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 International Actuarial Jobs
Canada  Asia  Australia  Bermuda  Latin America  Europe


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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-23-2017, 03:35 PM
OddSox's Avatar
OddSox OddSox is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Studying for Jazz Piano
Favorite beer: Founders Dirty Bastard
Posts: 11,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruteForce View Post
Anyone care to post the full text? I can't open Google docs at work.
it's a 67 page pdf
__________________
Spoiler:
"Twiddle-dee twit twoo" means "I love you"
"Tweet twoo twiddle-dee" means "get off of me"
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-23-2017, 03:56 PM
BruteForce's Avatar
BruteForce BruteForce is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Studying for More Money
Favorite beer: Wurzel Bier
Posts: 10,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OddSox View Post
it's a 67 page pdf
There's always ctrl+A

I'll try to remember to check it out at home.
__________________
ASA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Actuary321 View Post
I would really hate to bring Pokémon to a gun fight.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-23-2017, 04:00 PM
Elinor Dashwood's Avatar
Elinor Dashwood Elinor Dashwood is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
I don't see why the AAA or ABCD would leak the information, so if it was the complainant surely Tim's beef is with them?
How would anyone besides the ABCD, Tim, and Tim's lawyer know that the ABCD was recommending expulsion?

The complainant wouldn't know that, would they?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-23-2017, 04:33 PM
pragmatist pragmatist is offline
Member
CAS Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 166
Default

I'm not an attorney but I sympathize with a plaintiff's decision to publish his case. The judicial system is slow, whereas the harm on the individual's reputation is immediate regardless of the parties' merits.

The problem I see is that now the Academy might have the incentive to force an adverse outcome in its disciplinary proceedings so as to try rendering the controversy moot in court. The recourse of mootness might afford the Academy the ability to unduly preclude or limit the relief/recovery. However, the timing of OP's complaint is not necessarily erroneous, since the statute of limitations varies by state and by tort/crime. A forced adverse proceeding would also preclude claims that may otherwise be available to the OP, such as abuse of process or possibly malicious prosecution.

Why did the OP not include Sawhney as co-defendant. Is he filing a separate complaint against her? If the OP plans to sue for defamation, he needs to act quickly (if it's not too late already) because the statute of limitations for defamation is usually shorter (one year) than for other counts. I see the publication in Exhibit A is dated February 9, 2016. The OP should investigate whether state law requires him to request [Sawhney] for a retraction before filing a defamation claim. That request is a sine qua non condition in states like Texas and Florida, whereas in Michigan (where the plaintiff is based) the request for retraction is required only if the plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages. I don't know about what the law says in Sawhney's state. Regardless, the statute of limitations for "Tortious Interference" is longer, and I believe there the recovery is limited to actual damages. On the other hand, Sawhney might raise defenses such as "truth", "opinion", and First Amendment immunity ... that's a whole topic on its own and depends on the specifics of the issue.

Another weak point I see is that Article X, Section 9.A (Exhibit 2) entitles the Academy to inform the complainant about the progress of her complaint. The wording in that clause will lead a court to construe that informing the complainant takes priority over the Academy's duty of confidentiality with respect to the complainant. The Academy will surely raise that defense, at least to the extent that it applies to Sawhney's actual claims with the ABCD. In other words, the count of Breach of Contract as to confidentiality would apply only to matters that the ABCD (or the Academy) disclosed to Sawhney and which Sawhney did not raise with the ABCD.

I'm surprised that plaintiff's counsel did not specifically include the counts of "Deprivation of Due Process" and "Tortious Interference with Business Relation and Expectancy". I'm assuming the litigation strategy will aim to identify specific agents of the Academy, trace those agents' knowledge of plaintiff's business relations, and file an Amended Complaint with additional defendants and counts.

Last edited by pragmatist; 02-23-2017 at 04:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-23-2017, 05:09 PM
DyalDragon's Avatar
DyalDragon DyalDragon is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Here
Studying for the hell of it...
College: AASU
Favorite beer: This one...
Posts: 31,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
I don't see why the AAA or ABCD would leak the information, so if it was the complainant surely Tim's beef is with them?
But how would the complainant get confidential information about the ABCD recommendation in the first place?
__________________
PRELIMS VEE FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Androzani Major View Post
Maybe a better statement is that I enjoyed having experienced it both ways?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-23-2017, 05:10 PM
DyalDragon's Avatar
DyalDragon DyalDragon is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Here
Studying for the hell of it...
College: AASU
Favorite beer: This one...
Posts: 31,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamTheOlympicEagle View Post
Skimming the complaint is worth it.

Liked these nuggets:


I :ctm:'d
__________________
PRELIMS VEE FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Androzani Major View Post
Maybe a better statement is that I enjoyed having experienced it both ways?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-23-2017, 05:14 PM
pragmatist pragmatist is offline
Member
CAS Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DyalDragon View Post
But how would the complainant get confidential information about the ABCD recommendation in the first place?
Because Article X, Section 9.A (Exhibit 2) entitles the Academy to inform the complainant about the progress of her complaint.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-23-2017, 05:17 PM
jas66Kent's Avatar
jas66Kent jas66Kent is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Favorite beer: Corona :)
Posts: 22,369
Default

The ABCD looks suspiciously like a Kangaroo court.
__________________
Quote:

"On a reflection of Tyranny. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power because there is no basis upon which to do so. Post-truth is pre-fascism.”
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-23-2017, 05:20 PM
DyalDragon's Avatar
DyalDragon DyalDragon is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Here
Studying for the hell of it...
College: AASU
Favorite beer: This one...
Posts: 31,092
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pragmatist View Post
Because Article X, Section 9.A (Exhibit 2) entitles the Academy to inform the complainant about the progress of her complaint.
Progress doesn't (or at least shouldn't) include confidential recommendations.

Progress would be "we have made our recommendation to the AAA", or "we are still reviewing the case."
__________________
PRELIMS VEE FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Androzani Major View Post
Maybe a better statement is that I enjoyed having experienced it both ways?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-23-2017, 05:28 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,742
Default

At least one current (and probably multiple prior, depending on the timelines) member of the ABCD is associated with the same firm as the complainant. Could have been some inappropriate sharing within the firm; even if not (and I have no idea), expect such allegations, which would make for interesting discovery.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 02:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 0.15427 seconds with 10 queries