The Attorney General’s office has hired 11 outside firms on Project Neon condemnation cases. Anyone know who the lucky firms are? [RJ]
Looks like another lawsuit against Gordon Silver for monies owed. Case A-15-720985-C.
Maybe Gordon Silver should have gotten into construction defect plaintiff work–this article says that the firm of Canepa Riedy & Rubino made more than $200 million in fees from construction defect cases. [RJ]
No harm, no foul for Metro if they’re shooting at you, but you shoot yourself first. [RJ; LasVegasNow]
Seems like civil forfeiture is getting a lot of attention lately. [RJ]
Recycled propaganda interspersed with with quotes from people who don't know you-know-what from Shinola. I think the RJ is probably down to five or six employees at this point, so it's just a matter of reprinting press releases as "news."
Guest
Anonymous
July 8, 2015 3:16 am
Plaintiff suing Gordon Silver is Susquehanna Commercial Finance Inc
The complaint alleges that G&S owes more than $450,000 on some equipment leases. This includes payments to the end of the lease, so obviously the amount "technically" in default to this date is much lower. But obviously they have no need for so much equipment going forward, so yes, there's a problem here with future payments as well.
Interesting. I wonder if the GS attorneys left the equipment at the GS office or took it when they scattered. Maybe those who left just left the problem in the hands of the attorneys who were left there thinking it would become their problem.
Scott Canepa is a genius.
Thanks Scott!
Clever, that joke never gets old. Grow up.
Recycled propaganda interspersed with with quotes from people who don't know you-know-what from Shinola. I think the RJ is probably down to five or six employees at this point, so it's just a matter of reprinting press releases as "news."
Plaintiff suing Gordon Silver is Susquehanna Commercial Finance Inc
How much does GS purportedly owe the finance company?
The complaint alleges that G&S owes more than $450,000 on some equipment leases. This includes payments to the end of the lease, so obviously the amount "technically" in default to this date is much lower. But obviously they have no need for so much equipment going forward, so yes, there's a problem here with future payments as well.
Interesting. I wonder if the GS attorneys left the equipment at the GS office or took it when they scattered. Maybe those who left just left the problem in the hands of the attorneys who were left there thinking it would become their problem.