Success for a Litigation Funding Firm - Burford Capital

Burford Capital, a litigation funding business, is back in the news, with success. Here is an AmLaw Daily article by Andrew Longstreth regarding the firm's apparent 40% share of a $ 110 million verdict. Here is Burford's latest press release with general data on it's overall portfolio results since it went public last fall on the AIM market. The company's shares trade as  BUR.

Note that the successes of the client and Burford are in part a function of being embraced by Wall Street law firms in general, and by a lawyer who often represents the insurance industry. Thus, a major New York law firm, Simpson Thacher,  was the law firm that introduced its client to Burford. Second, the AmLaw article attributes the introduction to one of Simpson Thacher 's senior partners, Barry Ostrager. Mr. Ostrager is very well known as a lead lawyer for the insurance industry.  According to the website at the firm:

"Mr. Ostrager has been prominently involved in supervising the firm's major insurance and reinsurance practices in both its New York and Los Angeles offices.  He has been lead trial counsel in more than a dozen major insurance coverage cases, including Shell Oil Co. v. Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company, a multi-billion dollar environmental insurance coverage dispute in which the jury returned a verdict for the insurers after a sixteen-month trial."

 

 

Dole Banana Worker Cases Illustrate the Conflicts Between "Good" Plaintiffs and "Bad" Plaintiffs

Here is an article reporting on  Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney ruling on the contentious issues regarding a jury verdict involving six people who claimed to have suffered personal injuries from having worked at a Dole banana plantation in Nicaragua.  Judge Chaney overturned a jury verdict, and said she would issue a written opinion soon. The opinion probably will make for interesting reading.

The Dole situation illustrates the ways in which merits issues for "good" plaintiffs can be corrupted by the actions of "bad" plaintiffs.  The ongoing saga also illustrates the amount of spin that is endemic to major mass tort cases, and why detailed coverage and questions would help readers make better judgments. For example, in prior chapters in this saga, Dole sued a filmmaker in Europe for defamation, but  then dismissed the lawsuit after complaints by consumers and others.

The lawsuits arise from a situation that Dole created by using overseas a pesticide that was the subject of great concern in the US, and indeed was later banned in the US before Dole stopped using it in Nicarauga.  Dole defends use of the pesticide on the grounds that doing so was still "legal" in Nicaragua. Decisions that are "legal" may still constitute bad decisions that may result in liability for negligent or willful conduct, and so Dole appears to be hardly an innocent. The following excerpts from a prior post  link to an August 19, 2009 Wall Street Journal article by Steve Stecklow that provides an overview of why the issues exist at all. The facts reported by the WSJ do not paint a pretty picture of Dole, to say the least. But, a current reader about the "bad" plaintiffs might never know of those realities because the current article does not revisit the general factual setting. As per the WSJ:

" DBCP, short for dibromochloropropane, was widely used around the world in the 1960s and 1970s to control microscopic worms called nematodes that attack roots and destroy crops. "The first year after we used" the pesticide, "the bananas were huge," says Isaias Paz, who worked for years as a foreman on a Dole-operated banana plantation outside Chinandega.
In 1977, California health officials discovered that workers at a DBCP manufacturing plant there had become sterile. Another manufacturer,
Dow Chemical Co., one of Dole's suppliers for Central America, stopped production and announced a recall.

Dole, which began using the pesticide in Nicaragua in 1973, had a contract to purchase DBCP for another two years. It threatened Dow with breach of contract for stopping deliveries, stating there was no evidence that plantation workers who apply DBCP had been rendered sterile, according to records in a lawsuit later filed by Dow against a Dole unit in Michigan circuit court. In 1978, Dow agreed to sell Dole some of its remaining stocks only after the fruit company agreed to hold Dow harmless from any injury claims.

In 1979, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned DBCP in the U.S. for nearly all uses, including bananas, stating that "farm workers, pesticide applicators and the public at large...run varying degrees of risk of cancer, gene and chromosomal damage" and male infertility. Dole stopped using the pesticide in Nicaragua in 1980, according to Scott A. Edelman, a Dole attorney. The company's "use of the remaining stocks" of DBCP from 1978 to 1980 "was legal," he says."

Looks Inside the Litigation Industry Through Documents Coillected in Discovery - Tobacco Industry Documents and Some Scruggs Documents Collected and Posted On-line

The litigation industry is full of spin and efforts to create headlines that influence outcomes. Many of the stories make it to press without much context or detail. So, it's interesting to see the inside documents behind the headlines.  To that end:

This link is to about 4 million  collected on-line documents regarding the tobacco industry.

This link is to an Overlawyered blog post that includes links to some of the documents related to Dickie Scruggs' conviction.

 

Influencing Legal Developments Outside the US - When Is It OK to Seek to Influence the Development of Non US Legal Systems ?

Perspective certainly matters when it comes to influencing the development of legal systems around the globe.

On one side, consider some of the arguments from "big oil."  Thus, In its blog and other writings attacking tort litigation and justice in Ecuador, Exxon Mobile has complained bitterly about efforts by plaintiff's lawyers to influence how tort law developed in that country.  Is that a legitimate complaint?

Some would say no. Why? All around us are efforts to influence how law develops in other countries and in the US. Consider, for example, today's NLJ article about "big business" testimony asking Congress to try to influence what China does with its nascent antitrust law. Thus, the article  states:

"But, they said, the U.S. government should act to influence how Chinese agencies implement the law. They suggested creating a high-level task force of U.S. antitrust officials and trying to help train Chinese regulators who are new to antitrust law. They also emphasized transparency, so that U.S. companies know why Chinese officials made their decisions."

One has to wonder what the record would show if plaintiff's lawyers were allowed to take full discovery on all of ExxonMobile's efforts to influence the development of laws around the world.

 

Can't Tell the Players Without a Scorecard - NLJ Charts the BP Oil Disaster Claims to Date

When mass disasters strike, litigation starts quickly, in many forums. For a great example in a helpful chart format, go here to see a chart from the NLJ. A related articleis here.

Issues To Be Managed Broaden for BP and Other Repeat Players in Mass Disaster Litigation

A Law.com article from this morning provides an interesting view of the reality that BP and some other  corporate entities are repeat defendants in the world of mass disaster  litigation. Likewise, some of the plaintiff's lawyers also are repeat players against the same entities.  Note especially three points as to how repeat player status may impact strategies and issues across a range of topics.

Note first that the plaintiff's bar already is posturing to argue that BP's past and current acts are part of pattern of over-risky corporate behavior, and that the oil well disaster should be considered in a broader context of corporate acts. Claims of that sort could lead to wide-ranging discovery. Second, those claims and the discovery could impact D & O claims. Third, note that BP is now starting to face claims of withholding information.  These points raise the stakes for and scope of issues to be managed when dealing with a mass disaster. The point are illustrated by the following quote:

What he witnessed then, [plaintiff's lawyer Brent} Coon said, is no different than what he's seeing now: BP in 2005 said it was being transparent and that it would take responsibility for the accident, he said, yet it kept many documents sealed. Fast forward five years, BP again is claiming to be responsible, Coon said, yet it's refusing to disclose certain information, including the complete video images of what's occurring on the ocean floor.

