Yeah, sitting around talking about how much you don’t like me is a good example of contributing to the discussion with relevant, interesting, and on-topic posts. Oh wait, I got that backwards.
I think it’s likely that he didn’t, but I don’t think we can say for sure. It would certainly fit the show for him to get his hands on Chuck’s money, try to do something really good with it, then have it fail miserably and end up not sitting on a nice chunk of change by the end.
HHM probably has a policyon Chuck (along with Howard and other equity partners) so that the death of one of them doesn’t require the form to liquidate to pay off the estate of the deceased. Chuck might be doing Howard a huge favor by offing himself - if he hasn’t deposited Howard’s check yet.
Imwonder if Chuck planned his demise to specifically not look like a suicide? A lot of insurance policies and corporate contracts explicitly disallow claims in the event of a suicide.
Chuck went out of his way to kick over that lamp, rather than just eat some pills or hang himself. It might have been sheer desperation and/or a mental break, or it could have been the shrewd lawyer using his skills to ensure that all of his contracts and policies would be honored after he’s gone.
Yes, but I was thinking the comment referred to a policy Chuck had himself with Jimmy ending up as perhaps direct beneficiary. People who lack dependents or have plenty of assets already don’t need their own life insurance policies*, though due to inertia and skilled insurance sales, some do anyway. 
But your point is relevant to a pretty likely plot theme IMO, which is how HMM and Jimmy deal with the situation if a) if Chuck died intestate so the remaining $6mil is now owed to Jimmy, b) HHM doesn’t get a payout from an insurance policy they bought on Chuck’s life to cover it and c) they have trouble coming up with the rest of the money otherwise, as has already been telegraphed as a possibility.
*except policies set up to pay estate tax for heirs, since LI payouts can be structured to be effectively exempt from it.
I just posted on the last page that this doesn’t seem to be the case from my limited research. Since committing suicide is generally considered a sign of mental illness, it would be akin to denying benefits to a person with dementia who wanders into traffic. There is such a thing as a ‘suicide clause’ but that’s only applicable for the first two years of taking out a policy.
http://www.insuranceclarity.com/life/life-insurance-suicide-clause
Would that extend to partnership agreements?
I got the impression Howard’s cheque was sort of a handshake thing - ie, there’s no contract in place; they’re just agreeing Chuck will get his money, Howard will pay him, and Chuck will go away.
Well I couldn’t say but istm that treating suicide differently than other medical ailments would be problematic. I would be kind of surprised that even lawyers would include some kind of suicide clause in their partnership agreement. The 2 year clause makes sense for life insurance policies so that a suicidal person can’t try to cash in; it protects both the insurance company’s bank account and makes suicide less palatable to the insured. I can’t see the rationale for putting it in a senior partnership deal.
If HHM partners have any sense, they have “buy-sell” arrangements, funded by life (and disability, but most commonly life) insurance, on each of the partners for the proportionate value of their partnership. There’s a document drawn up and signed which spells out how the proceeds are used: are the divvied up among the partners proportionately, so they can buy the deceased’s interest? Are the proceeds given to the company, which uses the money to buy the deceased’s interest, turning the shares into treasury stock (or equivalent, based upon corporate structure)? The document spells this out and that’s what will likely happen (in the real world… in BCS, who knows?)
There are various tax consequences depending upon how the policies are paid and collected, but that doesn’t matter for this thread.
I don’t think that’s the case, if they (the HHM partners) are doing that, then they’re taking a big gamble that the named partner who is dangerously unstable to the point that Howard can’t work with him anymore is going to go along with the ‘handshake’ and drop the lawsuit that he’s already started. I don’t think that a whole firm of high-end lawyers would just sort of throw a check at someone and hope they give up their contractual rights, especially when it’s someone who feel entitled to a piece of the firm.
I think that Howard is using his savings and taking loans to buy Chuck’s equity from HHM, which then gives HHM the funds to pay Chuck for his shares like it’s obligated to under the buyout agreement. I don’t think any of it is being done on ‘handshake’ or ‘understanding’ basis, I think it’s all following contracts in every particular so that if Chuck doesn’t back down there’s nothing he can do.
That used to be true decades ago, but the practice died out through a combination of changing laws and a differing view of mental illness. The only time there’s commonly a ‘not in case of suicide’ clause is for the first two years of a life insurance policy. I think if Chuck was trying to deliberately make his death not look like a suicide, it was because of his shame about mental illness - he spent years refusing to believe he had anything but a physical ailment, even though it was really obvious that something mental was going on.
That’s an interesting fact. Surprised no one else has brought it up. 
Good news! Better Call Saul has been renewed for a fourth season in 2018. We suspected it would be so, but now it’s official.
Good to hear. Obviously, it’s a different kind of tension than Breaking Bad was, focussing more on the legal side of things, but a great story in its own right.
With Chuck out of the way I really hope they speed up the “Jimmy Becomes Saul Goodman” aspect of the story, which is what a large number of viewers are really here for.
Agreed.
I love the legal stuff, and I haven’t cared to watch a lawyer drama since Owen Marshall.
But I also love the story BCS tells about Mike’s cop/detective/criminal evolution.
In light of the first quote, I wouldn’t count on it. I predict a near grinding halt while they struggle to make up stuff for another season.
You can look forward to 10 minute scenes of Mike opening a paycheck and depositing it in a bank. 
Funnily enough, I don’t mind that - I just think we’ve dwelt too long on the “Jimmy McGill as an Actual Lawyer™” part of things and I want them to get onto the “Jimmy McGill starts doing increasingly shady things en route to going full Saul Goodman” part of the story (I know they’ve started, but let’s speed it up a bit, yeah?), followed by a couple of series of “The Wacky And Legally Questionable Adventures of Saul Goodman, Attorney At Law”.
Yes even with these ‘artistes’ creating and writing the show, I’d have never believed it if you told me Jimmy still wouldn’t (really, besides ‘SG productions’) be Saul by the end of the third season.
But I still like the show. I’ll watch another season ‘waiting for Saul’ if it’s still good.