[dragontamer]

> Would you not see any problem if (still using the article example) Weinstein was given immunity to report on his own rapes?

Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target.

If Weinstein had a close "ally", who was less important for justice but important to testify for the case... even if that "ally" had crimes associated with him, you'd want to give that "Hypothetical ally" immunity. _THEN_ you force the ally to talk (if the ally fails to talk in court, you throw him in jail for contempt of court, and take away their immunity).

[cool_dude85]

>Weinstein is the boss. So you'd never give him immunity to the case, he's the target.

In the article it says that Weinstein was practically given immunity to personal lawsuits related to the class action. Individual members of the class were able to retain the right to sue him personally in exchange for taking 1/4 of their payout in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Anyway, aside from the specific inaccuracy of what you're saying here, this whole argument is mush-headed slop. You're talking about criminal cases, the article is about bankruptcy proceedings and civil lawsuits against individuals. You might as well say that you'd never give Weinstein immunity because in video games making some enemies fully immune to elemental attacks makes class balance difficult.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the article it says that Weinstein was practically given immunity to personal lawsuits

Weinstein is in jail. (The victims "could opt out of giving lawsuit immunity to Harvey Weinstein himself - but only if they agreed to reduce their portion of the settlement payout by 75%," which seems fine, this is a civil proceeding and the point of bankruptcy is to draw a line under liability.)

The "blanket immunity" in the HN title misleadingly refers to Board members being released from liability.

[cool_dude85]

> this is a civil proceeding and the point of bankruptcy is to draw a line under liability.

This is a bankruptcy proceeding regarding the liability of Weinstein's company. What's that got to do with Harvey Weinstein's, the living person's, liability, other than the fact that you can convince a judge to waive it? Much less the people who served as the company's BoD?

[JumpCrisscross]

> What's that got to do with Harvey Weinstein's, the living person's, liability

Weinstein the person caused the company’s liability. The insurers paying out for the latter are also connected to the former. They won’t agree to a bankruptcy plan that leaves them on the hook for further litigation.

[cool_dude85]

>Weinstein the person caused the company’s liability

His actions on behalf of the company, and the actions of others also acting on behalf of the company. He is just one of the individuals whom one could reasonably expect to be held liable in a civil suit.

>They won’t agree to a bankruptcy plan that leaves them on the hook for further litigation.

They will if a plan that doesn't absolve these covered individuals of liability is not offered, or is not able to be offered. And if they don't agree to a plan, oh well.

Remember that if there's a policy choice between allowing this practice, which allows for a liability cap to be negotiated in bankruptcy court , or disallowing it, the insurers have every reason to rattle their sabers about refusing bankruptcy or going out of business, because the status quo benefits them greatly. So they might say they won't agree to any other plan, but that could be just talk until you refuse to offer them such a sweet deal.