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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26375)	3/15/2008 11:37:15 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Dickie's Plea March 15, 2008 Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, a founding father of the modern mega-tort class-action industry, pleaded guilty yesterday to trying to bribe a judge. It is notable but perhaps unsurprising in this particular week, when we have already seen one famous figure, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, brought down by his own sense of invulnerability to the law or common sense. In the 1990s, Mr. Scruggs famously got corporate defendants, and whole industries, to make mammoth settlements in lieu of fighting the thousands of plaintiffs the Mississippi tort lawyer had gathered into a class-action lawsuit. Mr. Scruggs was a legal entrepreneur, who figured out that the combined weight of endless plaintiffs and bad publicity would force even the richest corporations to plead for a settlement. It was his further insight that his percentage of the take, aka contingency fees, would make him and his associates rich as Croesus. The trappings of wealth that attended the class-action plaintiffs bar are the stuff of legend. Now it is Mr. Scruggs who has thrown up his hands and entered a plea. He may face five years in prison. Specifically he has pleaded guilty to attempting to bribe Lafayette County, Mississippi, County Circuit Court Judge Henry L. Lackey. Mr. Scruggs was seeking a court ruling in his favor in a mass settlement in cases culled from Hurricane Katrina. At issue were $26.5 million in disputed legal fees. Judge Lackey called in the FBI. The question buzzing through legal circles yesterday was why a guy that rich and that good at beating money out of corporations would put the whole game at risk this way. We'll sum it up in one famous, potent word: hubris. After the personal ruin seen in the Spitzer and Scruggs cases this week, it is hard to blink at the irony here. They made their mark yelling that the rich and famous were subject to the laws of mere mortals. Once larger than life, both men have shown why that's still true. online.wsj.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (26375)	2/3/2009 10:19:50 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Motley Paint Crew A rebuke to the AG-trial bar gang. FEBRUARY 3, 2009 The trial lawyer set is getting a lesson in the real definition of "public nuisance." Late last month, Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein ruled that defendants in a legendary lead-paint litigation should be reimbursed for $242,000 in "co-examiner costs" for a lawsuit they won in July. The reimbursement may be pocket change to some, but it sends a strong signal to trial lawyers and state Attorneys General that filing frivolous lawsuits is not cost-free. In 2006, after years of litigation, a jury ruled that three paint manufacturers were liable for the cost of cleaning up lead paint in homes across the state -- a price tag estimated in the billions. While defendants appealed, the court appointed outside experts to consult on Attorney General Patrick Lynch's proposed $2.4 billion in remedies, which required that the defendants pay fees and expenses as they went along. In July, the state supreme court overturned the entire verdict, which was based on a theory of "public nuisance" originally dreamed up by South Carolina firm Motley Rice. The law firm worked hand-in-hand with then state Attorney General (now Democratic Senator) Sheldon Whitehouse and later Mr. Lynch on the nuisance claim, a way to recover money while avoiding the rigors of more demanding product liability claims. In usual fashion, Motley Rice worked on a contingency fee arrangement with the state, meaning that it would take a percentage of any windfall verdict. Thanks to the new verdict the question will instead be whether Motley Rice must pay the co-examiner costs and other requests the defendants have pending before the court. The court's order is against the state, and it will be up to AG Lynch whether to ask Motley Rice to reimburse for that payment, or to leave Rhode Island taxpayers on the hook. This is apt justice for a partnership that has plotted to turn lead paint litigation into a jackpot in the tradition of tobacco and asbestos. In a 2000 letter to a Texas school, plaintiffs attorneys at Wells, Peyton, Greenberg & Hunt (working alongside Motley Rice predecessor firm Ness Motley) pitched participation in any lead paint lawsuit as a "win-win situation." Even if the administrators weren't sure there was any lead paint in the schools, there must have been some "at one time or another," they wrote. Attorneys General are enablers here and should be sanctioned. In Rhode Island, the court has already rejected the state's claim that its "sovereign immunity" meant it didn't have to pay up for the expert consultant reimbursement -- the same line it is likely to use to avoid other reimbursement claims. "The entire foundation for the defendants' liability in this case is based on a jury verdict that has been reversed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court," Judge Silverstein wrote. Of course the reimbursements are piddling relative to the cost of defending against this unjust litigation, not to mention the costs of lost shareholder value and management attention. The court's decision is good news for the paint-makers but its real benefit is in discouraging state AGs and their pals at the trial bar from a free-for-all against honest companies. online.wsj.com