This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/nyregion/remington-sandy-hook-shooting.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Remington’s Bankruptcy Stalls Ruling in Sandy Hook Families’ Suit Remington’s Bankruptcy Stalls Ruling in Sandy Hook Families’ Suit
(about 5 hours later)
The lawsuit brought by family members of those killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has been watched closely over years of winding its way through the court system. But a new hurdle stands in the way of a much-awaited ruling.The lawsuit brought by family members of those killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has been watched closely over years of winding its way through the court system. But a new hurdle stands in the way of a much-awaited ruling.
Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gunmakers and a defendant in the lawsuit, recently filed for bankruptcy as its sales have declined and debts have mounted. The company manufactured the AR-15-style weapon used by the gunman in the 2012 attack in Newtown, Conn., in which 26 people, including 20 first graders, were killed.Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gunmakers and a defendant in the lawsuit, recently filed for bankruptcy as its sales have declined and debts have mounted. The company manufactured the AR-15-style weapon used by the gunman in the 2012 attack in Newtown, Conn., in which 26 people, including 20 first graders, were killed.
The case is now before the Connecticut Supreme Court, where families brought an appeal with the aim of bringing the case to a jury trial. Remington’s bankruptcy does not guard the company from potential liability, but it has stalled the court from issuing ruling on the lawsuit until the company emerges from the process. The court has been weighing the case after hearing oral arguments last year. The case is now before the Connecticut Supreme Court, where families brought an appeal with the aim of bringing the case to a jury trial. Remington’s bankruptcy does not guard the company from potential liability, but it has stalled the court from issuing a ruling on the lawsuit until the company emerges from the process. The court has been weighing the case after hearing oral arguments last year.
The families’ lawyers contend that the bankruptcy will ultimately have little influence on the case’s viability. “The bankruptcy proceeding doesn’t affect our claim,” said Katie Mesner-Hage, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, nine families who had a relative killed and a teacher who was shot and survived. “The only thing the process does is delay it to some degree.”The families’ lawyers contend that the bankruptcy will ultimately have little influence on the case’s viability. “The bankruptcy proceeding doesn’t affect our claim,” said Katie Mesner-Hage, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, nine families who had a relative killed and a teacher who was shot and survived. “The only thing the process does is delay it to some degree.”
The lawsuit has high stakes for both gun companies and gun-control advocates since it is testing a novel strategy to find a route around the broad protections granted by federal law that shield the companies from litigation if their product is used to commit a crime. Supporters contend that the case, if it makes it to trial, could offer a glimpse into how the gun industry operates and possibly provide a road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings who have otherwise been hamstrung in pursuing legal action. The lawsuit has high stakes for both gun companies and gun-control advocates because it is testing a novel strategy to find a route around the broad protections granted by federal law that shield the companies from litigation if their product is used to commit a crime. Supporters contend that the case, if it makes it to trial, could offer a glimpse into how the gun industry operates and possibly provide a road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings who have otherwise been hamstrung in pursuing legal action.
The case, amid recurring episodes of deadly mass violence, has drawn an intense response. When the lawsuit reached the Connecticut Supreme Court, gun control advocates, school officials and emergency doctors who treated victims of assault rifle fire submitted amicus briefs in favor of the lawsuit. Gun-rights organizations also weighed in, including the National Rifle Association, which argued that the case stood to “eviscerate” the gun companies’ legal protections.The case, amid recurring episodes of deadly mass violence, has drawn an intense response. When the lawsuit reached the Connecticut Supreme Court, gun control advocates, school officials and emergency doctors who treated victims of assault rifle fire submitted amicus briefs in favor of the lawsuit. Gun-rights organizations also weighed in, including the National Rifle Association, which argued that the case stood to “eviscerate” the gun companies’ legal protections.
Remington will remain in business as it reorganizes and unloads hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, according to court records. The process could be expedited because the company is using a so-called prepackaged bankruptcy, which could be completed as early as May. Remington’s lawyers did not respond to messages seeking comment.Remington will remain in business as it reorganizes and unloads hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, according to court records. The process could be expedited because the company is using a so-called prepackaged bankruptcy, which could be completed as early as May. Remington’s lawyers did not respond to messages seeking comment.
