This is interesting ... Remember Andrea Mackris? She was working as a staff producer on "The O'Reilly Factor" at the Fox News Channel until she was abruptly fired. Ms. Mackris filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against program host Bill O'Reilly and the Fox News Channel alleging sexual harassment by Mr. O'Reilly. Ms. Mackris did not get her day in court as the lawsuit was settled for a $9,000,000.00 payment - of which her lawyers got one-third - and her agreement to sign an NDA which barred her from ever discussing the allegations against Mr. O'Reilly as well as disclosure of the terms of the settlement. After 17 years, Ms. Mackris, (obviously still angry and bitter over the settlement), has decided to dramatically breach the NDA she [voluntarily] signed.

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR...YQkfYCegQIARAF


NOTE: Beginning at approximately the 18:20 mark and extending to the 21:10 mark, there is an abrupt cutaway to two very distracting commercial interruptions.

The $9,000,000.00 question is whether Rupert Murdoch and his army of lawyers will go through with their threat to sue Ms. Mackris now that she has [intentionally] breached her NDA? Contractually, they can sue Ms. Mackris (and the Daily Beast) as Ms. Mackris has clearly violated the terms of the NDA she signed 17 years ago. However, the salient point is whether it will be "smart" to go after Ms. Mackris? Billionaire Murdoch can take Ms. Mackris to court and [probably?] win on the law as it's clear that she is willfully breaching the terms of a binding agreement that she signed. (Their argument will be that she chose to take the money in exchange for her silence and now, after taking the money, she is reneging on the agreement; so they should get all the money back - plus unspecified damages to Fox's "reputation".)

Suing Ms. Mackris for breach of contract carries risk for Fox News and Mr. Murdoch. It's evident that the publisher of the Daily Beast - who could also be sued along with Ms. Mackris - has agreed to help defray Andrea Mackris's legal expenses. If this "breach of contract" lawsuit is actually filed, it could become an expensive and protracted affair - for both sides. (Being a billionaire, Rupert Murdoch can afford to spend literally tens of millions of dollars fighting Ms. Mackris - his pockets are deep.) For Andrea Mackris and the publisher of the Daily Beast, the question is how deep are their pockets? Can they afford to "go the distance" against a billionaire? (This question of how far to go in pursuing litigation was the subject of Jonathan Harr's book "A Civil Action" which was made into a movie starring John Travolta.)

If this dispute winds up in front of a jury, it will boil down to a question of who does the jury believe - and who do they feel the most sympathy for? This is the kind of case where the skill (and the persuasiveness) of the lawyers will be paramount. Gerry Spence, the legendary courtroom litigator, is [reputedly] no longer practicing law; but this is the kind of case which made Spence famous. If Ms. Mackris manages to find a lawyer of the caliber of Gerry Spence, the fireworks in the courtroom could be quite dramatic. If this goes to a jury, Bill O'Reilly will almost certainly be called to testify. Does Mr. Murdoch really want Bill O'Reilly up on the witness stand being forced to air Fox's dirty laundry? (How many more lawsuits could such testimony spawn?)

Mr. Murdoch himself could possibly be called to testify. Does the aging Mr. Murdoch want to be subjected, yet again, to an inquisition while under oath? (The last time Mr. Murdoch was compelled to appear before a formal Board of Inquiry - in the Millie Dowler case over in Great Britain, he referred to that experience as "... the worst day of my life." Rupert Murdoch clearly does not have an appetite for being subjected to public shame and ridicule.

This is just a guess, a subjective judgment on my part, but I have a feeling the NDA agreement Ms. Mackris signed 17 years ago may be up for renegotiation. This time around, the price for her continued silence will be considerably higher. Personally, I hope Mr. Murdoch and his army of lawyers go after Andrea Mackris with the intent of "... making an example out of her" that you don't mess with the mighty Rupert Murdoch unless you're prepared to pay a really high price. It will be popcorn time indeed watching all this unfold live on Court TV. Hearing what Bill O'Reilly has to say when he's called to the witness stand will be [easily] worth the price of admission. (That poor man has actually had to work for a living since he was let go from Fox. Forty-five million dollars was apparently the limit to what Mr. Murdoch was willing to pay in order to keep Mr. O'Reilly's on-the-job sexual cravings covered up.)

IANAL, but it would be nice hearing from some actual lawyers concerning whatever "this" actually is. (Until or unless Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation actually file suit against Andrea Mackris, I suppose all this is mere speculation.)

If I was Murdoch, I'd do whatever I had to do (legally) to make Mackris regret for the rest of her life violating the NDA.

Why is that?

Man, you’re a hateful SOB.

We'll never know the truth as it's a case of "He said, she said," but if Makris's [nearly verbatim] account of the final settlement meeting is essentially true; (in which Ms. Makris asserts that her lawyer demanded that she accept the money and "... get on with your life because this is as good as it will get!," it sounds as if her lawyer was more interested in a quick collection of his one-third cut of the settlement rather than his client's best interest.

