Yes. In addition, there is often a severe penalty clause for breaching the confidentiality provisions. Defendants sometimes put in language that even requires the entire settlement amount to be paid back if the confidentiality is breached. (Most plaintiffs would never agree to that, but it’s an example of what I’m talking about)
The British press usually doesn’t care about such trivialities. And if they don’t have the numbers, they’ll just make them up.
At first I thought this was a good idea, until I realized the defendant could contrive a way to leak the info, thus getting all their money back. Is that a credible scenario?
If it leaks from a law office, is the penalty monetary or strictly punitive, like suspension of license or something similar?
Yeah, I touched on that above where, at the time I read them, the UK tabloids had numbers all over the place on their covers. The US sources I had read up to that point never mentioned any amounts. I assume US outlets are probably quoting all the guesses from places like The Daily Mail by now.
-
Generally, they’d have to prove who leaked it. Stupid plaintiffs posting on social media, or something like that. Just the fact that the information got out wouldn’t be enough to prove a breach of the deal. I’ve never had a client accused of violating a confidentiality agreement. (Liquidated damages provisions are not favored either, and have to be reasonable. I could see a judge enforcing a $10,000 or $20,000 penalty for violation, but I wouldn’t expect a rescission of the whole deal.)
-
I’ve never seen it happen, but I can imagine the possibility of a bar sanction for disclosing confidential information. Confidentiality agreements are common (too common, in my opinion) Violations of them are very, very rare. You’d expect more, but I guess people take them very seriously. (and most plaintiffs are perfectly happy not telling the world how much money they just recovered)
Virginia Giuffre didn’t sign a NDA. I expect a book and movie deal within a year.
It’s interesting that Andrew can not publicly deny the charges.
Thanks no @Northern_Piper and @Procrustus for all the law related answers, they helped a lot.
I understand why so many cases are settled out of court or have plea deals, but it irks me a bit that being wealthy or having a wealthy family, let’s you buy your way out of trouble. From the sounds of it, at least Andrew can’t claim publicly that he didn’t rape Giuffre anymore. She must have had a hell of a bargaining position.
I see there is a bit of noise in the UK about whether public monies will be used to help pay this off. Money being fungible, I’m not sure you could really tell where it originally comes from.
Generally, the people who don’t have those resources are much less likely to get sued in the first place, and if they do get sued, a commensurate number of zeroes will get knocked off of any expectations on the other side. The risks here were (A) prolonged bad publicity, which normal people aren’t exposed to and (B) having to pay a huge amount of money, which normal people don’t have.
As soon as I saw your post, I remembered this
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking of too. As I stated, this almost never happens. I’m sure people tell their best friends, etc., but no one cares if it doesn’t get out more broadly.
Probably true, but also I suspect that Liz told him to get off his high horse about “clearing his name” at trial, and told him in no uncertain terms to settle at whatever terms he could get. And she’s his bankroll.
Great example. I wonder if the parents are still deducting it from her allowance? 
Yeah, there’s a lot of reporting she wanted this over before her jubilee this year. When you control the purse strings, you pretty much call the shots.
In the US, there seem to be quite a few suits like this that are job related that end up being settled for much smaller amounts. I assume you don’t have that a lot over there because of your different labor laws.
It does make a, er, hard man humble.
The case has been settled. Or so it seems.
What is Prince Andrew’s status now? I take it Charles was furious with Andrew so maybe he’s persona non grata from now on?
Charles probably was a big part of the discussions and decision making on what was done with Andy. Andy won’t be getting any of his rank and privilege back and, if anything, it will get worse for him. Note that one of his daughters got an effective promotion so it is him and him alone who suffers.
He’ll live out his days in a grace and favour cottage with just enough of an allowance to keep him out of sight. Also him and Fergie are charged with caring for the Queen’s surviving dogs.
As a fuck-you, Charles should name him Duke of Windsor.
The Tower of London is there for a reason.
Might be legal issues with that these days.
Heck of a tourist attraction if they can pull it off, though.