The military-style rifle used in the attack was made by Bushmaster, which was bought by a New York private-equity fund in 2006. The $48 billion fund, Cerberus Capital Management, eventually folded Bushmaster into Remington along with other gun companies. Remington is also the target of another high-profile case, a federal class-action lawsuit that claims that trigger defects have caused some of its shotguns to accidentally discharge. The military-style rifle used in the attack was made by Bushmaster, which was bought by a New York private-equity fund in 2006. The $48 billion fund, Cerberus Capital Management, eventually folded Bushmaster into Remington along with other gun companies. Remington is also the target of another high-profile case, a federal class-action lawsuit claiming that trigger defects have caused some of its shotguns to accidentally discharge.
Remington, which has about $950 million in debt, began hinting this year that it was likely to file for bankruptcy. Before the 2016 presidential election, the gun industry had maintained a robust manufacturing operation. But gun sales have plummeted since President Trump won the election; many attribute the decrease to gun buyers believing that the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress would be less inclined to pursue tougher gun-control measures.Remington, which has about $950 million in debt, began hinting this year that it was likely to file for bankruptcy. Before the 2016 presidential election, the gun industry had maintained a robust manufacturing operation. But gun sales have plummeted since President Trump won the election; many attribute the decrease to gun buyers believing that the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress would be less inclined to pursue tougher gun-control measures.
Remington recently hired Lazard, a financial advisory firm, as the company devised its restructuring plans and searched for financing for its reorganization. Lazard approached more than 30 potential lenders on Remington’s behalf before finding financial companies willing to give them a loan, according to court filings. A Lazard representative wrote that many lenders “indicated that they were reluctant to provide financing to firearms manufacturers.” And even some of the ones who ended up lending Remington money had their names redacted from court documents.Remington recently hired Lazard, a financial advisory firm, as the company devised its restructuring plans and searched for financing for its reorganization. Lazard approached more than 30 potential lenders on Remington’s behalf before finding financial companies willing to give them a loan, according to court filings. A Lazard representative wrote that many lenders “indicated that they were reluctant to provide financing to firearms manufacturers.” And even some of the ones who ended up lending Remington money had their names redacted from court documents.
Susheel Kirpalani, a bankruptcy lawyer who has been consulting the Sandy Hook families’ legal team, said that he and others have been scouring Remington’s voluminous filings and disclosure documents, looking for anything in the complex financial transactions that might affect the Sandy Hook lawsuit. The company’s filings indicate that creditors, including the Sandy Hook plaintiffs, would be “unimpaired” by the Chapter 11 process, which means that the lawsuit can resume after the reorganized Remington emerges from bankruptcy. Susheel Kirpalani, a bankruptcy lawyer who has been consulting the Sandy Hook families’ legal team, said that he and others had been scouring Remington’s voluminous filings and disclosure documents, looking for anything in the complex financial transactions that might affect the Sandy Hook lawsuit. The company’s filings indicate that creditors, including the Sandy Hook plaintiffs, would be “unimpaired” by the Chapter 11 process, which means that the lawsuit can resume after the reorganized Remington emerges from bankruptcy.
Even so, beyond the bankruptcy, the Sandy Hook lawsuit has faced long odds of success.Even so, beyond the bankruptcy, the Sandy Hook lawsuit has faced long odds of success.
Congress granted gun companies industrywide immunity from blame when one of their products is used in a crime. But the law, enacted in 2005, includes exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of so-called negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it.Congress granted gun companies industrywide immunity from blame when one of their products is used in a crime. But the law, enacted in 2005, includes exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of so-called negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it.
The lawsuit argues that Remington — along with a wholesaler and dealer, which were also named in the suit — erred by entrusting an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield. It also asserts that the companies relied on advertising, with messages of combat dominance and slogans like “Consider your man card reissued,” that appealed specifically to disturbed young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman.The lawsuit argues that Remington — along with a wholesaler and dealer, which were also named in the suit — erred by entrusting an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield. It also asserts that the companies relied on advertising, with messages of combat dominance and slogans like “Consider your man card reissued,” that appealed specifically to disturbed young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman.
The gun companies contend that federal law shields them from the families’ claims, and a lower court judge agreed, dismissing the lawsuit in 2016.The gun companies contend that federal law shields them from the families’ claims, and a lower court judge agreed, dismissing the lawsuit in 2016.
Still, the families believe that the companies bear a measure of responsibility. “The families’ ultimate goal in filing the lawsuit is accountability,” Ms. Mesner-Hage said.Still, the families believe that the companies bear a measure of responsibility. “The families’ ultimate goal in filing the lawsuit is accountability,” Ms. Mesner-Hage said.