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.

Non-Tech : Philip Morris - A Stock For Wealth Or Poverty (MO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: capitalistbeatnik who wrote (1880)	6/23/1998 2:23:00 PM
From: Diamondcutter	Respond to of 6439

After some review, I'm not sure how much was gained. Certainly, there was no bad news for the industry in the overturn, but the money involved was minimal and IMO, future cases could be structured to avoid these mistakes by Wilner and the judge. The insinuations regarding the insufficiency of the federal labeling act was a good attempt at alleging the companies could have (not should have) been more forthright with their warnings. I believe (?) that B&W had developed a warning insert which was more detailed than the one on the side of the pack. This insert was shot down likely for legal reasons. This may benefit further cases from even trying the adequacy of the post-1969 warnings issue for fear of overturn. The statue of limitations issue was a major blunder by Wilner and not likely to be repeated in future cases by any lawyer. For a lawyer expecting to try hundreds of similar cases it is bizarre that he chose his first case to be one which was tardy in filing. The inadmissability of the stolen B&W documents LIKELY have been surpassed in importance by the many released in the Minnessota case IMO. Diamondcutter