[Cynnabar] Settlement

[Greg Less]

An exchecueururuuawoeuosdf  person (did I spell that right...?) will have
to give the exact details....

It is not that corporate can come in and spend our money - they aren't
signers on the account. However, the money that the sub-groups have in
their accounts, I believe, are part of the total assets of the SCA Inc. If
they weren't then the SCA could not have been reasonably sued for more than
Corporate accounts had.

-Gregoire.


On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:14 AM, John Wilkerson <jmw at wilkersons.ws> wrote:

> Again, new guy is confused (not the first time, won't be the last). I
> thought the purpose of the incorporation was to separate the various
> entities of the SCA and thus limit financial liability.
>
> Based on my experience with other non-SCA groups this is how the model
> usually works. I'm uncomfortable with corporate having access to local
> funds.
>
> My .02,
>
> Johannes
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:57 AM, charles at eecs.umich.edu (Charles J. Cohen)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>   Judge says: 18% of total liquid assets.
> >>
> >>   SCA says: That dollar amount equals 18% of our total liquid assets.
> >
> > This is a quibble, but no, this isn't correct. Look at the FAQ
> > documents. This was a settlement. No Judge involved. The SCA was sued
> > for a lot more money, and the lawyers negotiated a ton and a settlement
> > was reached that was a dollar amount. This should have been covered by
> > insurance, but only one of the companies lived up to their obligation
> > (the SCA is suing the others).
> >
> > The amount we owe is a raw dollar amount. It was after the fact that the
> > 18% amount was determined.
> >
> > - Midair
> > _______________________________________________
> > Barony mailing list
> > Barony at cynnabar.org
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cynnabar.org/pipermail/barony/attachments/20120208/67017e20/attachment.html>