« cooking for the wrong reasons | Main | heading to pasadena »
12 July 2005
not so prescient?
I'm sorry; I can't resist this one. From today's "Daily Dish" on the SFGate site:Troubled pop star Michael Jackson was sued Monday by the Prescient Acquisition Group, after the singer failed to pay them $48 million in fees for recovering his stake in publishing rights for the Beatles' back catalogue....The company claimed it was entitled to an immediate payment of $24.8 million--9 percent of the funds used to pay off the Bank of America debt and a $3.3 million advance to Jackson and his company MJ Publishing.
A typical definition of "prescient" is having knowledge of an event before it occurs...so it's ironic that the Prescient Acquisition Group now has to pursue a bad client. Shouldn't they have known they'd run into trouble on this deal?
Do you think they get these sorts of jokes all the time? Perhaps they do and they're not angry, because they anticipated them. Or not.
This is the kind of thing that strikes me as funny as I review Corporations for the bar exam...