How Much Will Plaintiffs Get if Glazer’s Lawsuit Against Nxivm Is Successful?

It really boils down to the math.

This whole lawsuit business – the Glazer lawsuit against Nxivm – it’s all in the math.

I will explain shortly.

But first, let’s set out the questions.

This is done for me, happily, by our favorite future curmudgeon, Bangkok.

In response to my article, More Crimes of Clare Bronfman – As Alleged in Glazer Lawsuit – She Financed, Procured, Groomed and Provided Sexual Servants for Raniere, Bangkok raises some interesting questions and makes a clear point – at what monetary level will this lawsuit be settled.

Clearly, Bangkok understands the delicate conflict of interest between the lawyers – getting 33.3 percent of whatever money they take in and the fact that there are 80 plaintiffs sharing the other 66.6 percent.

Let us permit Bangkok to comment in his own inimitable way, then I will reply and, hopefully, give some clarification to the economics – what it really means – to the plaintiffs in dollars and cents – and also to the lawyers and, of course, the defendants:

By Bangkok

Great article, Frank.

But despite your prediction, a ‘settlement’ is guaranteed here.

With the lower standard of “preponderance of evidence” in civil cases, Clare will understand that she can’t sway a jury to support her and she’ll lose too much of her fortune if she leaves it to a jury (i.e., swaying 1 or 2 holdout jurors won’t work in a civil case).

It’s not about her stupidity. It’s about her self survival instinct.

That’s in addition to the ‘incriminating evidence’ that such a trial might provide (to the DOJ) for another round of racketeering indictments, possibly against Sara too.

My favorite picture of  Clare [l] and Sara Bronfman, so happy, so giddy, so destructive.
Clare, Sara and [Rosa Laura] Junco just can’t withstand the discovery process and a trial.

Sara moved to France to avoid this shit. Then she moved to Portugal. She’s uprooted her life to avoid this shit and there’s no way she’s gonna go to trial with this. She can’t win. Zero chance. So she’ll settle.

…and if Sara settles, she’ll likely convince Clare to settle. These sisters stick together. …and if Clare settles, Junco will settle too since she’s not gonna buck Legatus.

To put it another way…

How Sara goes, so goes the rest of them. 🙂

What about Keith’s wishes?

Since Keith is also a defendant (and they are still likely loyal to him), it’s possible that Keith will order them all not to settle.

He’ll do it just for spite, just to destroy these gals as much as possible — so they can’t move on with their wealthy lives while he flounders in prison. If Keith can’t have these girls or their money anymore (cuz he’s in prison), then he won’t want anybody else to have them or their money. He’ll want their reputations and their fortunes destroyed as much as possible IMO.

[Editor’s Note:  At this point, I think it is appropriate to publish some pictures of the root cause of the lawsuit – Keith Alan Raniere. But, in accordance with fair publishing standards––] 

Upsetting Picture Ahead Proceed with —

Knowing Keith Raniere – even for a little while – is a hair raising experience and enough, in many instances, to destroy one’s life.

 

Women and children are advised to flee if they see anything resembling this wretch either by appearance or behavior.

 

This photo of Keith Alan Raniere was used as an exhibit at his trial.

Now back to Bangkok…

However, as Keith gets sentenced to prison (for life) and the Bronfmans begin realizing that remaining with Keith means losing more of their fortunes and possibly more of their freedoms, I think they’ll have no choice but to begin doing anything they can to spare their money and freedom as much as possible.

Just as India Oxenberg eventually broke free from the spell when she realized it was in her best interests, so too will the Bronfmans.

India Oxenberg got away from Nxigm. This photo of her is during her last few weeks of being a Nxivm/DOS  slave in NYC.  Photo Courtesy Daily Mail.

At some point, they will accept the reality that Keith is no longer their Vanguard even if they don’t wanna accept that reality, since at some point they’ll realize “it’s either him or me”.

They’ll settle.

The only question is, HOW MUCH can Neil get from these wealthy women?

You haven’t answered this question, Frank, you fucken PUSSY.

