Scruggs Day 2: Hearing starts with look at Wilson v. Scruggs history

SIC

(How many millions did you have?) 12 or 15 … (Did not want DeL to rule contrary to law?) No, we were comfortable that law supported our defenses. We wanted him to rule what we considered the law to be. (Comfortable? But willing to pay $1M to hedge your bets?) We certainly paid Peters to do that. (If DeL ruled contrary and was reversed on appeal, would be wasting your money?) We certainly talked about appeals… one reaosn why we made payments all along. Elminate issuesl… by end of case, had few of them pending. (Despite all this corruptin, the appellate process workd? If jduge rules against law, would be reversed. Get you nothing?) Yes. (Discretionary calls were where you made your win?) We felt we had enough good will with court to prevail, wouldn’t be punished … can’t … trying to think about discretionary calls. (Example – Sneed interpreation of contract with Wilson and Scruggs, called for 40% even after 1992 agreement?) OK. (That’s what Sneed thought was owed Wilson? About $8M swing?) Don’t remember number, but owuld have been a swing. (But jduge could have refused to accept R&R and not be a clear violation of the law?) I’m uncomfortable making all… based on 1992 rulings. But DeL’s ruling that “existing” means “Existing” helped us.

Read more: djournal.com – Scruggs update Langston takes the stand talks about Peters contacts with DeLaughter

NEMS
3/27/12