Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : SABRATEK CORP (SBTK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mod who wrote (230)	6/29/1999 7:19:00 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 487

If you bothered to read the article I gave you, you would have read that it was abuse of process, not defamation, and the circumstances were totally different. Milberg was clearly trying to destroy Lexecon out of spite, by naming it in one lawsuit and then using that suit to name it in numerous other lawsuits. You have no such proof that Milberg intends to destroy SBTK out of spite, or for any other reason. Lexecon alleged "abuse of process" against Milberg Weiss for adding it to a list of more than 100 defendants in the case Milberg led over the collapse of Charles Keating Jr.'s Lincoln Savings & Loan. Lexecon had provided economic advice supporting Lincoln's fiscal health before the S&L collapsed. Salpeter, who tried the case alongside partner Mark Hansen of Washington, D.C.'s Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, said he had polled jurors after the verdict and could identify several keys to the plaintiffs' case. One particularly effective piece of evidence was a memo written by Milberg Weiss San Diego partner Leonard Simon in March 1990, laying out a plan to sue Fischel and Lexecon in the Lincoln case. According to Salpeter, the memo supported the theory that the firm set out to destroy Lexecon. "That adds up to abuse of process," said Salpeter. "You can't sue somebody in case number one for the primary purpose of hurting them in case numbers two, three, four, five and six."

To: mod who wrote (230)	6/29/1999 8:08:00 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 487

Oh, and by the way, Lexecon paid $716,960 to settle the first lawsuit brought against it by Milberg, and by your reasoning about the Milberg settlement, means Lexecon was culpable for the claims asserted against them by Milberg. Here is another article stating that the lawsuit was based on abuse of process, specifically the use of the first lawsuit to discredit Lexecon in future lawsuits. The fact pattern isn't even close to what we have here. lawnewsnet.com The firm was almost certainly facing a substantial punitive damage verdict. Salpeter said he was going to ask the jury for an additional $45 million to punish Milberg Weiss for setting out to destroy Lexecon. The evidence of that was overwhelming. Jurors heard that Lerach had been angry with Lexecon since at least 1988 when the testimony of company economist Daniel Fischel -- now dean of Chicago University School of Law -- helped derail a huge stock drop class action brought by Milberg Weiss. Two years later, Lerach named Lexecon as a defendant in Milberg Weiss' massive class action stemming from the collapse of the Lincoln Savings & Loan. Lexecon had previously submitted reports declaring Lincoln financially fit. Milberg Weiss lawyers then used the Lincoln suit to discredit the company's expert testimony in other cases. Douglas Schwab, a partner with Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, testified that he stopped using Lexecon because of the Lincoln suit. Lexecon ultimately settled out of the Lincoln suit for $716,960 -- a fact the judge in the trial refused to let into evidence.