How much would Neil likely accept to avoid a lengthy trial and to avoid years of further litigation to break various ‘trusts’ — just to get the money quickly? That’s the real question.

I’m guessing that Neil will settle for much less than we might anticipate, as his firm will likely get 1/3 of the settlement.

It’s possible the Bronfmans might outsmart Neil here, by getting him to settle for pennies on the dollar compared to what an actual jury trial might give his clients. Do his clients wanna wait years to litigate (and collect from various ‘trusts’) or do they want pennies on the dollar now?

Neil Glazer – what will the settlement be?

I’m guessing he’ll settle for relative chump change, especially when you divide up the loot among 80 clients.

I’d rather hear your insight into this topic, Frank, if you have the balls to make such a prediction and stop being such a PUSSY.

 

My Response to Bangkok

by Frank Parlato

These are such good questions Bangkok and that is why I chose to answer you in this post and, of course, demonstrate [though that is not the reason] whether I am a pussy or not.

The lawyers get a third of the settlement or award at trial.

Assuming, for sake of argument, that the 80 plaintiffs share in the verdict in roughly equal amounts [though that may not be the case at all] the basic math – which you, Bangkok, have already figured out is that:

Neil and the attorneys get 33.3 percent – and the 80 plaintiffs collectively get 66.6 percent – after any out-of-pocket lawsuit-related expenses are deducted from the settlement figure (e.g., fees paid to private investigators, expert witnesses, deposition transcrtibers; copying fees; filing fees; etc.).

So, the plaintiffs each get a little less than one percent [0.8 percent] of the “net” amount of the settlement figure.

Herein lies a curious kind of potential conflict. Not just with Neil but in all class actions or multiple plaintiff lawsuits.

The lawyers make more than the plaintiffs.

For example, a $10 million net settlement means Neil and his law firm get $3.3 million – a pretty good payday – and the plaintiffs get $82,500 each. A not so good payday for many of them.

A $20 million net settlement means Neil and his law firm gets $6.6 million – and plaintiffs get $165,000 each.

So, you see the proportions vastly favors the lawyers.

Would Neil settle for $10 or $20 million and rake in a $3 or $6 million payday?

That’s hard to say.

Would Clare, Sara and Rosa Laura even offer that much to settle – say each of them chipping in about $7 million each – to make this lawsuit go away?

Rosa Laura Junco offered her teen daughter to Keith Alan Raniere [See his photos above].
In the old Raniere days, a settlement would have never happened. They would have spent more than $20 million just to fight a la Raniere.

Now, with the madman in prison, it would be wise probably to settle fast – if, of course, Neil can persuade his plaintiffs to take $20 million.

Maybe he can – especially since going to trial might mean years of waiting and involves the risk of losing. And the risk of winning but not getting paid.

A fast settlement means cash in hand, not years of waiting in the bush.

Also, since most of the plaintiffs are rather timid and do not want their names known publicly, the quicker it is settled, the quicker they can anonymously get their money and put this behind them.

Besides that, if it went to trial, let’s be candid – it will take several years. Let’s project a trial date for late 2023 or early 2024.

If Neil wins at trial, there is actually a pretty good chance it will be appealed and no money will be paid after the victory in court.

If he wins on appeal, say in 2026, Neil will get judgments against the main three defendants [only three have any money anyway – the Bronfmans and Rosa Laura Junco – these are the true targets of the lawsuit.]

However, the Bronfmans and Rosa Laura might manage to get their assets out of the USA [if they have not already] and there will be no US federal jurisdiction to collect on the judgments.

In fact, one of the big issues is whether or not Neil can pierce Clare’s and Sara’s trusts to collect on the lawsuit or whether their trusts are immune from civil judgments against them personally.

No, the trial route is a long, long road and fraught with impediments.

Settling is the way, of course, as Bangkok points out.

But will the three wealthy nuts settle?

I think the strongest hand Neil has is that the process of discovery and depositions make the three women with money quite vulnerable to revelations of more crimes. The EDNY will be watching.

