Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • COMPLETE NONSENSE. Winners: attorneys (BIG TIME!) Loser: mainly IH. They paid out a fortune for nothing. In the dark: everyone else.

    We are in the dark regarding the details of the settlement. Although Abd's description of Darden's calm demeanor makes me think I.H. did not pay Rossi millions. Probably they paid him nothing. I doubt they would have settled for paying anything.


    We are not in the dark regarding the technical claims. The discovery phase revealed a tremendous amount of technical information. We know more about the 1-year test than we know about many legitimate cold fusion experiments. We know for sure that it was fraud.


    If the lawsuit had not been filed, we would not have this mountain of proof that Rossi is a fraud. Unfortunately, the lawsuit cost I.H. tons of money. Millions, perhaps? I have no idea how much, but it was a lot, and in my opinion revealing Rossi's deceptions was not worth it. I wish that after the 1-year test, he had slithered back under his rock and we had never heard from him again.

  • Simple answer: NO. Even Rossi's supporters agree he is a showman, and therefore is practiced at putting on a good face. Additionally, I suspect that Rossi is very very glad he won't be subject to examination about the fake company, the fake invoices and the heat exchanger. However, I think all of the protagonists are relieved that this shit-fest is over.

  •  

    Hey, Mike and Woodworker... Abd said the case was probably settled "with prejudice"... does that concept even apply to civil actions? Can't IH and Rossi resurrect either lawsuit in the future if they choose?


    And something I'd like to know: do the depositions and other exhibits on line remain public record? And if someone knows, do they remain on line?

     


    With prejudice absolutely applies in civil actions. This case is (or will be with the filing of the Rule 41 stipulation) officially dead. As in pining for the fjords. As in is no more, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, run down the curtain and gone to join the choir invisible. This is an ex case.


    The docket, on the other hand, will be available indefinitely via PACER; any transcripts from recent hearings, opening statements, etc will probably become available for purchase via PACER over the next 90 days.

  • He probably just said that.

    I don't know, but given the large sums of money Rossi demanded, and his mercurial temperament, I doubt I.H. or anyone else would settle without prejudice.


    (For people who know as little as I do, "with prejudice" means:


    "In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court.")

  • Seems Walker on ECW paints a VERY different court room scene.....


    Ian Walker • an hour ago

    Hi all


    Rossi's Lawyers all there and smiling


    A couple of IH's Lawyers there not smiling.


    When you celebrate the whole team are there.


    Rossi Shaking peoples hands.


    Darden serious face (glum?) not wanting to speak.


    The tells are there.


    Kind Regards Walker


  • Well, I have plenty of evidence for myself to conclude that Rossi is a fraud and has nothing, but there's all sorts of information I was looking forward to hearing. Off the top of my head, I wanted to hear Jim Bass's testimony on cross (from IH) regarding the heat exchanger. I wanted to hear Rossi's disassembling of Leonardo NH, Leonardo FL, and 'negotiations' that he held with himself over leasing contracts between Leonardo and Platinum American Trust. I wanted to hear the testimony (and especially cross) on Rossi's buddy named as the Platinum American's owner. As just one example, Rossi brilliantly got himself to lease the space with an increased 3% per year! That was some tough self-negotiation he pulled off: was it 5% opening vs. 2% on counteroffer? The entertainment value alone...


    And this is just off the top of my head. There are so many other questions that I would have liked to have answered or clarified and available for the whole world to see.


    But if wishes were fishes...

  • Extremely well put. My theory about IH is that they could not take the chance that a lay jury would believe Rossi and his witnesses sufficiently to think that the contract conditions had been met, quite apart from whether or not Rossi was honest. Too bad. But no worries. Rossi is likely to step on his own feces once more soon, one way or another. He's done it all his life. He'll do it again unless he's just too old.




    What in the world does THAT mean, Mike?

    I don't know if Mike has answered yet, but I will give a hint. It is a citation to a particular page, page 177, of a particular case, cited as 1 Cranch 137. Google it and you will find the case and the court (hint, a very famous case). There is a statement made by the court in that case that has been, and continues to be, a fundamental foundational basis of American jurisprudence. That's all you get unless Mike wants to disclose more (American lawyers are, or should be, familiar with this case and the statement in question).


    ETA: I see Mike answered already. These young guns are so quick with the keyboard.

  • What the Rossi case proves about Woodford is that they don't properly vet and investigate sizable new investments, even in very controversial areas and even when there is considerable, credible, high quality negative information on the internet with regard to the investment. Can they still make money? Sure. But I'd avoid investing in them because their methodology is so piss poor.

