Diocese Case: Everyone wants to know, what are the terms of the settlement agreement?


Posted On Jan 30 2015 by

Only an agreed stipulation and order was needed to end the case – a case with two parts.  One part pertaining to the disclosure of conflict requirement in the Chap. 11 proceeding and another part the claims of negligence of the attorneys for Bishop Skylstad. 

That’s what happened on January 23, 2015.  The judge could sign the order of dismissal in the adversary case.  He did.  He also said that he did not have to review the settlement in the Chapter 11 proceeding.  Why?  Because the settlement did not affect or have any effect on the completed chapter 11 proceedings.

 The settlement was not going to be made subject to a Chapter 11 settlement review nor will it become part of the record in the adversary proceeding.  Maybe that is why there was nothing paid as to the Chap. 11 “conflict” case.  It will all be paid in the adversary case.  My guess is that the settlement also included an agreement by each party in the settlement negotiations that he/she would not tell.   

Quite clever.

 

Last Updated on: January 30th, 2015 at 1:34 am, by Stephen Eugster


Written by Stephen Eugster