There is a chance that by prolonging the civil case through to trial will expose Sara, Clare and Rosa Laura  [Rosa Laura is the one who offered her virgin daughter to Raniere] to more criminal exposure and more horrendous embarrassment [especially for Rosa Laura].

If either Rosa Laura or Sara has a chance of quietly living their lives, a settlement might seem attractive.

So, what will it mean to the plaintiffs?

Let’s say in court Neil wins a $100 million judgment – $33 million for his firm and $825,000 for each plaintiff – in 2026.

It would be great, but I think the odds of collecting all if it is almost nil.

If, on the other hand, Neil could get say $30 million within a year by settlement – a long shot but not impossible [$10 million each for the three moneyed defendants] – that’s $10 million for the lawyers and $250,000 per plaintiff.

Not a bad payday.

That figure $30 million, I believe, is the extreme upper end of what might be expected in settlement.

The lower end of a settlement might be $6 million, with $2 million to lawyers and $50,000 per plaintiff.

Of course, there is always the chance at zero. No settlement, no successful result at trial, no collection of the money awarded at trial.

In any event, were I one of the plaintiffs, I would not count on retiring from this lawsuit but rather hope to get some recompense for the troubles of life caused by Nxivm.

I believe the plaintiffs have a very good and serious lead lawyer and a solid team backing him up. There is a reason the lawyers make more.

Neil has about three or four years of his life into this, full time. His law firm took all the risk and made the investment of money and time.  With so much into it already, the likelihood of a good outcome is pretty good.

Just keep in mind the realities. This is not a get rich quick scheme for the plaintiffs.

Although it is not inconceivable the lawyers may get rich.

That is how the system is set up and when you consider that the alternative for the plaintiffs is no lawsuit and nothing at all – I would hazard a guess that a settlement where they get something – even if it is far less than what they think they deserve – is better than the alternative.

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Neil will win a $200 million dollar judgment and everyone walks away with more than $1.5 million.

Time will tell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


About the author

Frank Parlato

29 Comments

Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply

  • I don’t know if the class action lawsuit will even hold up, the experiences of the various plaintiffs may not be similar enough. Amway was willing to pay off the plaintiff lawyers $25 million in the Pokorny v. Quixtar lawsuit after they spent years negotiating, in order to not progress to the discovery step. The benefits to the class were estimated to be anywhere from $50 million to $150 million. Some of those costs were money that was supposed to be put into programs and not in the plaintiffs’ pockets. Amway first offered about $150/distributor in products but hardly anyone signed up, then they doubled it to get more people to respond, but I don’t think it helped much. Even though the payout for products assumed full retail price, it only cost Amway about 20% to make them. Amway also paid those who lost higher amounts of money, but that amounted to about 5% of the tool scam losses, not other overhead or expensive products compensation One thing is almost always true – the lawyers win. This lawsuit may not be over for years even if the class is approved, which could take a year or more by itself.

  • Still jealous of Attorney Glazer, are you Dennis?

    You have way too much time on your hands..Has the “fixer” business slowed with your corrupt Mexican political friends on the run?

    • LOL, yet here you are reading this stuff on your own time. 🙂

      Who’s more foolish, the author or the ‘fool’ who takes the time to read each day from the foolish author? 🙂

      Seems like you enjoy reading from the person you seem to hate most. Talk about a weird way to spend your time. 🙂

      Hint: Most people simply ignore articles which they consider to be foolish and not worthy of reading. Have a nice day.

  • To make the idiotic suggestion that the other plaintiffs get as much as Toni who was patient zero is nuts. She deserves more than the other tadpoles all our together. Grow up fool.

      • Another Nicki Cline, Shadow? Wow, you really have a skill for catching them!!! Does this one hate A.M. or love her? Do you have a spreadsheet to document them all and what their different motives and agendas for posting comments are! Keep up the good work old man.. without your diligence, the world would have been invaded by Nicki Clines 🙂 #comedygild

  • Dani should get her own attorney!!!!

    Dani does not need the other plaintiffs!!!