"They get into PR and damage control, tell everyone you're sorry, and in the meantime spin this to blame other people," Coon said, noting that he recently asked a federal court to revoke the probation and plea agreement reached in the 2005 explosion. Under the agreement, BP was supposed to improve safety conditions at its facilities. "Their behavior has not improved," Coon said, adding the Gulf disaster is yet another reason to revoke probation."

 

Upcoming US Courts Civil Litigation Conference at Duke Looks Quite Good But Lacks Science

An upcoming conference on federal civil litigation at Duke Law School  is being advertised by the US Courts  as a major conference that will shape the future of civil litigation. The agenda is indeed impressive as to rules and procedures, and the proceedings will be broadcast online.  The agenda includes  many judicial and non-judicial speakers with decades of experience (e.g.  J. Rosenthal, Cabraser, Galanter, Willging, RAND/Pace, Eisenberg, Hensler, Miller, J. Newman, Hazard, Birnbaum, Susman, Resnik, J. Scheindlin, Nagareda, Levi, J. Scirica, J. Higginbotham).

It's disappointing to see, however, that the agenda does not include any sessions focused on how mass torts and/or the science will evolve.  With so much attention focused on "mass torts" and science, one would think we lawyers looking to the future might ask to hear from some well-regarded scientists about where they see science going over the years ahead, and the potential consequences for litigaton.

Set out below is the publicity from the US Court's website linked to above.

April 12, 2010 —Access, fairness, cost, and delay in civil litigation in federal court will be the focus of a Conference, May 10-11, 2010, sponsored by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The 2010 Civil Litigation Conference at the Duke University School of Law will present new data from several empirical studies on current litigation practice and proposals for improving civil litigation in the federal trial courts. In particular, data on actual litigation costs incurred by law firms and major corporations will be available for careful analysis. The Conference agenda is available here. The Conference will be streamed live over the Judiciary's Newsroom website at http://www.uscourts.gov/news.cfm.

"This Conference hopes to build on the legacy of the 1976 Roscoe Pound Conference and all it contributed to the reform of the administration and delivery of justice in the federal system, as well as on the 1997 Boston College of Law Conference on Discovery" said Judge Mark Kravitz, chair of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. According to Judge Kravitz the cost of civil litigation will be among the topics to be discussed, and how recent Supreme Court decisions in Twombly and Iqbal have focused attention on pleading standards and discovery.

"Much of the data to be presented at the Conference has not been available before," said Judge John G. Koeltl, a Civil Rules Committee member and Conference organizer. "This will be important new information on what is actually happening in different practice areas."

Nearly 200 nationally recognized federal judges, lawyers and professors and others with expertise in civil litigation are expected to attend. Duke University School of Law will host the Conference, which will take place in Room 3041 of the Duke Law School.

 

 

Entrepreneurial Claiming and Entrepreneurial Courts - From Delaware to St. Clair County, Illinois

To my knowledge, back in the 1980s, law school professors were not talking or writing about entrepreneurial growth in court systems or  tort claiming. Now, however, they do, and it's always interesting to see how the market shares grow for different courts and claims.  For example, Delaware bankruptcy courts went from being a legal "backwater" to dominating the corporate reogrnaization practice; Proesssor Lopucki documented the court's entrepeneurial growth in a book, with various papers (e.g.  this one) later issued on many sides of the topic. 

I bring up entrepreneuiral courts and claiming because there is now  further evidence that St. Clair Coubty, Illinois is looking at a new spurt in case fiilings and that lung cancer claims (not mesothelioma claims) are coming back into vogue.  Prior posts pointed out mentioned spurts in lung cancer claims, and another post mentioned the prior spurt in St. Clair County claiming. Now the two seem to come together as a  new article from Kelly Holleran at the Record covers the latest spurt of five lung cancer cases filed in St. Clair County by the Gori & Julian firm.  Now it's time to see how the St. Clair County court system responds. Will it add more trial dates and become the equal of Madison County  as a forum for processing asbestos lawsuits ? Stay tuned !

 

 

US Chamber Shoots the Latest Round in the Media Battles Over Litigation

In courtrooms, we are supposed to deal in provable facts. But, outside of court,  some say perception matters far more than the facts when it comes to the messages that all sides push out to the public through mass media and social media.

This week,  one of the messages that arrived was from the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR). "[The ILR] released its survey ranking the states with the best and worst legal climates in the country. According to the survey, the states with the worst legal climates are California (46th), Alabama (47th), Mississippi (48th), Louisiana (49th), and West Virginia (50th). The states with the best legal climates are Delaware (1st), North Dakota (2nd), Nebraska (3rd), Indiana (4th), and Iowa (5th)." 
 

 

 

Asbestos Product Catalogs For Sale Online - The Perfect Item For Claimants Against Chapter 11 Trusts

                                        

For several years, it's been well known that eBay traders could make some money selling to plaintifff and defense lawyers old asbestos-containing products, including even old vehicles. Typically the products were acquired for use as trial exhibits.  Now,  this online web site  is trying a new marketing approach -  advertising old asbestos product catalogs as perfect items for claimants against  some or all of the over 80 chapter 11 trusts created by entities that have entered chapter 11 due to asbestos product sales.  I can imagine this working, especially for defendants stuck in the tort system that need to take discovery from plaintiffs regarding their use of products made by former defendants that exited the tort system via chapter 11.  Thus, the website home page urges:

"An excellent resource for help with Asbestos Trust Claims, research material, attorneys preparing litigation, abatement professionals, and anyone interested in knowing what everyday products contained asbestos."

All research material is actual manufacturer's catalogs and brochures in downloadable Color PDF format.

All catalogs can be purchased using  a Credit Card Card     for $39.95 each."

 The online images show old product catalogs from various former manufacturers of asbestos-containing products. Go here for the first page of an old Manville catalog for its industrial products, or go here for its transite board catalog. Or,  go here to relive Eagle-Picher’s wide range of fine ACM.   Or see below for the image from Pitt-Corning's catalog for Unibestos, a product that contained amosite.

 

Media and the Litigation Industry - Examples

Part of the llitigation industry today consists of vast amounts of media items to raise awareness of "issues."  On that subject,  Levick Communications explains:

"Central to any comprehensive litigation strategy is a communications plan deployed early in the process. Thus, fact-gathering, amicus briefs, media statements, regulatory outreach, employee messaging, and even jury arguments are skillfully planned and orchestrated for maximum public impact and effectiveness.
 
Plaintiffs and prosecutors have long used mass media to tell their side to the public. But their increased strategic use of digital and social media, as well as Search Engine Optimization, Internet blogs, and social networking sites has raised the stakes – intensifying their power to influence journalists, juries, regulators, analysts, lawmakers, potential litigants, and even judges. In today’s environment, ensuring effective management of the Court of Public Opinion has become a critical component of any litigation strategy."

Examples? Insurers generate news stories from websites on "insurance fraud" and  time and again issue papers and announcements about "insurance' fraud"  and  "fraud in claiming."  While there surely have been some frauds, the problems are often overblown. But constantly raising the topic creates awareness.   

