Related posts

• Swiss vote down lawyers-for-animals proposal (3)
• Schools roundup (3)
• Legal protection for dignity of plants (6)
• February 9 roundup (3)
• February 2000 archives, part 1 (0)

Related posts

• When schools fall short (2)
• Welcome Observer (UK) readers (0)
• Update: UK nixes “economy class syndrome” suits (0)
• Update: U.K. religious-vilification law (1)
• Update: Richard Branson not the only Virgin (1)

Related posts

• September 29 roundup (7)
• Roundup – June 4 (4)
• November 15 roundup (3)
• May 19 roundup (2)
• July 13 roundup (0)

Related posts

• Latest issue of Class Action Watch (2)
• November 18 roundup (5)
• July 13 roundup (0)
• February 8 Roundup (1)
• February 14 roundup (1)

• As Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith note in the Washington Post, a federal court recently allowed to proceed a lawsuit seeking to blame the evils of South African apartheid on Western multinationals, even despite strong opposition to the suit from both the U.S. government’s executive branch and today’s duly elected multiracial South African government. Unfortunately, the State Department’s up-to-now-staunch opposition to this and similar lawsuits is imperiled by the installment of Harold Koh as legal adviser at Foggy Bottom: “Koh is an intellectual architect and champion of the post-1980 human rights litigation explosion. He joined a brief in the South Africa litigation arguing for broad aiding-and-abetting liability.”
• If asked what should happen to frozen Cuban-government assets under U.S. control, reasonable possibility #1 might be “hold them against the eventual day when a non-tyrannical regime emerges there, it will need help.” Reasonable possibility #2 might be “divide the assets among Castro’s many victims in some deliberate and step-by-step way, knowing that their injuries are so numerous and severe that even very deserving victims will get only small payments”. The answer you’d think makes no sense at all is “encourage first-come-first-served tort lawsuits, so that the first couple of cases to maneuver their way through the legal process get handsome compensation, while no money is left for either #1 or #2″. So naturally, the latter is what our legal system is doing, previously in $188 million and $253 million verdicts involving single incidents or families, and now in a new case in which the family of Gustavo Villoldo has been awarded $1.179 billion. One of the plaintiff’s lawyers in the case actually boasts that the new award may obstruct a warming of relations between the U.S. and a post-Castro successor regime: “with the opening of relations between the U.S. and Cuba to come, there are debts to society to be paid before that happens” (more on Che Guevara, via).
• On the brighter side, the Obama administration has joined its Bush predecessors in correctly drawing a line against litigation by some September 11 victims and insurance companies: under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, the courts are no place to pursue theories trying to link the rulers of Saudi Arabia to the terrorist attacks.

(cross-posted from Point of Law)

Related posts

• May 19 roundup (2)
• “Lawsuits that benefit only lawyers” (1)
• Why they aren’t running the cartoons (4)
• Update: U.K. Commons revolt on bill curbing religious speech (2)
• Update: Saudis vow to sue tobacco companies (1)

Related posts

• “Witnesses feared being killed if they testified about the fraud” (2)
• Wall Street Journal on banana-suit scandal (1)
• September 29 roundup (7)
• Roundup – June 4 (4)
• October 6 roundup (2)

seeking more than $400 billion from companies that did business in South Africa during apartheid, [which] score high on what I call Taylor’s Index of Completely Worthless Lawsuit Indicators:

• The lawsuits will do victims of wrongdoing little or no good.

• They will penalize no human being who has done anything wrong.

• They will deter more conduct that is beneficial than harmful.

• The legal costs and any damages will come at the expense of the general public.

• The lawsuits therefore serve no purpose at all but to enrich lawyers and provide ideological power trips for some judges as well as lawyers.

American Isuzu Motors v. Ntsebeza, recently allowed to go forward, is being led by (among others) class-actioneer and frequent Overlawyered mentionee Michael Hausfeld.

