Itsux2beaewe
Well-known member
I don’t understand your “same harm” term.It is black letter law that you cannot collect full damages from separate sources for the same harm to receive a windfall just because multiple parties might be liable. MWC has to basically prove 2 things: (1) that the combination of exit fees and poaching penalties is a reasonable estimate of actual harm; and (2) that there was some intervening event or change of circumstances which would justify the MWC to seek additional damages from a separate source for a harm that was presumably figured into the original exit fees determination (my suggestion is that the MWC ceasing to exist only became foreseeable after the PAC blew up and after the exit fees were already in place and then the need for additional penalties to mitigate this additional risk/harm).
Poaching fees and exit fees are different events.