    Neil and the other plaintiffs need Dani!!!

    Dani, you are the one who has real damages!!!!!

    I hope you contact other plaintiff attorneys.

    You have a right to change counsel.

    You have a right to compensation above what the other plaintiffs are entitled to.

    Please contact another law firm!!!!

    • I totally agree. I hope she sees your comment, niceguy 3.0
      People like Natalie are using her. Niceguy, who should she get instead?

    • Dani may collect more than the others, you nitwit. It’s very common for key plaintiffs to be paid more than the others. Glazer is the one who took the risk to put the lawsuit together in the first place, he deserves to be paid. And I don’t like lawyers.

    • By herself, Dani is rather unsympathetic. She’s an illegal alien who shouldn’t have been here in the first place. The opposing lawyers would rip her a new one if she was by herself, there is safety in numbers.

  • I’m still not convinced there’s really even any money to be had from Junco, if she just lives off an allowance from her father and doesn’t have any major assets in her own name, and particularly if they’re not in this country. However, in the case of a pre-trial settlement, I could see her father kicking in some money just to avoid having the family name dragged through the mud, not to mention the legal expenses.

    I’d also expect Glazer to attempt to prevent Clare’s assets from being moved outside the country, once they are released from the bond arrangements she has made in her criminal case. But I don’t know just how such things work.

    The trust/s that Clare set up not long ago in New York that are part of her bond arrangement, might be pierced. From what I’ve seen referenced in articles, both the Bronfmans probably have a lot of money that is likely in old trusts that are non only judgment-proof, but even the income from which can be protected from being garnished by creditors.

    • You’re wrong about their trusts being judgment proof.

      Frank, can you confirm (from the bail hearing articles) if Clare’s $100M trust is truly “irrevocable” and that she cannot replace the trustee or move the trust assets at her sole discretion?

      I’m talking about the big trust for $100M, not the smaller trust for legal fees (the smaller one is irrevocable for sure).

      With regard to the $100M trust —– I’m pretty sure that Clare retains the right to move the money to a different firm and to replace the current trustee at her sole discretion, if she doesn’t like the way this current trustee is making decisions.

      If that’s really true, she retains a lot of control and the court would likely be able to collect a judgment from it.

      As for Sara… She seems to spend money like water, thus I doubt she’s getting permission from a trustee everytime she wants to buy something. She seems to buy assets/homes/hotels at her own discretion —- with either herself, her husband, her managers or her companies listed as the owners.

      Doesn’t sound like her assets are all tied up in irrevocable trusts.

      • BTW: Even if the trust is irrevocable…

        If the trust was created AFTER an event happened which made Clare suspect that she may be the target of a future lawsuit (i.e., if the trust was created AFTER the NY Times branding article was published, lol) —— then the court can dismantle the trust and claw back any assets transferred to it.

        Why?

        Cuz it’s not legal to transfer assets outside of your own possession IF you have reason to suspect that you may be sued for those assets.

        I just don’t see this trust as being judgment proof.

        • *If you transfer assets to a trust at a time when you can already ‘foresee’ a specific lawsuit based on specific claims (even if it hasn’t been filed yet) then you run the risk of having the court declare your ‘trust’ invalid based on fraudulent transfer laws.

          Asset protection is only 100% effective when you cannot foresee any specific lawsuits at the time you transfer the assets into the trust. Asset protection is meant to protect against unforeseen lawsuits in the future, not to dodge a foreseeable lawsuit that hasn’t been filed yet.

          The NY Times article would be an obvious red flag that lawsuits are imminent (based on the claims in the article).

      • I wrote that the newer trusts – which hold about $50 million, with another $50 million in other assets being used to meet the bond amount – might be pierced.

        Bronfman’s wealth has been estimated as high as $500 million, so there’s obviously a lot of money elsewhere – and I’ve seen specific reference to older trusts, seemingly set up by their grandfather (though there are apparently ones set up by her father as well). That’s money the principal and income (in the tens of millions of dollars per year) from which are typically shielded through complex but effective legal and financial mechanisms available to the wealthy.