On another side of the litigation industry,  the plaintiff side, much ink is devoted to keeping  "asbestos" and "health" out in front of people. A new example popped up this week, and is set out below. Note the consistent focus on raising awareness: 

 

ADAO Praises Senate for Introduction of Sixth Annual Resolution that Establishes “National Asbestos Awareness Week”

 

March 03, 2010 02:44 PM Eastern Time 

WASHINGTON–(EON: Enhanced Online News)–The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), the leading organization serving as the voice of asbestos victims, today applauds Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and cosponsors for introducing a resolution that declares the first week of April as “National Asbestos Awareness Week” and seeks to “raise public awareness about the prevalence of asbestos-related diseases and the dangers of asbestos exposure.”

Additional cosponsors and key supporters include: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), and Senator Jon Tester (D-MT).

“We are grateful to the U.S. Senate to have the opportunity to help raise the level of public awareness about the prolific dangers of asbestos and further unite doctors, scientists, and public health advocates during National Asbestos Awareness Week for this important effort. During the past six years, ADAO has seen the progress and indeed, this confirms what Americans deserve and want, we know asbestos prevention and education will save lives and dollars,” said Linda Reinstein, Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.

Asbestos is a known human carcinogen and exposure can cause asbestos-related diseases, including mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. Studies estimate that during the next decade, 100,000 workers around the world will die of an asbestos related disease – equaling 30 deaths per day.

ADAO will hold its Sixth Annual International Asbestos Conference on April 10, 2010 in Chicago, Illinois.

About Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO seeks to give asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to raise public awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure. ADAO is the largest independent organization dedicated to preventing asbestos-related diseases through education and legislation. ADAO’s mission includes supporting global advocacy and advancing asbestos awareness, prevention, early detection, treatment, and resources for asbestos-related disease. For more information visit www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org.

CDG Wins For the Third Straight Time Against One Recalcitrant Insurer

A brief self-promotional note for Childress Duffy Goldblatt. Yesterday my partner Mike Duffy and his trial team won a first party insurance property damage verdict for $2.85 million after allowing for the deductible. This is the third recent seven-figure trial verdict against the same recalcitrant insurer that refuses to pay fair values to its insureds. You may recall this prior post regarding that situation; the following is the key excerpt from an interview of my partner Mike Childress.

"We tried a seven-figure case last year after the insurance lawyer said that, if he could not win that particular trial, he should just return the rest of the files involving claims against that insurer. We have twelve cases against that same insurer, all of which involve the same type of loss. Our client won full damages at trial, but the insurer is still refusing to settle the remaining cases. In fact, it is the second case we have tried against this insurer and won. So, we will try the rest of the cases."

Even Newer Uses of Social Media as a Marketing Tool for Law Firms Seeking Mesothelioma Clients

By now I trust everyone is used to many of he marketing approaches to reach mesothelioma victims. Here's a new one for me -  some members of the asbestos plainiff's bar are now  marketing themselve using social media and a "cause"  to ask other people to go out and ceate videos to promote asbestos awareness. Go here to see the online version of the press release pasted below. 

Continue Reading...

Cross Claiming Among Asbestos Defendants and Asbestos Trusts - A $ 2 Million (AU) Mesothelioma Settlement; CSR and James Hardie Provide Examples for Consideration

Pasted below are key excerpts from a February 18 Wall Street Journal Australia article by Miland Rout which provides news of a $ 2 million (AU) asbestos mesothelioma settlement for the death of a young father. The amount is news in itself.

From my vantage point, however,  the even more interesting part of the story is the assertion - assumed to be true for present purposes - that asbestos defendants CSR and James Hardie will now proceed against each other to resolve which entity should pay how much of the settlement. According to the articles's description of statements by plaintiff's counsel from Slater & Gordon, the companies apparently are no longer observing some sort of understanding or agreement on how much each should contribute.

So, what does one say about intercompany allocation battles? My personal view is that we will see more cross-claiming ahead because some companies need to transfer fault and expense to others in order to survive. In a related vein, more of the cross-claiming I think will involve claims by current tort sytem defendants against "asbestos trusts"  or foundations established by entities that have used chapter 11 (rightly or wrongly) to exit the tort system.

Why cross-claim? One reason  is that the asbestos tort system today is farcical in the sense that the most culpable defendants exited the tort system early and did so far, far too cheaply. Simply put, Manville, Unarco, Raymark, and various insulation and boiler makers (e.g. Eagle-Picher, Babcock & Wilcox), and some other "early movers," paid far too little to exit the tort system. The result? Some (not all) victims are undercompensated and many (not all) remaining tort defendants are now paying far too large a share for asbestos claims.

Continue Reading...

Asbestos Litigation Risks - Some Companies Seek Unique Legislative Answers for Unique Risks

As described in this article, Crown Cork and Seal continues its efforts to obtain legislative solutions for its unique asbestos litigation risks. Key excerpts are below from an article about action by the legislature in Virginia:

A closely divided House of Delegates voted Monday to shield a company from liability to asbestos-related health claims.


"Del. Terry Kilgore's bill, HB 629, doesn't mention any company by name. But the way it is drafted, it applies to only one: Crown Cork & Seal, a Philadelphia-based manufacturer of cans and bottle caps. It has plants in Suffolk and Winchester.


Crown Cork & Seal has never manufactured any products containing asbestos. But in 1963 it purchased the stock of Mundet Cork Co., which had an insulation division that it sold 90 days later. Under existing law, Crown is liable to lawsuits resulting from the presence of asbestos in Mundet's insulation products.


Kilgore's bill. which won preliminary House approval, limits Crown's asbestos-related liability to the value of Mundet's assets at the time it was purchased.


Kilgore, R-Lee County, characterized the measure as a "jobs bill," saying it would protect a Virginia employer from potentially crippling litigation. Dozens of asbestos companies have been driven into bankruptcy by billions of dollars in lawsuits brought by workers who contracted deadly lung diseases from handling the material."

The Litigation Industry - Insurance Industry Behavior and Trials

A bit of shameless self-promotion today for my new law firm. One of my new partners, Mike Childress, had an interesting interview this past week with Larry Smith on the BulletProof Blog. The blog is written by the Levick Strategic Communications firm that focuses on crisis management issues, usually for corporations. As part of the work, the principals of Levick continually reach out to and ask questions of firms that do significant amounts of  plaintiff's work. CDG fits that model because we represent so many corporation and associations in battles with insurers.  Mike has spent 30 years suing insurers in a variety of cases, so he brings tremendous experience and insight to the topic.

The interview is online here, and provides Mike's insights on some of the current behavior of insurers. Here's my favorite part of the interview:

"We tried a seven-figure case last year after the insurance lawyer said that, if he could not win that particular trial, he should just return the rest of the files involving claims against that insurer. We have twelve cases against that same insurer, all of which involve the same type of loss. Our client won full damages at trial, but the insurer is still refusing to settle the remaining cases. In fact, it is the second case we have tried against this insurer and won. So, we will try the rest of the cases."

Drs. Frank and Lemen Part of Global Plaintiff's Advocacy Session for April 10 Asbestos Disease Awareness Conference in Chicago

Here is the entire press release (which includes links)  regarding an April 10, 2010 asbestos disease awareness conference set for April 10 in beautiful Chicago. The conference is organized by, among others, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and Laurie Kazan-Allen, who is the sister of American plaintiff's lawyer, Steve Kazan. Through an entity commonly known as IBAS, Ms. Kazan-Allen has devoted well more than 15 years trying to ban the use of asbestos around the globe, and has achieved some signficant success.