The apartheid lawsuit is one of dozens seeking to pervert the Alien Tort Statute to mulct companies for ordinary commercial conduct in countries accused of human-rights violations. Caterpillar, for example, was sued for selling bulldozers that Israel used to destroy suspected Palestinian terrorists’ homes. (The case was dismissed.) “The American bar is actively soliciting alien plaintiffs” to try out novel theories, State Department legal adviser John Bellinger noted in a recent speech. Because so many federal judges have smiled on such suits, Bellinger added, foreign governments increasingly regard the U.S. judiciary “as something of a rogue actor.”

With added commentary on the Kivalina climate-change class action, Rhode Island lead paint, shareholder litigation, and Lerach, Weiss, and Scruggs. (National Journal, May 17, will rotate off page so catch it now).

Related posts

• May 19 roundup (2)
• October 1999 archives, part 1 (0)
• March 2000 archives, part 1 (0)
• Latest issue of Class Action Watch (2)
• January 2000 archives, part 1 (0)

Related posts

• September 2000 archives, part 3 (0)
• October 3 roundup (0)
• October 1999 archives, part 1 (0)
• New at Point of Law (0)
• January 2000 archives, part 1 (0)

Related posts

• Sunburst Works Refinery $41M verdict (0)
• Environmental law roundup (1)
• “Lawsuit blames oil companies for hurricane damage” (0)
• Why we’re so short of refineries (0)
• Welcome Wall Street Journal readers (1)

• It is: “Hopefully this means a better life,” says the energy company employee who won a $40 million judgment (almost half of it punitives) against Qwest Communications after the telephone pole he was working on collapsed and injured him. He was lucky; had he worked for the phone company, he likely would have been barred from suing by worker’s comp laws.
  

  “I could hear my heart pounding, pulsing faster and faster, and I tried keeping calm, but when they started reading the verdict I was in a state of shock,” he said. “It’s justice.”

• It isn’t: “The lawsuit wasn’t about money, he said.” That’s New Hampshire resident Joseph Hewett, the rejected applicant for The Apprentice who settled his age discrimination lawsuit against Donald Trump and the producers of the show.
  

  “This was never about a disgruntled applicant trying to get back at (Trump’s) organization, it just gave me an opportunity to advocate on behalf of a protected class,” he said. “This was about the fact that I believe an entire class was aggrieved.”

  His evidence that age was what kept him off the show was a slam dunk; after all, he “claimed he was qualified for the show because he graduated magna cum laude from college and because of his ‘many years of experience maintaining large commercial properties.’”

• Well, maybe it is: Human rights advocacy groups have been (mis)using the Alien Tort Claims Act for years to litigate foreign events in American courts, but those advocacy groups were motivated primarily by ideology. Now class action law firms, sensing an opportunity, are getting in on the action. Overlawyered repeat offender Motley Rice (many links) is suing officials of the United Arab Emirates on behalf of boys from South Asia and Africa who claim to have been kidnapped and enslaved as camel jockeys in the UAE; the case has no connection whatsoever to the U.S.

  The human rights movement isn’t thrilled because they figure that these lawyers are really in it for the money and not the cause; conservative tort reformers aren’t thrilled because they see it as just another example of entrepreneurial lawyering by trial lawyers.
  

  John M. Eubanks, a lawyer with Motley Rice who represents the former jockeys, disputed both points.

  “We’re trying to right wrongs that have been committed,” Mr. Eubanks said. “It’s not about money. It’s about exacting some form of justice.”

  Uh, yeah:
  

  Pressed, Mr. Eubanks conceded that the case was at least partly about money. “There is a contingency fee,” he said. “These cases do cost a lot of money. We don’t get paid unless we collect.”

Related posts

• October 2000 archives, part 2 (1)
• May 2001 archives, part 1 (0)
• January 2001 archives, part 1 (0)
• Billion dollar cleanup (3)
• Archived legal ethics items, pre-July 2003 (0)