Posts Tagged ‘Ted Frank’

Letter to the editor

To the editor:

I appreciated the chance to speak with reporter Tony Mauro about Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, an upcoming Supreme Court case that will be discussed at an AEI panel on Oct. 5. Unfortunately, a sentence in his Aug. 20 article [“High Court Head Count at Issue,” Page 1] incorrectly implied that I thought the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the case was an “anti-investor ruling,” when that characterization is solely Mauro’s.

On the contrary, as I have written in The Wall Street Journal and told Mauro, I believe that the 8th Circuit’s dismissal of the case redounds to the benefit of investors in general and that the best result for investors (if not for trial lawyers) would be affirmance by the Supreme Court. And I say that even though I am a putative class member in Stoneridge.

Theodore H. Frank
Resident Fellow
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Washington, D.C.

Filed under: class actions, securities litigation, Supreme Court, Ted Frank

Forbes on pro se cases

Kai Falkenberg’s September 3 story in Forbes quotes me (though I promise I told the fact-checker that the Chung’s legal bills were only $83,000) and Overlawyered guest-blogger Steve Hantler. The sidebar to the article lists a number of cases Overlawyered readers might be familiar with.

Before David Giacalone jumps down my throat, let me say that I had a lengthy interview with Falkenberg, detailing my views on pro se litigation, but only the throw-away anecdote about Roy Pearson’s pants suit made it in. (Interestingly, the Supreme Court’s decision this spring in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly helps resolve the problem I complained about in that December post.)

Update: Falkenberg writes to let me know that “Regarding the Chungs, the $100,000 references not just the $83,000 in legal fees but other costs associated with Pearson’s claim and was confirmed with their lawyer, Chris Manning.” Fair enough (though I think Manning is including lost sales from Pearson’s picketing the Chungs’ shop, which one might argue does not really reflect legal costs). Let me clarify that I thought that Falkenberg wrote an excellent piece, especially given the limitations of space. Quote of note:

In a study of pro se suits brought between 1995 and 1999 in the federal district court in Manhattan, attorney Jonathan Rosenbloom found that a “disturbing” number of pro se cases were dismissed for asserting claims that were “delusional” or “wholly incredible.” … Rosenbloom also found a lot of frequent filers: Nearly half of the study’s 765 pro se litigants filed at least one previous suit in that court, including one who filed 57 complaints in one year.

Filed under: loser pays, pro se, Ted Frank

Stoneridge: Wherein I am a footnote

Reps. Barney Frank and John Conyers, Jr. spend taxpayer dollars to file a late amicus brief on behalf of plaintiffs’ lawyers and against investors in Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, taking issue with my Wall Street Journal op-ed on the case. (H/t L.R.) To wit, “A number of commentators have called for the Court to decide this case by reference to policy considerations nowhere found in the statute.” This is wrong: the op-ed explicitly noted that Congress had twice rejected precisely the sort of liability that petitioners were seeking in this case. It is also ironic: civil securities fraud liability was created by judicial fiat out of a statute that had no private right of action.

Filed under: class actions, politics, securities litigation, Supreme Court, Ted Frank

The Roberts Court and Liability Reform

The latest AEI Liability Outlook explores my take on the tort reform implications of October Term 2006.

Filed under: Liability Outlook, Philip Morris v. Williams, preemption, procedure, punitive damages, Supreme Court, Ted Frank

Ted on the SEC and Stoneridge

Our own Ted Frank has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. Excerpt:

…The plaintiffs’ bar is heavily lobbying the SEC to intervene in a pending Supreme Court case, Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, on the side of a gigantic expansion of private litigation.

The case’s facts are straightforward: Charter Communications purchased set-top cable boxes but got back some of the money in the form of advertising bought by the vendors. Charter executives recorded the outgoing money as a “capital expenditure” (to be depreciated over several years) but the incoming money as revenue recorded within a single year, thus falsely inflating operating cash flow. Three Charter executives went to prison over the shenanigans. Plaintiffs’ attorneys sued Charter and the executives, of course, but named as codefendants two of the vendors, Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta.

The suit makes little sense. The vendors had no say in how Charter accounted for or reported its transactions. Worse is the precedent it represents: How can a business function if it is potentially liable for hundreds of millions because those whom they trade with misreport a day-to-day transaction?…

Indeed, a 1994 Supreme Court decision on its face cuts off such “secondary liability” claims, but hope of reviving them springs eternal in the plaintiff’s bar — one reason for the P.R. campaign aimed at putting pressure on officials like SEC Chairman Chris Cox. (Ted Frank, “‘Arbitrary and Unfair'”, Wall Street Journal, May 31)(sub-only)(cross-posted from Point of Law). Plus: here’s the free AEI version.

