Can they actually do this?
Here’s some News of the World news to spin the heads of American lawyers. According to British media law star Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (whom The Times of London has dubbed “Mr Media”), Rupert Murdoch’s soon-to-be shuttered tabloid may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway. That could mean that dozens of sports, media, and political celebrities who claim News of the World hacked into their telephone accounts won’t be able to find out exactly what the tabloid knew and how it got the information.
If News of the World is to be liquidated, Stephens told Reuters, it “is a stroke of genius—perhaps evil genius.”
Under British law, Stephens explained, all of the assets of the shuttered newspaper, including its records, will be transferred to a professional liquidator (such as a global accounting firm). The liquidator’s obligation is to maximize the estate’s assets and minimize its liabilities. So the liquidator could be well within its discretion to decide News of the World would be best served by defaulting on pending claims rather than defending them. That way, the paper could simply destroy its documents to avoid the cost of warehousing them—and to preclude any other time bombs contained in News of the World’s records from exploding.
“Why would the liquidator want to keep [the records]?” Stephens said. “Minimizing liability is the liquidator’s job.”
That’s a very different scenario, Stephens said, from what would happen if a newspaper in the U.S. went into bankruptcy. In the U.S., a plaintiff (or, for that matter, a criminal investigator) could obtain a court order barring that kind of document destruction. In the U.K., there’s no requirement that the estate retain its records, nor any law granting plaintiffs a right to stop the liquidator from getting rid of them.
edited 7th Jul '11 2:52:34 PM by Pentadragon
So what is it they are complaining about exactly? That Murdoch didn't ask them what they wanted to do about the Not W closure and the loss of jobs?
The British Government needs to exercise some of that frigging authority and take the records off their hands for free.
edited 7th Jul '11 2:52:51 PM by Barkey
Permanently Banned
No, consultation period means the time during which people need to be informed before mass redundancies. They can't just shut up shop and stop paying people overnight, they have to be paid for a legal period after they've been told of their redundancy.
Edit: Ninjad.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yes, it does look like Murdoch is doing a cut and run before more of his conglomerate's illicit activities are exposed and before his dragon Rebekah Brooks is personally implicated.
edited 7th Jul '11 2:56:15 PM by Shichibukai
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]
So in other words it's like getting your two week lay-off notice and then collecting pay for a period of time?
Sort of, though in some cases its MUCH longer than 2 weeks.
V
Months, in fact, depending on the contract.
edited 7th Jul '11 2:57:20 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Permanently Banned
I couldn't resist.
Ideologically, I agree with shutting down NOTW. On principle, no. Innocent workers are being sacked because of the work done by people who have left the company ages ago.
Hopefully, this will be a wakeup call to Cameron that being chummy with media people does not bode well. This is one, small step to making sure that in the future, my grandkids (if I get kids in the first place) will live in a Britain without the controlling hand of a scumba... I mean, Rupert Murdoch.
Well there is always the fact that when he dies its all going to go the way of the Macedonain empire and collapse into interfactional fighting.
Anwalt der Verdammten
That youtube vid made my day. 
Anyways, does anyone know of any similar stories of journalists illegally tapping phones, I'm curious about any precedents.
The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.
Well, this has been going on in most of the tabloids since about '02, '03, but News Int'l (ironic - they only operate in Britain) are the biggest offenders.
It's not amazing that Brooks hasn't been banged up. Oh wait... who's chummy with a couple of Whitehall guys?
I am perfectly open to the possibility that all the red tops are as bad as each other, it is just that only the NOTW that has been cracked open at the moment and that is why all the other red tops are keeping shtum.
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
Watching Channel 4 News tonight, I felt really gutted for the associate news editor of the News being interviewed. He revealed that he'd been given his 90 days notice, and a career uninterrupted since leaving school (the guy looked about 50) was now in tatters.
Ain't nothing sadder than watching a grown man cry. Okay so he didn't, but looked like he was about to.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
^ It is kinda sad that what could have been a small minority of people have completely buggered over a whole bunch of people. And "I worked at News of the World" isn't gonna look great on a CV.
Exactly. The people who work there have played no part at all in this, and hell, may even have journalistic integrity. On an ideological level, closing down NOTW is great. On a realistic and human level, it is just terrible.
What's even more terrible is that British Sky Broadcasting is CEO'd by an American. And the government is chaired by an Australian.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Wow they really put their foot in it.
Who watches the watchmen?
Why am I not surprised.
Murdoch is an amoral man with nothing in his heart but Greed. Ironic, ironic, ironic!
He sponsors an ostensibly Christian Right group, yet he is a black hearted villain. I'd go so far as to say that he probably calls himself Louis Cypher...
This whole thing is nothing new, most likely, he has been doing this for a long time, in all likelihood.
The loss of jobs is made even worse by the fact that Rebekah Brooks (editor at the time the hackings happened) still has a secure job. She claims she didn't know how what was going on, but even if that's true, she should have done, and it's more her fault than the majority of the staff. She needs to resign, just as a matter of principle.
Gunpla is amazing!
I dont like the jackhole either but theres no proof that he was behind this...yet.
Yes. But, for some reason, we want her out, and yet there's no-one telling her.
Also, I'd like to see the views of someone who was pro-this. They won't make sense, but you know.
He's getting there. He already owns Parliament, he might as well become the figurehead. I'm sure Cameron would let his nice foreign sc..chum. (Note: not anti-immigration. Anti-Murdoch <glare in eyes>)
Well, before it really blew up they might have tried to justify the hackings as just getting the truth, but with the list of victims now being what it is, and that they apparently destroyed evidence, I'm sure everyone accused of being involved will just dissolve into "It wasn't me, honest!" I'd be very surprised if anyone still tried to justify it.
edited 8th Jul '11 1:05:40 AM by ArlaGrey
"...honest." When that word comes out of a News Int'l exec as the truth, then I'll have seen everything.
'80s TV Action Hero
Wake me up when they break out the pitchforks. I'd hate to miss that.
'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'
Ex-Editor Andy Coulson is arrested
Oh, and apparently Brooks did hand in a resignation, but News International didn't accept it. That is just stupid.
@ Barkley (last page):
Basically it means you ask for people's views on a provisional proposal, and see what results, and modify the proposal if needed (or if you feel like it).
edited 7th Jul '11 2:50:40 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On