students at random from the Tower? Did anyone ever seriously think to do so?

How responsible can any university truly be when someone with a severe mental illness turns violent?

Do we, as a society, really think money is this powerful and important?

Just some of the things I'm pondering this evening. My condolences to everyone who was harmed by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, as well.