    Sure, they made a mistake. But Woodford and his homies are smart cookies, and I can hope they have learnt from it. I've certainly never lost money investing in Woodford-managed vehicles.

  • I agree with Abd's analysis in his blog, except his last sentence:


    "Sure, we want the truth, but at what cost? We already, speaking for the public, know enough to have a good sense of what happened, of the reality of this history, if anyone wants to know, the information is there. If people don’t want to know, even a jury decision won’t convince them. “Punishment” has low value."


    I think punishment might have prevented Rossi from running out and scamming more people in Sweden. I have heard that is his next move. Plus he deserves to hung by his thumbs. It might do some good to make an example of him, to put the fear of God into some other scammer.


    However, I defer to the expertise of the I.H. lawyers. The main thing is to protect I.H.'s interests and stop bleeding money on the court case.

  • With prejudice absolutely applies in civil actions. This case is (or will be with the filing of the Rule 41 stipulation) officially dead. Terry Pratchett.


    The docket, on the other hand, will be available indefinitely via PACER; any transcripts from recent hearings, opening statements, etc will probably become available for purchase via PACER over the next 90 days.

    With prejudice absolutely applies in civil actions. This case is (or will be with the filing of the Rule 41 stipulation) officially dead. As in pining for the fjords. As in is no more, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, run down the curtain and gone to join the choir invisible. This is an ex case.


    The docket, on the other hand, will be available indefinitely via PACER; any transcripts from recent hearings, opening statements, etc will probably become available for purchase via PACER over the next 90 days.

    As in pining for the fjords. As in is no more, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet its maker, run down the curtain and gone to join the choir invisible. This is an ex case.


    Mike, please stop with the obscure legal references (hint for Ele: sarcasm and not a legal reference).


    One addition to Mike's explanation. This contract dispute is over, done and dead. However, there is now a new contract - the settlement agreement. If either party breaches it or alleges a breach, we could always have new litigation, focusing on the contractual obligations of the settlement agreement - NOT FOCUSED ON LENR, except to the extent that the settlement agreement addresses IP ownership, licensure, etc. issues relating thereto.


  • Punishment was never on the agenda in this case. Punishment isn't a thing in contract law. The maximum likely outcome would have been for Rossi to lose his case, lose the counterclaim, and (maybe) have to repay a portion of IH's legal fees. And I've always had serious doubts about the counterclaim. IH paid the first two installments; that kind of thing can be fairly convincing evidence that you agreed to modify the contract.


    As far as IH is concerned, their most realistic best case was probably for them to win on Rossi's claim but lose on their own and have to eat their own legal fees. From that perspective, a favorable settlement for IH could still have them paying Rossi anything up to their full likely legal bill for the length of the trial (because even that would save legal fees from an appeal while providing certainty and letting them put the whole thing behind them).

  • Off the top of my head, I wanted to hear Jim Bass's testimony on cross (from IH) regarding the heat exchanger. I wanted to hear Rossi's disassembling of Leonardo NH, Leonardo FL, and 'negotiations' that he held with himself over leasing. contracts between Leonardo and Platinum American Trust.

    Yeah, I was kind of looking forward to that too. It would be a guilty pleasure, like watching a Demolition Derby. Or these YouTube videos of ships being launched and immediately sinking.


    But as I said, it was costing I.H. a ton of money and there was a slight chance Rossi's lawyers might con the jury, so I am more relieved than disappointed. As I said, I defer to the expertise of the I.H. lawyers.



  • Punishment was never on the agenda in this case. Punishment isn't a thing in contract law. The maximum likely outcome would have been for Rossi to lose his case, lose the counterclaim, and (maybe) have to repay a portion of IH's legal fees.

    That's what I meant by "punishment." He would hate that more than being jailed again, or hung by his thumbs.

  • Seems Walker on ECW paints a VERY different court room scene.....[Rossi happy and Darden and company glum]



    Makes sense to me. Rossi got away scot-free with $10+M of their money plus they hemorrhaged more cash on huge Jones Day legal fees. Hardly something to smile about. Rossi, on the other hand, might have a little money/condos left after his legal bills. Who knows?


  • "A couple of IH's Lawyers there not smiling." I'm sorry, but Jones Day lawyers are not allowed to smile (Ele: hint sarcasm).


    Full disclosure: I have worked with many Jones Day lawyers over the years and they have generally been people I have enjoyed having a beer with, despite my use of some of the aliases I was told by Jones Day associates for the firm's name, e.g., Jones Day Night & Weekends, for the number of hours they are required to bill, and Jones Day Reavis Pogue & Satan, for their vigorous representation of their clients and for the number of hours they are required to bill.