Remington offers to settle.

[TomMcC]

Looks like Remington is rolling over. Offering 33 million to settle. I wonder why Magpul and the ammo company didn't get sued also? Or did they?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rem...ms-2021-07-27/

[CRAMBONE]

And this is how they win and kill this industry.

Next drunk driver that kills someone I hope the victims family sues the car manufacturer and the booze company.

[BoringGuy45]

Pussies. The whole "never negotiate with terrorists" thing is long gone. When you're a big company like Remington, money is the answer. To them, the cheaper option is just pay out. It's the same reason towns will settle with people who accuse cops of brutality even after all investigations have shown the officer to have been completely in the right. It's the answer to stopping everything: Pay them off. It's cheap now, but all it does is create bigger problems.

There's no legal precedent set at least.

[Straight Shooter]

Yet ANOTHER reason on the already LONG list of reasons I will never ever never buy anything else new again from Remington.

[T2C]

Like it or not, it's mathematics. Apparently Remington's attorneys thought the company would spend a lot more than 33 million by going to trial.

It's not about right or wrong in a lot of civil cases, it's about damage control and spending the least amount of money.

[SteyrAUG]

And this is how they win and kill this industry.

Next drunk driver that kills someone I hope the victims family sues the car manufacturer and the booze company.

And the cell phone provider for the person who was texting while driving. And I guess the onboard touch screen ("look at me instead of the road") computer console company.

[glocktogo]

Looks like Remington is rolling over. Offering 33 million to settle. I wonder why Magpul and the ammo company didn't get sued also? Or did they?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rem...ms-2021-07-27/

This might offer some insight:

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bankr...gton-sold-off/

Yesterday it was announced that Remington Outdoors Co. will be purchased by seven buyers–each taking a different piece or pieces of the once-great American firearms manufacture.

But what does that mean going forward? Is this good news for the average gun-owner or bad?

The winners are, pending final court approval but I would be shocked if there were any take-backs:

Vista Outdoor Inc. bought the Lonoke based ammunitions business and other IP assets
Roundhill Group LLC bought everything firearms that is non-Marlin
Sierra Bullets LLC bought Barnes ammunitions
Sturm, Ruger, & Co. bought Marlin firearms
JJE Capital Holdings LLC won DPMS, H&R, Stormlake, AAC and Parker brands
Franklin Armory Holdings Inc. won Bushmaster brand and some related assets
Sportsman’s Warehouse Inc. won the Tapco brands

So did the real estate company who bought the Remington Arms plant pay the settlement? Or did Franklin Armory Holdings LLC, who "won" the Bushmaster brand, which was the one Lanza used? I wouldn't think "Remington Arms Company" would have any assets at this point?

[TomMcC]

This might offer some insight:

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bankr...gton-sold-off/



So did the real estate company who bought the Remington Arms plant pay the settlement? Or did Franklin Armory Holdings LLC, who "won" the Bushmaster brand, which was the one Lanza used? I wouldn't think "Remington Arms Company" would have any assets at this point?

I was kind of wondering that myself...just who is ponying up the golden denards. Maybe the new "owners" just wanted to put a tourniquet on the bleeding like T2C said.

[czgunner]

Like it or not, it's mathematics. Apparently Remington's attorneys thought the company would spend a lot more than 33 million by going to trial.

It's not about right or wrong in a lot of civil cases, it's about damage control and spending the least amount of money.

Though you may be right, the problem I have is that it sets a precedent. If you win in court, it also sets a precedent that this nonsense doesn't go anywhere.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[T2C]

Though you may be right, the problem I have is that it sets a precedent. If you win in court, it also sets a precedent that this nonsense doesn't go anywhere.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

I agree. The fact that the judge did not dismiss Remington out of the suit is what set the precedent. It should have been done based on product liability immunity (that's a SWAG) if I remember what my lawyer told me correctly. It's no different than suing Ford Motor Company successfully after Mr. Pidasso gets high and drives his F250 through a crowd.

I've been sued in the past and it sucks when the insurance carrier settles out of court for $50,000, because legal costs would exceed that amount by an astronomical figure. If there are no punitive damages, they don't think you have cause to complain about the settlement.