Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T14:43:34.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - The predicament of economic analysis in the courtroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2009

Jeffrey C. Williams
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

As the jury deliberated, Judge Lasker encouraged one last attempt at settlement. Minpeco offered to accept $30 million, close to its offer at the start of the trial six months before and far below the $450 million it might be awarded. Nonetheless, the Hunts, true to their inclinations, hazarded the jury's verdict.

The jury found the defendants liable on virtually every charge against them. It found Bunker Hunt, Herbert Hunt, Lamar Hunt, IMIC, and Mahmoud Fustok liable for manipulation, monopolization, fraud on the market, and conspiracy; it found all but Lamar Hunt liable for racketeering. It awarded Minpeco $65.7 million in damages, an amount trebled under the antitrust and racketeering statutes. Given the $64.7 million received by Minpeco in previous settlements, the defendants therefore became liable for just over $132 million.

Just after the jury's verdict was officially recorded in late August 1988, the Internal Revenue Service obtained a lien on Bunker Hunt's and Herbert Hunt's assets to the full $600 million of taxes that it claimed were due from the early 1980s, principally on silver transactions. Unable to conduct their financial affairs with their assets frozen, on September 21, 1988, Bunker Hunt, Herbert Hunt, their wives, and trusts in their names filed for bankruptcy. The two brothers were forced to divest themselves of most of their personal assets, for instance, Bunker Hunt his prized antique coin collection and racing stables. The Hunt family's major oil holdings, Placid Oil and Penrod Drilling, also filed for bankruptcy.

Type
Chapter
Information
Manipulation on Trial
Economic Analysis and the Hunt Silver Case
, pp. 190 - 215
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×