Unlike many current and future defendants/corporations/makers/users, and their lawyers, the advocacy groups for victims/plaintiffs are thinking globally. Indeed, well-known plaintiff's experts are part of the advocacy effort. Thus, during the conference,  Dr Arthur Frank and Dr. Richard Lemen are part of a panel session on global advocacy, as is set out below from the conference agenda. Also set out below is a summary of all speakers, except the keynote speaker, who is to be designated later. 

______________________________________________________________________________
Session IV Global Advocacy and the Continuing Crisis - Chairperson: Arthur L. Frank, MD, PhD




3:15 - 3:35 Latin America's Asbestos Struggle!, Fernanda Giannasi, Brazil


3:35 - 3:50 Canadian Asbestos: A Global Concern, Canadian Member of Parliament, Pat Martin


3:50 - 4:05 Governmental Agencies Role in Protecting Public Health, Richard Lemen, PhD, MSPH


4:05 - 4:20 Progress Update: The Americas, Barry Castleman, ScD


4:20 - 4:35 A Victims' Call to Action!, Laurie Kazan-Allen, International Ban Asbestos Secretariat (IBAS)


4:35 - 4:45 Panel Q & A, Moderator Arthur: L. Frank, MD, PhD


"ADAO's 6th Annual International Asbestos Awareness Conference


REDONDO BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) will host its 6th Annual International Asbestos Awareness Conference in Chicago, IL, on Saturday, April 10, 2010, with activities throughout the weekend. The international conference will provide education and outreach to families, employers/employees, and scientists throughout the world as part of ADAO's continuing effort to educate the public about the dangers of asbestos, ban its use, and encourage research efforts to improve treatment options. Prominent physicians, scientists, and safety and health care professionals who are experts in the area of asbestos representing the United States, Canada, England, Brazil, and Germany will present current information regarding the status and impact of asbestos in the United States and globally. Discussion will include facts on exposure, asbestos-related diseases and how to prevent them, and where to turn for help. The international conference is made possible by ADAO, the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, and the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat.

WHERE:  Marriott Renaissance Hotel

1 Wacker Drive , Chicago, Illinois

WHY:     To share information and provide support to those affected by asbestos-related diseases, including survivors, families, and physicians. Prominent physicians, scientists, safety and health directors, and survivors will present current and up-to-date information regarding the status of asbestos in the United States and worldwide.

WHO:     Brad Black, M.D., medical director, Center for Asbestos Related Disease; Barry Castleman, ScD, environmental consultant; Jeff Camplin, CSP, CPEA; Sean Fitzgerald, PG; Arthur Frank, M.D., Ph.D., chair, Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Drexel University's School of Public Health; Patrick Gerkin, Ph.D., assistant professor, Grand Valley State University; Fernanda Giannasi, ABREA; Michael Harbut, M.D., MPH, FCCP, co-director, National Center for Vermiculite and Asbestos-Related Cancers, Karmanos Cancer Institute; Tanis Hernandez, LCSW, Center of Asbestos Related Disease; Laurie Kazan-Allen, founder and coordinator, IBAS; Hedy Lee Kindler, M.D., University of Chicago, and president, International Mesothelioma Interest Group; Richard Lemen, Ph.D., MSPH, former Assistant Surgeon General; Terry Lynch, International Vice President, Insulators Union; The Honorable Patrick Martin, member, Canadian Parliament; Linda Reinstein, executive director and co-founder, ADAO; Kimberly Rowse, RN, Center for Asbestos Related Disease; Jordan Summer, musician; James Webber, Ph.D., research scientist, Wadsworth Center; Jordan Zevon, ADAO national spokesman and musician."

UK Asbestos Working Party More Than Doubles Estimate to 11 Billion Euros

A summary article from Insurance Business Review is online here, and is pasted below.
____________________________________________________________________________

UK Asbestos-Related Claims To Be Around £11bn For 2009 To 2050


Published:26-January-2010

By Staff Reporter

Total undiscounted cost of UK asbestos-related claims to the insurance market is expected to be around £11bn for the period 2009 to 2050, according to a research by Actuarial Profession's UK Asbestos Working Party.

The research identified that the proportion of people suffering from mesothelioma that subsequently make a claim for compensation has almost doubled between 2004 and 2008.

Of £11bn figure, 90% relates to mesothelioma and over £9bn relates to the period 2009 to 2040, compared to £4.7bn of the working party's 2004 estimate for the same period.

According to Actuarial Profession, the proportion of mesothelioma sufferers that have made a claim for compensation has increased from around one-third in 2004 to nearly two-thirds. This change, which was not expected in 2004, has become evident in recent years and explains most of the increase in total costs.

In addition, the working party has taken into account the Health and Safety Executive's statisticians' revised projections of the number of future deaths from mesothelioma in Great Britain, released in 2009, in conjunction with other projection models.


Brian Gravelsons, chairman of UK Asbestos Working Party, said: "Insurers will of course have already noticed the increased number of claims from mesothelioma sufferers, so these developments won't be a surprise to them. However, the working party's projections will provide the insurance industry with a consistent reference point to help it assess its asbestos liabilities.

"There is still considerable uncertainty surrounding the future cost of asbestos claims, as the number of people that will be diagnosed with mesothelioma many years into the future cannot be accurately predicted. The working party will continue to monitor the emerging experience and update its projections accordingly."

Global Asbestos Claiming - Report on Asbestos Litigation in Nine Nations - Munich Re's Major Compilation of Information

Here is the online image of Munich Re's recent, comprehensive report on asbestos litigation, Asbestos: Anatomy of a Mass Tort. The 112 page report is authored by Nicholas Roenneberg, and is Order number 302-06142. The report can be downloaded and printed from this page.
The same page, on the right hand side, allows you to order a printed copy at no charge.

The report is quite good. It begins with a review of asbestos litigation in North America. The report goes on to explain and explore various factors relevant to reinsurers such as Munich Re.

Beginning at page 58, the report addresses asbestos claiming in other nations in the context of employers' liability. The report covers the UK, Ireland, Italy, Spain, France, Czech Republic, Japan and Brazil. These country-specific reports are well worth reading to better understand the global asbestos claiming situation.

_____________________________________________________________

I owe a hat tip and thanks to Christian Lahnstein of Munich Re for bringing the report to my attention this past fall, and for provding value contributions to dialog regarding mass tort claiming. Christian is a very thoughtful thinker and speaker on the subject of asbestos claiming and its consequences. Indeed, he is thoughtful enough that at a dinner before an international asbestos conference this past fall in London, a smart plaintiff's lawyer listened to Christian for a while and then commented that he was surprised to learn that Christian works in the insurance industry.

Propensity to Claim - By the Government - What's Ahead ?

Lawyers thinking about mass tort policy and legal issues inevitably end up thinking and talking about private claimants and their propensity to claim. A growing topic today is the federal government's propensity to claim.

During the Bush II years, much of corporate America had little fear regarding civil or criminal claims from the US government. Now, however, that is changing, and one might well wonder about the larger implications for tort and other claims. Look for example at the federal government's activities this week, and consider the implications for future civil claims.


On Monday, the SEC continued its assault on the business methods of subprime mortgage lenders. It charged "three former top officers of New Century Financial Corporation with securities fraud for misleading investors as New Century's subprime mortgage business was collapsing in 2006. At the time of the fraud, New Century was one of the largest subprime lenders in the nation." The SEC's press release and teh charges are here.


On Tuesday, as reported here by Ben Hallman from AmLAw, the goverment made plain that it has problem with the business model for "a lot of hedge funds." Specifically, a securities litigation conference included the following comments by David Rosenfeld, the associate regional director of the SEC's New York office:

Rosenfeld said that insider trading, after a downturn over the past two decades, "has come back in force." Rosenfeld described what his agency was seeing as more than one-off, opportunistic activity, but a "determined business" based upon collecting information from corporate insiders. He said his agency is "aggressively pursuing" these bad actors, and he specifically singled out hedge funds. "A lot of hedge funds have been making huge returns because they were cheating," he said. (emphasis added)


How many future civil suits will result from these charges and investigations? I'm sure I don't know. I'm also sure that I would be looking afresh at my litigation and regulatory risks if I were a general counsel working in those industries.

Watch on Monday for A. M. Best Findings and Projections on Asbestos and Environmental Losses

This article from Business Insurance overviews points from an A.M. Best study to be released on Monday with data and projections on losses from asbestos and pollution claims. Here are some excerpts from the Business Insurance advance article:

"Best estimates the industry's ultimate asbestos and environmental losses will reach $117 billion, down from a previous estimate of $121 billion. Asbestos exposures, however, are projected to reach $75 billion, up $10 billion from a previous estimate; environmental exposures are projected to drop to $42 billion from a previously estimated $55 billion. (emphasis added)

"The increase in asbestos estimates reflects ongoing, elevated levels of annual incurred losses, as well as a subtle shift of losses away from product liability claims to more costly nonproducts claims against more peripheral defendants," according to the report. "Also affecting asbestos losses is a growing proportion of settlements in more serious cases, principally related to mesothelioma, which is increasing the average values of such claims.

Whocanisue.com Founder Provides a Comment/Information on its Structure

When reading other blogs, I tend to miss comments on the posts, so te purposed of this post is to highlight a "comment" provided yesterday by Mr. Wolfe, of whocanisue.com. See the comment below yesterday's post or the full text is pasted below:

Curtis Wolfe said...

I'm the founder of whocanisue.com. I want to clarify something, lawyers do not pay referral fees on wcis, they pay to advertise (like the Google model) to wcis users. Most importantly, wcis does not decide which counsel is recommended for a particular case, the user decides. The site supplies the users as much information as possible so that the user can make an educated decision on which counsel is best for them. The user can contact one or more lawyers or firms to ask case specific questions, and then decide if and when the user wants to hire a firm. There is no other site that allows the users to control the entire process like whocanisue.com. In fact, our site has technology that would allow the user to chat with someone from each firm before making a decision. Unfortunately, the law firms are not quite ready to use this technology, so it is disabled until some future date when we hope the firms will be ready to use all of the site's functionality.

Curtis Wolfe

Whocanisue.com.com - Another Step in Tort Claim Marketing

The Internet is an amazing thing for marketing related to actual or potential legal claims. Here is a Madison County Record article that educated me to the existence of Whocanisue.com. It is in essence a referral source for plaintiffs, but also includes a button to hire defense counsel. The site seems to be limited to claims in the US.

It would be fascinating to know the pricing and structure for referral fees and the criteria that determine which counsel is recommended for a particular, serious case.

Readers - does anyone know of a similar website outside of the US?

Consumer Arbitration and Financial Houses - Going, Going Gone ?

This post by Ashby Jones at the WSJ law blog updates on another big financial house moving away from imposing arbitration clauses. Some would say this is good news and others would say it is bad news. Plainly it does mean that there will be more changes in the litigation industry as new models evolve for dispute resolution.

Korea to Open Law Firms to Outside Investment and Ownership, and Allow MDP Entities

Here is an interesting AmLaw post on the Korean government seeking to deregulate legal services and end restrictions on nonlawyers investing in and providing legal services. The key excerpts say:

"The Korean government is planning a major deregulation of the nation's legal and other professional services markets, the Korea Herald reports.

At a government meeting Tuesday, Finance Minister Yoon Jeung-hyun explained the move as a way to boost employment in the high-value services sector.

"The government will lower entry barriers to the professional service market to spur competition and to boost the size of the market," Yoon said.

A number of measures aimed at reducing regulation have been recommended to the government by the Korean Development Institute, a think tank. Perhaps most controversially, the KDI has proposed that non-lawyers and conglomerates be permitted to own stakes in law firms. The institute has also recommended an end to restrictions on lawyers, patent agents and certified public accountants practicing together."

Delaware Catholic Diocese to Use Chapter 11 to Manage Tort Cases Regarding Priests

Law360 and various news services had articles over the last two days regarding the Delaware Catholic Diocese filing for chapter 11 due to pending tort claims arising from priests molesting children. The Diocese is represented by Wilmington's Young Conaway law firm, which has been involved in many of the asbestos chapter 11 cases as counsel for futures reps. Will we see a trust fund or just tort claim resolution ? Either way, this presents just the latest example of how chapter 11 is being used as just another to to resolve tort claims. Here are two key quotes from the Law360 article.


"Filing for Chapter 11 offers the best opportunity, given finite resources, to provide the fairest possible treatment of all victims of sexual abuse by priests of our diocese," Bishop W. Francis Malooly of the Wilmington diocese said in a statement.

"Our hope is that Chapter 11 proceedings will enable us to fairly compensate all victims through a single process established by the bankruptcy court," Malooly said.

Structured Settlements versus Lump Sum Settlements - What are the Facts ?

Thanks to the Empirical Legal Studies blog post here, here is the link for a student paper asserting that there no facts to back up the practice of promoting structured settlements instead of lump sum settlements.

Massachusetts High Court Ruling Approves a New Medical Monitoring Claim Involving Smokers, Low Dose CT Scans and Cellular Changes

Today was not a good day for the tobacco industry or certain other "mass tort" defendants and/or insurer involved with cancer claiming. Why? Despite opposition briefs from almost every major defense group in the US (see n.4), the Massachusetts Supreme Court today issued a unanimous opinion approving a tort claim to obtain medical monitoring using low dose CT scans to seek to find lung cancer very early for a class of people at meaningful risk of cancer due to many pack years of prior or current smoking of Marlboro cigarettes. See below for the elements of the claim.

The opinion also is noteworthy for two other reasons. First, it includes a ruling on when and how a defendant can win a statute of limitations defense. It will not be easy for the defense since the opinion to a large degree suggests a focus on what a physician has told the plaintiff. The opinion also includes a ruling to protect plaintiffs against splitting a cause of action. The latter ruling is that if cancer does manifest itself, the plaintiff can bring a new claim even if he or she already made a claim for medical monitoring.

The opinion is available online here from the Court, and also is available on Westlaw. It is Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., --- N.E.2d ----, 2009 WL 3321445 (Mass.)

Go here for my prior post predicting this type of outcome and providing data and facts on cancer that help to explain why this ruling will, over time, become quite important. Go here for NAM's opposition brief.