  • People like to attack Neil Glazer because he and his team of attorneys are handling this case on a contingency basis.
    What that means is that if Glazer happens to lose this case, Glazer and the attorneys get nothing, zero, zilch.
    The plaintiffs do not have to put money up front to be represented in court.

    Since Glazer is suing under the civil provisions of the Federal RICO law the damages can be TRIPLED!
    For example if Jane Doe #61 has suffered 10,000 dollars in damages, then Jane Doe #61 gets 30,000 dollars in damages.
    Plus all attorney fees are paid for by the LOSING DEFENDANTS.

    “RICO contains a civil component that allows it to be used to turn ordinary business disputes that would be filed in state courts into federal cases. Proving a violation results in the award of triple damages plus attorney’s fees, so plaintiffs have an incentive to look for ways to turn their grievances into a RICO suit.”
    RICO Lawsuits Are Tempting, but Tread Lightly
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/business/dealbook/harvey-weinstein-rico.html

    Another factor:
    Even with the defendants who appear to have nothing, Glazer will want to make sure that they are held liable so that even if they win the state lottery in a few years that lottery money goes to pay the plaintiffs.

    Yet another factor:
    Glazer wants to guarantee that the plaintiffs are kept anonymous in perpetuity.
    Why?
    So that more people will want to come forward and be added as plaintiffs.

    If you had asked the NXIVM defendants a few years ago who RICO is they would have said “Some Mexican guy.”

    • “Glazer wants to guarantee that the plaintiffs are kept anonymous in perpetuity.
      Why?
      So that more people will want to come forward and be added as plaintiffs.”
      Was this written in the request to the court Shadow?

    • I know what a contingency basis is…

      Most plaintiffs’ attorneys settle cases, and in the event a case does go to trial, the attorney will hire outside counsel [trial attorney] to help him.

      Dani is the individual who has “real” true irrefutable damages. She does not need to be part of the class-action lawsuit. There is no reason why Dani should receive a “share” when she deserves the bulk.

      Mark Vicente? Toni Natalie?

      Are you kidding me?

    • The esteemed barrister from the Backwater of Brotherly Love has two problems as I see it:

      1) Toni Nutalie keeping her stories straight under even mild cross-examination.

      2) How does Team Plaintiff marginalize the fact that Sarah Edmondson was no minor player in NXIVM for many years? A wise attorney for the defendants might gently point out that nothing Sarah did as an actress would have put her ANYWHERE in The New York Times. It was only a sheepish act of blind trust which landed Sarah on the front page.

      Frank, I know Edmondson and Catherine Oxenberg were very important in bringing down Raniere/Salzman/Bronfman. As to the former, I think a less complicit relator would have presented themselves in due time. As to the latter, we get near-daily heaping helpings of Kreuk/Mack, but rarely hear about India?

      Sorry, F. Lee Shadow, for interrupting your most excellent lecture on Civil RICO, treble damages and contingency fees. If I was in my third year at a two-year community college, I might be rather impressed.

    • And if you had asked Shadowstate in 2016 who Keith Alan Raniere, Nancy Salzman, Lauren Salzman or Toni Natalie was, Shadow would have had to run to Wikipedia faster than Vanguard allegedly ran the 100 yard dash.

      I am fairly certain Shadowstate was familiar with one of the tortfeasors named in Glazer’s lawsuit. To put it in Dudian terms, Chloe really tied Shadow’s room together.

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato Investigates

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many, many others in all five continents.

His work helping take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg; “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson; “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La secta que sedujo al poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been featured prominently on HBO’s documentary “The Vow” and acted as lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.”

Parlato will be featured in an upcoming episode of American Greed.

If the whole world stands against you sword in hand, would you still dare to do what you think is right?

Got A Tip?

If you have a tip for Frank Report, send it here.
Email: frankparlato@gmail.com
Phone / Text: (716) 990-5740

Archives

Frank Parlato’s IMDB page

Frank Parlato’s IMDB page
%d bloggers like this: