Posts by alexadmin alexadmin:

Settlement Strategies in Complex Litigation: Challenges and Best Practices

Posted on: 05 Aug 2025

Settlement is a common resolution in complex litigation, often preferred over the time, expense, and unpredictability of a trial. However, the complexities inherent in these cases — from multi-party negotiations to regulatory oversight — make settlement a challenging endeavor. In this article, we explore the key challenges in settlement negotiations in complex litigation and offer best practices for crafting successful settlements. The Complexity of Settlement Negotiations Settlement in complex litigation involves more than simply reaching an agreement between two parties. It typically requires addressing a range of issues that are unique to the case type and the number of parties involved. Here are a few factors that contribute to the complexity of settlement negotiations: Multi-Party Settlements: Many complex cases, such as class actions or multi-district litigation, involve numerous plaintiffs and defendants. Settlements must account for the interests of all parties, including different levels of responsibility, risk tolerance, and desired outcomes. Regulatory Considerations: In certain cases, particularly those involving antitrust, securities, or environmental laws, settlements may require regulatory approval. Government agencies may impose specific conditions on settlements to ensure compliance with legal standards, or they may intervene to protect public interest. Complexity in Settlement Structure: Settlements in complex cases often go beyond simple financial compensation. They may include injunctive relief, ongoing monitoring, confidentiality provisions, or other non-monetary terms. These multi-layered agreements can take months, if not years, to negotiate and finalize. Challenges in Crafting Effective Settlements Settling a complex case is rarely straightforward, and numerous challenges can arise in the process. Below are some common obstacles and potential solutions. Disputes Over Valuation of Claims: In multi-party litigation, parties often disagree on the value of the claims or the proper amount of damages. This can lead to protracted negotiations as each party works to protect its financial interests. Engaging neutral experts to provide objective valuation analyses can help facilitate agreement. Coordination Among Plaintiffs’ Counsel: In class actions or mass tort cases, different plaintiffs’ attorneys must coordinate their efforts to present a unified front during settlement negotiations. This coordination can be difficult, especially when plaintiffs have varying interests or different legal strategies. Appointing a lead counsel or settlement steering committee can help streamline decision-making. Court Approval: Class action settlements must receive court approval to ensure fairness and adequacy for all class members. Courts may require modifications or additional disclosures, which can delay the settlement process. To mitigate these risks, parties should engage in pre-settlement discussions with the court and adhere to the applicable legal standards under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Best Practices for Reaching a Successful Settlement To overcome the hurdles of complex litigation settlement, legal teams should implement specific strategies to improve their chances of a successful resolution. Early Settlement Discussions: Engaging in settlement talks early in the litigation process can save both parties significant time and resources. Early mediation or structured settlement discussions may allow parties to resolve disputes before incurring substantial discovery costs. Mediation and Arbitration: Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, can help facilitate settlements by involving a neutral third party. These ADR processes allow parties to resolve issues outside of the courtroom and may lead to more creative and mutually acceptable solutions. Clear Settlement Documentation: Settlement agreements in complex cases should be meticulously drafted to ensure clarity and enforceability. Legal teams should anticipate potential future disputes over the terms of the settlement and include provisions addressing these scenarios. Issues such as confidentiality, ongoing obligations, and dispute resolution mechanisms should be clearly outlined in the agreement. Conclusion Settlement is often the most practical resolution in complex litigation, but it is not without its challenges. Legal teams must navigate multi-party negotiations, regulatory hurdles, and judicial oversight to craft successful settlements. By employing strategic negotiation techniques, engaging in ADR, and drafting precise settlement documents, litigants can achieve favorable outcomes while avoiding the expense and uncertainty of a trial.   Next Steps for Businesses If you have an issue related to civil litigation or complex civil litigation matters, contact Possinger Law Group. = = = = = About Possinger Law Group, PLLC Founded in 2001, Possinger Law Group is a boutique law firm dedicated to elite levels of service to small and medium-sized businesses and the individuals that own them. When faced with serious problems, clients have reached out to Possinger Law Group to be a trusted advisor and advocate to be a guide through high conflict situations and complex legal challenges. In litigation matters, Possinger Law Group works with its clients to effectively resolve disputes, and when necessary, by being fiercely aggressive in litigation. Editor’s Note: This blog post, as well as any data and information provided are for informational purposes only. and is not intended to constitute legal advice and may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. Readers of this article should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or refrain from acting based on information on this article without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Court Orders Release of Funds from Court Registry for Previous Homestead Homeowners

