Silence is, er, aluminium

  • Print
  • Comments (1)

Readers' comments (1)

  • This settlement is meant to be confidential. So why is an attempt being made to pass on information about champagne drinking, perhaps supplied by Quinn Emanuel themselves, to suggest that their client won handsomely. And why was the other side's written statement – something which both parties obviously agreed as a neutral "no comment" – suddenly become "terse". We don't need to see self-serving PR attempts at aggrandisement, and we certainly don't need journalists falling over themselves at the drop of a hat to be taken in by such things. What is surreal about the widely different approaches that these two sides appear to have taken for PR purposes is that it is already fairly well known through loose (perhaps champagne induced) talk that QE's client got out of this by paying a substantial amount to his opponent. That's the real story. Not self-serving nonsense about drinking champagne.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (1)