The elements of the approved medical monitoring claim are:

"In conclusion, each plaintiff must prove the following:

(1) The defendant's negligence (2) caused (3) the plaintiff to become exposed to a hazardous substance that produced, at least, subcellular changes that substantially increased the risk of serious disease, illness, or injury (4) for which an effective medical test for reliable early detection exists, (5) and early detection, combined with prompt and effective treatment, will significantly decrease the risk of death or the severity of the disease, illness or injury, and (6) such diagnostic medical examinations are reasonably (and periodically) necessary, conformably with the standard of care, and (7) the present value of the reasonable cost of such tests and care, as of the date of the filing of the complaint."

Here are key excerpts from the opinion as to the Court's rationale:

"Modern living has exposed people to a variety of toxic substances. Illness and disease from exposure to these substances are often latent, not manifesting themselves for years or even decades after the exposure. Some people so exposed may never develop an illness or disease, but some will. Subcellular or other physiological changes may occur which, in themselves, are not symptoms of any illness or disease, but are warning signs to a trained physician that the patient has developed a condition that indicates a substantial increase in risk of contracting a serious illness or disease and thus the patient will require periodic monitoring. Not all cases will involve physiological change manifesting a known illness, but such cases should be allowed to proceed when a plaintiff's reasonable medical expenses have increased (or are likely to increase, in the exercise of due care) as a result of these physiological changes. We leave for another day consideration of cases that involve exposure to levels of chemicals or radiation known to cause cancer, for which immediate medical monitoring may be medically necessary although no symptoms or subclinical changes have occurred. Here, the physiological changes with the attendant substantial increase in risk of cancer, and the medical necessity of monitoring with its attendant cost, may adequately establish the elements of injury and damages.

Our tort law developed in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, when the vast majority of tortious injuries were caused by blunt trauma and mechanical forces. We must adapt to the growing recognition that exposure to toxic substances and radiation may cause substantial injury which should be compensable even if the full effects are not immediately apparent. See Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 858 P.2d 970, 977 (Utah 1993). When competent medical testimony establishes that medical monitoring is necessary to detect the potential onset of a serious illness or disease due to physiological changes indicating a substantial increase in risk of harm from exposure to a known hazardous substance, the element of injury and damage will have been satisfied and the cost of that monitoring is recoverable in tort. No particular level or quantification of increase in risk of harm is necessary, so long as it is substantial and so long as there has been at least a corresponding subcellular change. Id. at 979-980. This should address any concern over false claims, see Payton v. Abbott Labs, supra at 552-555, yet permit a genuinely injured person to recover legitimate expenses without having to overcome insurmountable problems of proof in this difficult and complex area. In this respect, medical expenses are recoverable not only for direct treatment and diagnosis of a present injury or an injury likely to occur, but for diagnostic tests needed to monitor medically a person who has been substantially exposed to a toxic substance that has created physiological changes indicating a substantial increase in risk that the person will contract a serious illness or disease. The expense of medical monitoring is thus a form of future medical expense and should be treated as such."

Report on Civil Justice in Scotland Calls for Class Actions and More Work on Litigation Funding and Contingency Fees

Lord Gill's report on civil justice in Scotland was issued on 30 September. The full report and the synopsis are available here. See below for some key excerpts from the synopsis.


"Multi‐party actions (Chapter 13)

The Report recommends that there should be a special procedure for dealing with multiple claims which give rise to common or similar issues of fact or law, for example, litigation arising out of a mass disaster or liability for defective products. Detailed recommendations are made regarding the features that such a procedure would have, including special funding arrangements for multi‐party actions to be administered by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (see paragraphs 64‐119).

The cost and funding of litigation (Chapter 14)
Detailed recommendations are made on the recovery of expenses. The cost of litigation should form part of the remit of the proposed Civil Justice Council for Scotland (see below); pending which the Scottish Government should set up a Working Group to look at the issue of expenses (paragraphs 50‐67).

While no recommendations are made on speculative fee arrangements pending the outcome of a review in England and Wales, it is recommended that this issue should urgently be addressed by the proposed Working Group on Judicial Expenses (see paragraphs 125‐127).

The Scottish Government should explore with insurance providers the scope for improving public awareness and increasing voluntary uptake of legal expenses insurance (see paragraph 140)."

Tort Wars - The Next Step in the Toyota Saga Regarding Alleged Document Destruction

Here is a different example of how mass tort litigation ends up becoming a media story. In this instance, the media consists of the latest story on Toyota's battles regarding alleged destruction of internal documents in order to avoid the information becoming evidence in rollover cases.

The short version is that after suing Toyota for wrongful discharge, a former inside lawyer has turned over to a federal judge four boxes of documents that are said to support his claim that documents were wrongfully destroyed by Toyota. The judge has ordered the documents to be secured, scanned and coded, and will give Toyota a chance to claim privilege regarding the documents. No doubt plaintiff's lawyers will then assert the crime-fraud exception applies to any otherwise privileged documents. The judge's ruling presumably will be widely reported.

How would you like to be the General Counsel dealing with this situation ? What would you want to know and then what would you decide to do when no one will give you the answers you need ? Much wisdom on the subject of crisis management has been spelled out before by business consultants. See, e.g,, Stop The Presses: The Crisis and Litigation PR Desk Reference. Written by Richard Levick and Larry Smith of Levick Strategic Communications, the book addresses crisis management in general, and its chapters 7 and 8 deal with strategies for dealing with blog stories and other issues that were more or less immaterial as little as 5 years ago. Also potentially relevant is its chapter 9 on the impacts of media related to prosecutorial activity.


Mass Torts, Media, and the Dole Chemical Exposure Cases

Here is a story regarding yet another aspect of the "mass tort" litigation industry - movies and other media drivers of public opinion. Remember - this situation is not unique. Indeed, other movies about "mass torts" were far bigger, such as Erin Brokovich and A Civil Action. Today, the mass tort wars are fought on many fronts and there are many forums for the battle over public opinion and perception, all of which can effect corporate reputation and the corporate stock price.

Recall also that there are two sides two every story, and that Dole's actions were portrayed as less than laudable in this August 19, 2009 Wall Street Journal article by Steve Stecklow. Set out below are 1) the AP article and 2) key excerpts from the WSJ article.

________________________________________________________________

Dole withdraws lawsuit against Swedish filmmaker

By MALIN RISING (AP) - 4 hours ago

STOCKHOLM -- Dole Foods is withdrawing a defamation lawsuit against a Swedish filmmaker after complaints in Sweden that it was trying to limit free speech, the company said Thursday.
Dole had sued filmmaker Fredrik Gertten for showing his controversial documentary "Bananas!" despite a court ruling that said it was based on a fraud.
The move sparked protests in Sweden, critics said the food company was trying to interfere with the freedom of speech.
In a statement, Dole said it decided to withdraw the lawsuit "in light of the free speech concerns being expressed in Sweden, although it continues to believe in the merits of its case."
"While the filmmakers continue to show a film that is fundamentally flawed and contains many false statements we look forward to an open discussion with the filmmakers regarding the content of the film," Dole's Executive Vice President and General Counsel, C. Michael Carter said.

The documentary shows the alleged plight of Nicaraguan workers who say they were made sterile by a pesticide used at Dole banana plantations in the 1970s. It was completed before a fraud was uncovered showing that the workers were recruited by a lawyer to lie. That ruling has been appealed.

