Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson
Actuarial Jobs

Visit our site for the most up to date jobs for actuaries.

Actuarial Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Health, Life, Pension and Non-Tradtional Jobs.

Actuarial Meeting Schedule
Browse this year's meetings and which recruiters will attend.

Contact DW Simpson
Have a question?
Let's talk.
You'll be glad you did.


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #771  
Old 05-07-2017, 12:51 PM
homeys66's Avatar
homeys66 homeys66 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,349
Default

Small shop actuary with massive market presence unsurprisingly gets massive attention from skeptical competitors and even ABCD. Seems about the way it should be, especially since clients are governments. Weird that it took 30 years. Anyway, I doubt there was intended malice involved. Maybe overzealous policing. Wonder how common this kinda stuff is.
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 05-19-2017, 08:28 AM
Shaft's Avatar
Shaft Shaft is offline
Member
CAS SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,599
Default

All quiet here ...
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 05-19-2017, 11:34 AM
Woodrow's Avatar
Woodrow Woodrow is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaft View Post
All quiet here ...
Yes, it's almost... too quiet.....
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 05-25-2017, 09:46 PM
msydlaske's Avatar
msydlaske msydlaske is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NYC
Studying for High altitude hiking
College: Univ of Michigan - alum
Favorite beer: Liberty Ale (Anchor)
Posts: 58
Default

As dictated by court required timing, the Academy has today filed its reply to Sharpe's reply to the Academy's motion to dismiss Sharpe's lawsuit. Anyone can go to the PACER website and obtain the filing, like I did. Presumably the Academy will post its response on the AAA website very soon.

Absent a ruling in favor of the Academy at this stage, the case will move forward to discovery and trial, or settlement.

I did not see a great deal new here. Among the Academy's points (with my quick take on them in parentheses)

1. Sharpe claims that AAA or ABCD released news of the ABCD recommendation that Sharpe be expelled to Tia Goss Sawhney but he can't provide any evidence of this and can't say specifically who spilled the beans. Therefore he is not entitled to discovery. (This is strange. Someone spoke to Sawhney, and it would be easy to ask her in court and find out who. But the Academy position is that Sharpe can't do that.)

2. Our - i.e., the Academy - reading of our rules gives us the right to disclose this recommendation to Ms Sawhney. It is not relevant what the court (or most AAA members, I guess) think the rules "should" be. (Therefore, the not-mentioned-here prior offer by Sharpe to present evidence as to drafting intent should not be granted. The court is urged to take the Academy's lawyers' word for it - they know the original intent.)

There is no mention of any final finding by the Academy with respect to Sharpe and discipline, although I had expected that they might expel him coincident with a filing for this law suit. I wonder where that stands.
__________________
Countdown
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old Yesterday, 06:16 AM
Shaft's Avatar
Shaft Shaft is offline
Member
CAS SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msydlaske View Post

1. Sharpe claims that AAA or ABCD released news of the ABCD recommendation that Sharpe be expelled to Tia Goss Sawhney but he can't provide any evidence of this and can't say specifically who spilled the beans. Therefore he is not entitled to discovery. (This is strange. Someone spoke to Sawhney, and it would be easy to ask her in court and find out who. But the Academy position is that Sharpe can't do that.)

2. Our - i.e., the Academy - reading of our rules gives us the right to disclose this recommendation to Ms Sawhney. It is not relevant what the court (or most AAA members, I guess) think the rules "should" be. (Therefore, the not-mentioned-here prior offer by Sharpe to present evidence as to drafting intent should not be granted. The court is urged to take the Academy's lawyers' word for it - they know the original intent.)
Agreed.
And jeez... somewhat ludicrous reasoning in 1 and 2. Absent seeing the latest filing I would proffer:

1st Q in 1st depo (Sawhney): "Precisely what did one or more individuals representing the ABCD or AAA share with you regarding the proceedings related to disciplinary investigation of Sharpe?" The rest of the defence in 1 falls away.
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old Yesterday, 09:37 AM
twig93's Avatar
twig93 twig93 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 23,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msydlaske View Post
As dictated by court required timing, the Academy has today filed its reply to Sharpe's reply to the Academy's motion to dismiss Sharpe's lawsuit. Anyone can go to the PACER website and obtain the filing, like I did. Presumably the Academy will post its response on the AAA website very soon.

Absent a ruling in favor of the Academy at this stage, the case will move forward to discovery and trial, or settlement.

I did not see a great deal new here. Among the Academy's points (with my quick take on them in parentheses)

1. Sharpe claims that AAA or ABCD released news of the ABCD recommendation that Sharpe be expelled to Tia Goss Sawhney but he can't provide any evidence of this and can't say specifically who spilled the beans. Therefore he is not entitled to discovery. (This is strange. Someone spoke to Sawhney, and it would be easy to ask her in court and find out who. But the Academy position is that Sharpe can't do that.)

2. Our - i.e., the Academy - reading of our rules gives us the right to disclose this recommendation to Ms Sawhney. It is not relevant what the court (or most AAA members, I guess) think the rules "should" be. (Therefore, the not-mentioned-here prior offer by Sharpe to present evidence as to drafting intent should not be granted. The court is urged to take the Academy's lawyers' word for it - they know the original intent.)

There is no mention of any final finding by the Academy with respect to Sharpe and discipline, although I had expected that they might expel him coincident with a filing for this law suit. I wonder where that stands.
The logic in 1 is so stupid as to defy description.

The logic in 2 is also pretty bad. It doesn't matter what the intent was in interpreting the word "outcome"? I hope the judge laughs out loud at both of these claims.
__________________
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The thing that is clearest is twig's advice
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old Yesterday, 09:45 AM
Woodrow's Avatar
Woodrow Woodrow is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twig93 View Post
The logic in 2 is also pretty bad. It doesn't matter what the intent was in interpreting the word "outcome"? I hope the judge laughs out loud at both of these claims.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old Yesterday, 12:51 PM
bdschobel's Avatar
bdschobel bdschobel is offline
Past SOA President
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sunrise, FL
Studying for FSA '76
College: MIT '74
Posts: 15,002
Default

Again, our professional organizations embarrass our profession. Incredible!

Bruce
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
court of public opinion, discoverable evidence, oops too much information

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.32758 seconds with 10 queries