Posted on: 20 Jul 2025

Homestead homeowners that had previously deposited funds in the Whatcom County Court Registry as part of the Hillius v. 18 Paradise, et al. litigation now have a mechanism to receive the return of their funds. “This is a very good outcome for the former class members.” Stated attorney Jeffrey Possinger, attorney for MJ Management, in response to the Court’s order. “This process will ensure that monies owing [to the former class members] will get to the right people with the proper level of court oversight.” On July 15, 2025, Judge David Freeman entered an Order on the Release of Funds, and clarifying the rights of previous homeowners who had made deposits to the Whatcom County Superior Court Registry pursuant to earlier orders entered in the case. Neither 18 Paradise nor MJ Management contested the right of these homeowners to have the return of these funds following the Court’s decision in July 2024. The Court’s Order in relevant part states: The Whatcom County Superior Court Clerk is authorized to release the funds contained in the registry to the individuals listed as former owners in documentation provided by the title company. The Plaintiff’s counsel are to provide any additional information that they have that will assist the Clerk in determining the current contact information for those individuals identified in the registry. The Order (which can be viewed here), lists the names and credit balances on record with the Court Clerk, and set out that with proper documentation the Clerk is to release these funds to those individuals. In entering the Order, the Court denied the request that Plaintiffs Counsel, Matthew Davis and K. David Andersson had made to have these funds released to them for administration and distribution to the various former class members. In denying this request, the Court entered an order consistent with the proposals made by counsel for both 18 Paradise, MJ Management, and the Intervenors. Those homeowners identified on the list of names contained in the Court’s Order should contact the Whatcom County Superior Court Clerk to request their funds.  The Clerk can be contacted at (306) 778-5560, or at their page on the Whatcom County website.

Trump’s Proposal for 100% Tariff on Foreign Films: Legal Challenges and Industry Impact

Posted on: 09 May 2025

On Sunday, May 4, 2025, President Donald Trump announced through a Truth Social post that he intends to impose a “100% tariff on foreign produced films.” Citing a number of reasons, including the state of decline of the filmmaking industry in the United States as well as his intention to curb what he says is (propaganda). Filmmaking as a storytelling medium is by its very nature an international business, with film production occurring in locations across the globe. The production and distribution of a film involves a host of different components from start to finish, and the very nature of modern film production and distribution involves teams spread across the globe, particularly in a digitized world. Legal Framework for Tariffs in the United States With this backdrop, the first question is this: How would such a tariff regime even work under current U.S. law? As the starting point of any discussion, a tariff is a tax. In the U.S. tariffs and the ability to impose them arise under Congress’s constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8 to levy taxes and regulate foreign commerce. Some of this authority has been partially delegated to the President through various statutes, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Trade Act of 1974, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (the “IEEPA”). The administration of tariff enforcement is handled by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB), which uses the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to guide the processing of goods imported into the United States. The enforcement mechanisms that currently exist for such imported goods are structured around the goods that are being imported being “physical goods” with a clear point of entry. Separate from the issue delegated authority to impose tariffs at all, is the question of what exactly would be subject to the tariff. Films and film rights are generally speaking intangible assets, and not physical goods, which are to which tariffs typically apply. This makes the point of “import” unclear. Added to this is a confusion about what exactly would be taxed: the production budget, box office revenue, or streaming rights, etc.  None of these crucial details have been detailed by the administration. One area of significant concern is the signaling by the administration of expanding the typical scope of tariff policy beyond the importation of physical goods to that of intangible assets and services. This direction is both unprecedented and has been seen as highly controversial, and it raises the specter of other intangibles that could be the target of tariffs beyond the filmmaking industry. Possible Impacts on Filmmaking Industry The most pressing challenge currently is the lack of certainty. No clear guidance has been provided as to how the U.S. Government would tax foreign produced films in a digital world outside imposing the tax on imported physical media (i.e. DVDs, Blu-Rays, and Flim Reels, etc.) In addition, being an intangible good, the value of a film has less to do with the production costs, and instead the revenue that it generates, which makes the (“ad valorem”) and (“flat fee”) tariff regimes currently in place difficult to apply to a film. The lack of certainty alone is likely to have the negative effect of slowing or halting potential projects and investment necessary to produce films with any kind of foreign involvement whether that is a studio made feature film or a film with mid-size to low budgets. In a digital marketplace, with flows of data across borders, the current tariff infrastructure is highly limited to its ability to monitor, track, or tax at the border.  Application of a tariff may be difficult to implement on a practical basis, but there are other non-tariff taxing regimes that could affect production indirectly. Possible Impacts on Online Film Distribution. Multiple countries around the world currently have some form of Digital Services Tax (“DST”), which exist in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Austria, Turkey, and Spain among others. An investigation had been previously pursued by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) by the first Trump Administration under Sec. 301 of the Tariff Act of 1974 to investigate countries that used DST to “discriminate against U.S. Countries.” But this would be a process outside of the use of Executive Orders.  DSTs typically apply to revenues of online advertising, streaming media, social media, and digital marketplaces, which would more likely affect the distribution and revenue derived from distribution than production. Many of the countries that currently provide incentive and rebate-based structures for film production also implement DSTs. Current Legal Hurdles to the Implementation of Tariffs on Foreign Produced Films. Separate from the statutory, technical and other practical limitations, there are some unique legal hurdles that would specifically apply to the imposition of tariffs on the importation of foreign produced films. There is currently a WTO moratorium on customs and duties for electronic transmissions, which has been extended through March 2026, which could pose a very specific legal barrier to the imposition of a tariff on digitally imported goods. The digital economy has blurred the line between goods and services, which complicates the imposition a tariff regime on the industry, both in production and distribution of film. In addition, the Berman Amendment to the IEEPA, passed in 1988 prohibits the president from regulating the import and export of “informational materials,” the definition of which includes films, books, and music. As intellectual property, the regulation of cultural imports face a legal challenge to implementation. What’s Next. Until the Trump Administration provides further guidance on any specific policy, any advice remains within the realm of hypothetical. But the disruption caused by the messaging is already having an effect on the film industry inside the U.S. as well as abroad. Once something more definitive is released by the administration, various players are left only to speculate on possible scenarios, and how to respond. = = = = = About Possinger Law Group, PLLC Founded in 2001, Possinger Law Group is a boutique law firm dedicated to elite levels of service to […]