Earlier this week Swedish food chain ICA -- a Dole customer -- held a meeting with the company saying it felt the filmmaker had the right to express his side of the story.
"We met their European division and ... put forward our view on the matter," ICA's fruit and vegetables chief Lars Astrom told The Associated Press. "We said we thought they should withdraw the lawsuit and asked them to get back to us, and now they have done that."
The film's producer, Margarete Jangard, welcomed Dole's decision.
"It feels fantastic that we have been able to make a difference, without an
y money, only with the help of all the people who have supported us," she told the AP.

The film was shown twice in June with a lengthy written disclaimer by Los Angeles Film Festival organizers who said it did not present a fair and accurate account but was worth showing as "a case study" of what happens when a story changes after a documentary is completed.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


______________________________________________________________
Excerpts from WSJ:

" DBCP, short for dibromochloropropane, was widely used around the world in the 1960s and 1970s to control microscopic worms called nematodes that attack roots and destroy crops. "The first year after we used" the pesticide, "the bananas were huge," says Isaias Paz, who worked for years as a foreman on a Dole-operated banana plantation outside Chinandega.
In 1977, California health officials discovered that workers at a DBCP manufacturing plant there had become sterile. Another manufacturer, Dow Chemical Co., one of Dole's suppliers for Central America, stopped production and announced a recall.
Dole, which began using the pesticide in Nicaragua in 1973, had a contract to purchase DBCP for another two years. It threatened Dow with breach of contract for stopping deliveries, stating there was no evidence that plantation workers who apply DBCP had been rendered sterile, according to records in a lawsuit later filed by Dow against a Dole unit in Michigan circuit court. In 1978, Dow agreed to sell Dole some of its remaining stocks only after the fruit company agreed to hold Dow harmless from any injury claims.
In 1979, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned DBCP in the U.S. for nearly all uses, including bananas, stating that "farm workers, pesticide applicators and the public at large...run varying degrees of risk of cancer, gene and chromosomal damage" and male infertility. Dole stopped using the pesticide in Nicaragua in 1980, according to Scott A. Edelman, a Dole attorney. The company's "use of the remaining stocks" of DBCP from 1978 to 1980 "was legal," he says."

Another US Plaintiff's Firm Moves into Europe

Mark Lanier's plaintiff's firm is expanding operations into London. As described in the media, the firm is establishing an arbitration practice. Here is the firm's press release and here is a law.com article.

The press release does not say this but one can envision that this effort has larger goals than simply handling some commerical cases. Instead, one can see this move as following a model set by others. That is, branch out to a new market using a product that will pay for itself more quickly than does tort litigation. That is, business litigation for hourly and/or contingent fees usually follows a time line that is shorter than the timeline for tort litigation. At the same time, that business litigation platform provides a basis for developing local skills and contacts that will be exploitable as the market for tort litigation evolves and expands over time.

Proposal for National Juries for Mass Tort Cases

Here is a late September post presenting a condensed version of a law review article proposing "national juries" for mass tort litigation. The proposal is from Professor Laura Gaston Dooley, a professor at the Valparaiso University Law School. Looking quickly through her CV at the school website, it appears Prof. Dooley clerked for two years for federal judges and then joined academia. Her work also includes being a part of the "Members Consultative Group, Project on Aggregate Litigation. American Law Institute," which is a group identified here.

Set out below are some excerpts from the condensed version. The proposal makes some interesting points. I've not read the full law review article. The condensed version does not hone in on two topics that seem key to me: state-by state variations in the applicable legal rules, and the manner in which a jury would cope with the applicable and evolving science in a mass tort "toxic tort" case.

See below for the excerpts that most caught my eye.
___________________________________________________________________


"The reexamination problem reflects tension between competing values in complex litigation: Consolidated cases may lead to unconstitutional reexamination of overlapping issues, yet trying individual cases presents problems of efficiency loss and forum manipulation. We must therefore choose between the evil of bifurcation and the evil of inefficient relitigation of the same issue, with the concomitant risk of inconsistent results. A third option--treating a single litigation as a national unit--vests too much power in one local jury to unleash national consequences.

Is there a fourth option? Empanelling a national jury would mitigate reexamination problems while preserving the efficiency gains of aggregation. A national jury would also address the concern that a local citizenry should not decide issues of national importance. And, most importantly, it would vindicate the animating concern of the Seventh Amendment: citizen participation in civil dispute resolution.

Our willingness to work out the logistical details of the national jury proposal and to absorb its inevitable costs is a function of our commitment to citizen participation in large-scale litigation. One difficulty, of course, will be assembling a national jury pool representative of a country as large and diverse as the United States. Even in much smaller jury districts, underrepresentation of minorities on jury venires has sparked an enormous amount of scholarly literature and litigation.8 Congress would have to consider how to assemble a nationally representative venire. A starting point might be to draw candidates for the national jury pool from congressional districts, since those boundaries have already withstood constitutional and statutory scrutiny under election laws.9 The census process could also be used to draw districts.

The expansion of jury pools from local to national may also require us to rethink the size of the venire and the petit jury, as well as verdict format and voting mechanisms. Obtaining some semblance of the required representativeness will no doubt require larger juries than the current six or twelve members. Indeed, in order for a national jury to function, the discussion may well have to shift to how large a group can effectively deliberate without becoming unwieldy.

The grand jury model may prove useful. One can imagine a national jury as a cross between the grand jury and the special jury: Jurors could serve for specified lengths of time, perhaps in particular courts hosting multi-district complex litigation. The learning curve for such jurors would be high. Having decided, say, causation issues in one products liability case, the national jury would have an informational advantage in understanding procedure and applicable substantive law for other cases. And this gain can be realized without sacrificing the democratic makeup of the jury--a quality lost in elitist special juries.

The civil jury, though steeped in history, is not frozen in time. In an era of increasingly complex litigation, the civil jury must adapt structurally to modern disputes while preserving its rich history and constitutional function. Empanelling national juries in cases of national scope may well be the only way to preserve meaningful citizen participation in large-scale litigation."

Who Will Invest in UK Law Firms When It Becomes Legal in 2011 ?

Law firms as an investment opportunity for non-lawyers? You bet. It is by now well-known that an Australian plaintiff's firm went public back in 2007. This August 3 article from Bloomberg covers the reality that in 2011, it will become legal in the UK for non-lawyers to invest in law firms, and describes several groups that say they are interested in investing in UK law firms.

The Tort Claim Industry - Seminar on Allocation of Losses Among Insurers and Insureds for "Nonproducts" Asbestos Cases and Environmental Cases

As noted before, substantive seminars are now a standard part of litigation industry and are indeed a driver of the industry. Today, for example, snail mail brought me brochures for seminars on drug and medical device litigation, automotive product liability litigation and food-borne illness litigation. The seminars usually are interesting because they bring the opposing sides together and force some dialog between the various constituencies. The participants of course do not put all of their cards on the table, but most seminars do produce some new insights and sometimes valuable data on a given substantive area if only because trial lawyers usually are competitive.

The tort litigation industry of course is driven by money. So, another significant part of the seminar industry is devoted to seminars and other educational forums in which the attendees focus on the distribution of financial responsibility for the underlying claims. Seminars of this sort run the gamut, including seminars regarding how to seek out insurance coverage, seminars on when insurers properly deny coverage, and issues between and among insureds, insurers and reinsurers. All of the issues of course must arise from some underlying set of facts, and then a variety of arguments regarding how the facts and attendant financial losses would or should be allocated between or among the various actors in the underlying facts, and their insurers and reinsurers. An example of this sort of seminar landed in my email in-box again this week and prompts this excursus. Specifically, Bates White and Environ will next week host a Chicago conference in which they will talk about the ways in which science and economics come together with respect to allocations of underlying losses from certain types of asbestos cases and "environmental cases."

