Will Companies Get Backlash from Justice’s Decision

That’s the financial bottom line – not exactly a hard hit for B.T.L. or M.M.R. But what about the moral low ground where Justice Abel claims both B.T.L. and M.M.R. tread? Will it affect the businesses in the short or long term where public sentiment is concerned?

Naima Barrow, Attorney for M.M.R.

Naima Barrow

“I think this is a black eye and black eyes can be allowed to fade or they can be dressed up. So it is a matter for them as a matter of business strategy what they will do with the black eye. Because what the Judge has not insinuated but said is that there was something shady happening between B.T.L. and my client. I doubt seriously that B.T.L. who we all know isn’t going anywhere will allow this to stand.”

Magali Perdomo

Magali Perdomo, Attorney for B.T.L.

“It was a case that was before the Court. We presented evidence and arguments and the judgment was handed down. I don’t know how it could be that the entire company suffers a moral hit because of one claimant and one claim. As Counsel for M.M.R. has said we are all agreed on the law. What we disagreed on was the Judge’s interpretation of the evidence. And in fact the judgment does say that the decision was based on circumstances and circumstantial evidence. So it’s not substantial direct evidence. So I will be speaking to my client and taking instructions on the appeal. It’s not a place we’re comfortable with at all.”

Attorneys for B.T.L. and M.M.R. fought vigorously over the assessment of costs – to be split evenly between both defendants. With a legal impasse reached, Justice Abel agreed to hear further arguments on costs after which he will make a determination.