Some of you are getting tired of our wall-to-wall coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. We hate to break it to you, but it’s not changing anytime soon.
In deciding what to cover, we listen more to our tracking software than to individual commenters. And our traffic stats make clear that most of you can’t get enough of this case. Your appetite for more information about Charney v. S&C appears to be insatiable.
(But we’ve decided to give you a break from Charney’s “glistening-smile mug shot,” from the S&C website. For this post, we’ve used a smaller headshot that one of you kindly sent our way.)
In our weekend coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell, we pointed out a New York Post article that referred to Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell as a “$15 million lawsuit.” We wondered where this $15 million figure came from, since Aaron Charney doesn’t specify the amount of damages he seeks in his Complaint (PDF).
A commenter responded:
“$15 million is supposedly the figure AC and his lawyer first demanded in the meeting mentioned in RC’s memo from the firm.”
We followed up with Aaron Charney, who denied this claim. Read more after the jump.
We asked Aaron Charney about the claim that he demanded $15 million from S&C. He responded: “There is no truth to that statement whatsoever.”
As anyone who has ever taken a deposition can tell you, blanket denials can be slippery. So we followed up:
When you say “[t]here is no truth to that statement whatsoever,” can you confirm the correctness of the following:
(1) the words “$15 million” were never spoken by you, your current or former lawyer, or any other representative of yours, to any partner or lawyer or other representative of Sullivan & Cromwell; and
(2) the words “$15 million” were never communicated in writing by you, your current or former lawyer, or any other representative of yours, to any partner or lawyer or other representative of Sullivan & Cromwell.
From Charney: “I can confirm both 1 and 2.”
So where did this $15 million number come from? If you have any thoughts on this, please do share.
Update: This explanation strikes us as credible.
Earlier: Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: A Weekend Newswrap