Hillius v. 18 Paradise, LLP, Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Motions in Monday Hearing

Posted on: 25 Apr 2025

Following a hearing on Monday, April 21, 2025, Judge David Freeman denied Plaintiffs’ Petition for Further Relief as well as an earlier Motion for Release of Funds that had been pending for a few weeks. These decisions add to the losses sustained by the Plaintiffs in this case following the recent denial by the Supreme Court to take up the Plaintiffs’ case for Direct Review. At the hearing, counsel for 18 Paradise, MJ Management, and a representative for the Intervenors asked the court to bring this case to an end and to stop the continued filing of Post Trial Motions by the Plaintiffs. Bringing this case to an end in the trial court and giving the community the ability to start to heal was one of the arguments made by attorney, Ian Ducey, representing MJ Management at the hearing, and was a common theme among the other voices seeking denial of the Plaintiffs’ most recently filed post trial motion. The Court indicated that it was working with the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for those former Homestead homeowners, who had been ordered to deposit funds into the Registry of the Court, to be able to withdraw their money. The Plaintiffs’ earlier motion to have the Court send this money to Plaintiffs’ Counsel to supervise and distribute was denied. “With the denial of these two motions, we are hopeful that this is another step towards closure in this case,” said attorney Jeffrey Possinger, who represented MJ Management at trial. The Plaintiffs’ appeal is now before the Court of Appeals (Division I), in Seattle, where Plaintiffs have recently filed a Motion for Extension of Time, requesting additional time to file verbatim reports of proceedings, despite having filed the appeal in November 2024. Despite the passage of six months since the filing of their Notice of Appeal, in their motion, Plaintiffs stated “The complexity of the appeal and the time required to identify the issues for appeal delayed the initial aspects of the case.” The parties and Homestead homeowners now have to wait for the Plaintiffs’ appellate briefing on a long list of various orders and other decisions made by the trial court, including the Final Judgment and the Court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claim. The CPA claim being the only cause of action in the case for which Plaintiffs were seeking money damages and attorney’s fees. Following nearly 5 years of litigation in Whatcom County Superior Court and a trial in May 2024, the Hillius v. 18 Paradise, LLP case continues in the Court of Appeals, while the once thriving Golf Course located at Homestead remains closed and continues to deteriorate. The final outcome for the case and the community remains undecided. Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management, O’Bryan, and Williams in this litigation through the trial and has continued to represent these parties in the appeal brought by the Plaintiffs.

Hillius v. 18 Paradise, LLP, Supreme Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Request for Direct Review

Posted on: 04 Apr 2025

On April 2, 2025, the Washington State Supreme Court entered its order, rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for Direct Review with the State’s highest court. The one-page order, signed by Chief Justice, Steven Gonzalez, ordered the case to be transferred to Division I Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs had primarily sought Direct Review by the Supreme Court of the trial court’s dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claim, which had to that point been the heart of the Plaintiffs’ case against various defendants, in a case that had languished in Whatcom County Superior Court for nearly 5 years. Despite this attempt, the Plaintiffs arguments were unpersuasive, and the Supreme Court sided with the City of Lynden and MJ Management’s arguments that these issues should be heard by the Court of Appeals instead. MJ Management had sought to have the entire case dismissed because of continued missed deadlines by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, but the Supreme Court decided to not dismiss the case in its entirety. “This was a significant decision by the court today, but for all practical matters, the Plaintiffs’ appeal has only just begun,” stated Jeffrey Possinger, who represented MJ Management at trial. “The Plaintiffs have essentially appealed every order that was entered in this case, and based on that, we expect their briefing to be massive[.]” said Possinger. These issues related to late court filings, and the Plaintiffs’ and their counsels’ failure to timely file their appeal of the Judgement for attorneys’ fees will likely be raised again in the Court of Appeals. The parties, and most importantly, the rest of the homeowners at Homestead, will now have to wait to see how this latest chapter in this case unfolds with no end in sight. Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management, O’Bryan, and Williams in the Hillis v. 18 Paradise litigation through the trial and has continued to represent MJ Management in the appeal brought by the Plaintiffs before the Washington State Supreme Court.