Filed under: class actions, securities litigation, Supreme Court, Ted Frank

“Fen-Phen Zen”

Hey, I just write the American.com column about the Kentucky fen-phen fraud, not the headlines. Earlier on Overlawyered: Mar. 26 and links therein. (Cross-posted at Point of Law.)

Filed under: fen-phen, Florida A&M, Joseph Bamberger, Kentucky, Kentucky fen-phen settlement fraud, legal discipline, Mark Modlin, scandals, Stan Chesley, Ted Frank

The Class Action Fairness Act Two Years Later

The latest AEI Liability Outlook, which has my take on two years of CAFA, is on-line.

Filed under: Class Action Fairness Act, class actions, Liability Outlook, Ted Frank

February 8 Roundup

New Jersey Supreme Court won’t touch appellate court reversal of $105M dram-shop verdict against Aramark Corp. Not noted in our earlier coverage: Aramark was held liable as a deep pocket through illegitimate piercing of the corporate veil, adding yet another problem to an appalling series of problems with the trial. [New Jersey Law Journal; earlier on Overlawyered; Point of Law]
Half-trillion-dollar class certified against Wal-Mart in lawless Ninth Circuit decision. [Point of Law]
Court papers show direct link to Lerach in Milberg probe. Most entertaining: a letter by Lerach saying “Dr. Cooperman’s reputation and character are impeccable.” Cooperman has since pled guilty to taking kickbacks, and Milberg Weiss now says he has no credibility. [National Law Journal; WSJ Law Blog]
Slip and fall worth $5.7M [Atlantic City Press]
Cardiologists doing Brazilians: “Graduating med students aren’t blind; they see established physicians with busy practices dropping out. Looking ahead they see more headaches–more controls and regulations, more scrutiny, more liability, less money.” [TIME via Kevin MD]
Florida law may allow men to get out of paying fraudulent paternity when DNA shows they’re not the father. [Miami Herald; see also Parker v. Parker; earlier on Overlawyered]
Editorial: Alabama Supreme Court ruling on illegal multi-billion-dollar punitive damages award in Exxon contract dispute can prove state is no longer tort hell. [Press-Register]
Update to earlier Overlawyered post: Danny Cuesta pleads guilty, sentenced to fifteen months; Melissa Cuesta, whose claim we covered, arrested for perjury, pleads not guilty. [EmpireStateNews.net via Teacher trash blog]
Incomes and inequality: what the numbers don’t tell us. [Marginal Revolution]
India and the drug patent wars. [AEI]
I (along with John Beisner, Michael Hausfeld, and John Stoia) am speaking on a panel on the Class Action Fairness Act at the National Press Club February 14. [Federalist Society]

Filed under: Alabama, Aramark, Bill Lerach, child support, Class Action Fairness Act, class actions, deep pocket, Exxon, jackpot justice, Michael Hausfeld, Milberg Weiss, New Jersey, Ninth Circuit, Ted Frank

“Rollover Economics: Arbitrary and Capricious Product Liability Regimes”

My latest Liability Outlook for AEI is about the Ford Explorer rollover litigation and what it says about products liability litigation in the US in general:

It went generally unnoticed last November when the California Supreme Court refused to review an intermediate court’s decision in Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. But then again, it went generally unnoticed when a jury awarded an arbitrary $368 million in damages in that case, when the trial judge reduced that verdict to an arbitrary $150 million judgment, and when an intermediate appellate court reduced that figure to an arbitrary $82.6 million (which, with interest, works out to over $100 million). Products liability verdicts have become so run-of-the-mill that even nine-digit verdicts and their aftermath receive only local or specialty press coverage, with cursory national coverage. But Buell-Wilson demonstrates much that is wrong with the current liability regime, including the fact that the media is so jaded by litigation abuse that a $368 million verdict is barely newsworthy.

Filed under: autos, Buell-Wilson v. Ford, Ford Motor, Ford Pinto, jackpot justice, Liability Outlook, noneconomic damages, preemption, punitive damages, rollover litigation, SUVs, Ted Frank

Punitive damages and the Supreme Court

I have written a piece on the Philip Morris v. Williams case for the Business and Media Institute. For other views, see Anthony Sebok (Brooklyn Law), Alan Morrison (Public Citizen), and Adam Cohen (New York Times). Morrison argues that the federal courts have no role in reviewing state-court decisions, which makes one wonder what his position is on habeas corpus. Cohen’s op-ed misstates what happened in Andrade, which was a case of collateral (and thus limited) review, rather than a direct appeal, like Williams, where a civil defendant does not even have the option of collateral review.

Earlier on Point of Law (from which this was cross-posted): Oct. 12; May 30; Feb. 2.

Update: The American Constitution Society press briefing on Philip Morris v. Williams (in which I participated with Peter Rubin, Neil Vidmar, and Bill Schultz) is now online.

Filed under: Philip Morris v. Williams, procedure, punitive damages, Supreme Court, Ted Frank, tobacco