Or, looked at another way, it may be the case that her lawyer was laying out the cold hard facts as he saw them; namely that her case might drag on for another ten years - even if she won a jury verdict - so she might as well take a sure 6,000,000.00 now rather than rolling the dice and [potentially] coming up with nothing.

Now she has a new lawyer who believes Andrea did not receive sound legal advice 17 years ago. This new lawyer, unless she's totally incompetent, must have lined up financial support from parties who aren't especially fond of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. (I understand that there are "litigation investors" who finance cases like this gambling that the party they are funding will ultimately prevail resulting in a nice ROI for the investor. This is what Hulk Hogan had in his case against the [now defunct] Gawker tabloid rag - a backer [Peter Thiel] with very deep pockets.)

If that's the case here, Mr. Murdoch might be better off settling this quietly rather than engaging in a costly (protracted) litigation. That is, unless he has more money than brains.

No, I'm not. (Not that I care about what you think of me any more than you care about what I think of you.)

I don't care for Murdoch or what he stands for. But if he let's her violate the NDA without consequences, it encourages others to do the same thing.

If her conscience is telling her to violate the NDA, then fine. But she has to be prepared to give all the money back to Murdoch plus damages.

Please see my response to TrollyLiar.

The poor dear only got a measly $9 million.

Correction: $6 million. Her lawyers got one-third of the settlement.

Well... she took the money.

I dont know much about the case but seems like OReilly does this regularly. Every Woman who took the money is partially at fault for any subsequent harrasment he did.

Not sure what to do here, because who knows why she went for the money and what not.

If there is one thing people should take out of this situation: Having a legal system where one can use money to circumvent it, is beyond ******ed.

Similiar: Having a society where people let themselves be bought off to act against the betterment of said society is....

Maybe in some weak sense but if we're assigning blame then I don't think any significant amount goes to the individuals fighting against an absolute giant like Fox. What do you want them to do, possibly tie up months or more of their life litigating an expensive lawsuit (along with the personal distress of having your whole life scrutinised in the public eye and reliving every event) that may or may not go in their favour in hopes that you can share your story?

If you're looking at who's at fault then it first goes to the harasser, second to the company that protects them, and third to a legal system that gives an inordinate advantage to those with the more expensive legal team and allows you to get away with despicable behaviour so long as you can afford to pay for it. And we can quibble about that order but the victim taking a pay-off is miles away in significance.

Then again we might reflect on the situation and consider that attitudes have changed a lot in those 17 years. NDAs were being abused even if the amounts of money were eye-wateringly ludicrous.

Six million dollars either gives you way too much free time to stew on old resentments or it's just not enough to last more than 17 years.

Call my cynical but there's quite a bit of money still on the table for the new lawyers to fight over.

The question is (as has been raised above) is this +EV or is she drawing to an inside straight.

Yupp, it (the system) sucks (as I also pointed out).

But, she couldve shown integrity by not taking the money.

What changed that she now feels the need to speak out, after being silent for 17 years?

Btw. Im not blaming her per se. Its a ****ed up system and someone like her is at a massive disadvantage. Still, she took the money. Therefore proving to be part of the issue. She couldve refused it and just walk away or pull through with the lawsuit or just make it public.

But no, she took the money, had a good life and now suddenly has regrets or what?

I really dislike asking any individual for that kind of integrity. Not only the money, not only the uncertainty, but the brutality of being subjected to the kind of examination and criticism that would've come with going to court is beyond any reasonable expectations of a person to take. I'd have immense respect for anyone who took on the fight facing that but I'll stop a long way short of calling them "part of the issue" for not.

I'm also reluctant to question her reasons for speaking out now. Maybe she's in a better position to take up the fight than she was 17 years ago. I don't much care. Fox bought nearly two decades of silence to protect those in the wrong and I feel no sympathy for them now if they get exposed. It's buying indulgences.

From a cynical standpoint the time to go public was during the early Trump presidency. Now that the Dems are in charge #meToo is dead and society is fixed. Ain't no one want to hear this whining.

Not speaking to the specifics of this or any case but what is clear in so many of these is that there becomes a clear calculation point where the potential loss of the diminished and remaining settlement money is considered less than the potential gain of a new settlement.

Its a gamble that becomes plus EV at a certain threshold.

I should also mention that there is always the potentially legit feeling that this story finally needs to come out and the risk is now worth it with the diminishment of the cash.

“Why didn’t she come forward a decade before the MeToo movement?” asks a very smart poster.

Maybe a bit (a lot for the lawyers) but the process is commonly excrutiating for the victim. They, and their families, desperately need to bring the process to an end and try to get on with their lives. They also feared the reprecussions to their careers from theri complaint becoming public. The large sum of money creates a way out that becomes too hard to resist.

Okay, thanks for the correction.

The poor dear got only $6 million!

Defend or Criticize:

There is a greater than 50% chance that Ms. Mackris is considering violating the NDA because she has spent the vast majority of the settlement money.

That’s ****ing chump change for Fox News, why are you so upset?

Does it matter? If that's true am I supposed to feel bad that Fox didn't get as much value for money as they thought when buying indulgences?