Thursday, August 03, 2006

III. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS: 'Feature in the Possibility That the Parties Have Misled the Courts'

The objectors' motion to strike the settlement parties' "corrected" briefs is viewable at http:/muchnick.net/StrikePart1.pdf, http://muchnick.net/StrikePart2.pdf, and http://muchnick.net/StrikeMisc.pdf. It shortly will be viewable in a single file, at http://muchnick.net/MotionToStrike.pdf.

Below is the third in a series of excerpts from that document.



III. THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

The claims administrator is required by the settlement to provide reports to the plaintiffs and defendants about the claims. (Claims Administration Memorandum, ("Memorandum") (A383 - 387) It requires the Claims Administrator to "compute an initial per claim damage award per Subject Work." (A384, Para. 3.a.) A claim must provide documentation of copyright registration to be eligible for the A and B categories [higher value claims] in this initial computation. (Id. Para. 3.a.i. and ii.) This point is the key to a great sense of disquiet that arises when one considers the events addressed by this motion. This Administrator report presents, by definition, a lower value than "prima facie valid claims" definition. It is a lower number because the registration documentation defect is curable. The Claims Administrator was to e-mail a weekly report to the counsel for plaintiffs and defendants stating this "computation of initial claim awards." (A385, Para. 3.a.v.) For the rest of this memorandum, movants use "initial claim award reports" to refer to this Administrator's report.

The importance of the initial claim awards reports is described below, as it features significantly in the possibility that the parties have misled both this Court and the district court. The single most important aspect of the reports is that they, by definition, would understate the value of initial claims, by not counting claims for Categories A and B if the required registration documentation was not present. But this is a curable defect, so it is not a proper indication of total claims value.


[Next blog excerpt: APPELLEES' FACTUAL STATEMENTS WERE WRONG]

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you find it? Interesting read video editing programs

3:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home