The link for seminar registration is here, and attendance is free. See below for key excerpts from the description.
__________________________________________________________________

Qualifying & Estimating Environmental Damages:How and when are policies triggered?

Losses to businesses or insurers from asbestos, environmental, and health hazards are inherently uncertain due to the long-term nature of such potential exposures. However the uncertainty can be mitigated by better understanding the damages and by understanding when and how much insurance will be triggered. This is accomplished through site evaluations, identifying all potential damages, and estimating future damages. For example, ongoing screening is done during site evaluations to determine when environmental damage (both historic and potential future) meets the definition of recoverability. These actions will ensure that companies and insurers alike know what potential costs will be and how they will be allocated.

Our experts from Bates White and Environ will demonstrate that for the typical policyholder facing potential environmental damages, our process and experience allows the insurer or policy holder to manage their risk moving forward. Quantifying Nonproduct Losses: How and when were claimants exposed?Which claimants' exposure to asbestos occurred during business operations and which claimants' exposure occurred afterwards? The answer to this question may determine if the policyholder's insurers owe tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions.

If a claim is determined to be a "products" claim, such that exposure did not occur during the policyholder's contracting operations, then insurance recoveries will be subject to the explicit aggregate limit specified in each insurance policy's products and completed exclusion clauses. In contrast, if a claimant claims exposure during the policyholder's operations, then the claim may fall outside exclusion clauses (such as a "non-products" claim) and the amount of insurance recovery may not be subject to an aggregate limit.

Our experts from Bates White and Environ will demonstrate that for the typical policyholder with contracting activities, a minority of its claimants were exposed while contracting activities were ongoing; the majority of claimants were exposed long after the contracting activities were completed. They will provide concrete examples. CLE accreditation of this program is approved in Illinois.

CLICK HERE BY SEP. 4 TO RESERVE YOUR SEAT

The Evolving Litigation Industry - Real and Mock Jurors Now Part of Litigation Seminars

The litigation industry continues to evolve. Starting a couple of years back, it became far more more common for judges in repetitive types of litigation (e.g. asbestos, medical malpractice) to appear on panels at litigation seminars. Now things are going the next step and jurors are appearing at seminars in various ways.



Here are two examples. First, HB Litigation Seminars issued this press release to further advertise that a panel of an upcoming asbestos litigation seminar will include two former jurors from asbestos trials. According to the press release:



"SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- Sharon Boothe, partner and head of programming at HB Litigation Conferences LLC, announced today that she has added to the faculty of HB's Sept. 23-25 "National Asbestos Litigation Conference" individuals who served on juries at trials of two high profile California asbestos cases.
"These jurors will join 11 judges and a phalanx of experienced asbestos attorneys and experts, plus more than two dozen in-house counsel at what promises to be the most informative asbestos litigation program we have produced since we started running these events in 1992," Boothe said.


The jurors come from Haupt v. A.W. Chesterton and Woodard v. Alfa Laval, both of which involved mesothelioma claims that resulted in large verdicts where the U.S. Navy was held responsible for the bulk of the awards. The Haupt case resulted in a $1.45 million award. The jury in the Woodard case returned a nearly $17 million award, thought to be the largest asbestos mesothelioma verdict returned in Los Angeles County."



The second example of jurors in seminars comes from a rival litigation industry service provider, HarrisMartin. Last June, that litigation seminar firm ran this asbestos litigation seminar that consisted of a mock trial with jurors wired up to provide real time reactions to arguments and questions. I attended a similar prior seminar from the same firm and it was quite good because it allows many people to obtain the benefit of mock jury studies all at one time. That's helpful because mock jury studies are not cheap, and so insurers and clients sometimes make short-sighed decisions not to undertake the expense or effort, sometimes leading to trial disasters.

The Litigation Industry - 1 Lung Cancer and 17 Mesothelioma Lawsuits - A Week's Worth of Madison County New Asbestos Case Filings

Many words have been written and said about asbestos litigation and class action litigation in Madison County. Disturbingly, academics and many others lack meaningful access to many concrete facts regarding the day in, day out events in Madison County and other courts that are very active in tort litigation. Instead, war stories and antecdotes - often but not always extreme - tend to dominate the media and academic exchanges, and produce many disputes about what really is and is not happening. In that light, the points of this post are 1) to provide an example of one week of asbestos claims filed in Madison County and 2) also to point out that the litigation industry now includes free news sources focused on providing a continuing flow of information regarding some of the active forums for tort litigation.

One group of sources for data consist of "the Record" publications that focus on Illinois' Madison and St. Clair counties, Southeast Texas and West Virginia. Specific to Illinois are the Madison and St. Clair County Records. All are free online publications, with paid print versions. The publications are run by private ownership, with an investment from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of course has a view but that does not change the facts nor the reality that these publications provide by far the best real time, free and easy windows in to the goings on in these active venues that are so much a part of the litigation industry.

Free email subscriptions bring readers the news each week as defined by the Record; subscription sign up is available at the Ma,dison Record's home page (here). More or less each week the Record publishes a summary of the new asbstos case filings ( I keep bugging them to also put the complaints online, but so far that has not happened.) Set out below is the weekly summary for the week July 27-31.

As you read the case summaries, note how few of the cases appear to have a meaningful connection to Illinois. And, beyond considering the litigation industry view, consider also the widespread impact of cancer. Imagine what these families have been through or are going through as they try to cope with the devastion caused by these 18 of the 1.4 million cancers that will be diagnosed this year in the United Sates according to this detailed Powerpoint presentation for 2009 from from the American Cancer Society.

_________________________________________________________________


18 new asbestos cases filed July 27-31


8/20/2009 8:39 AM
By Kelly Holleran

A total of 18 new asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County during the week of July 27 through July 31.

The following claims were filed:

--Norbert and Marjorie Bossen of Iowa allege Norbert Bossen developed mesothelioma after his work in the United States Navy from 1944 until 1946; as a boilermaker in the late 1940s and early 1950s; with Gilbert and Bossen Farm Implements from the early 1950s until 1967; as a pipe fitter from 1967 until 1982; and performing home remodeling work to his homes in the mid 1970s. The Bossens are represented by Robert Rowland and Elizabeth V. Heller of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville. Sean P. Worsey of Levin, Simes, Kaiser and Gornick in San Francisco will serve of counsel. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-795.

--Walter Derby of Colorado, an aviation mechanic, consulting engineer, police officer, security guard, laborer, tree trimmer and contractor/construction worker at various locations throughout Illinois, California, Colorado and Oklahoma from 1967 until 2007 claims mesothelioma. Derby is represented by Timothy F. Thompson Jr. and Ryan J. Kiwala of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-789.

--Catherine Fridmanski claims her recently deceased cousin, Andrew Mulato, developed mesothelioma after his work as a bricklayer and steelworker at various locations from 1940 until 1980. Fridmanski is represented by Andrew O'Brien, Christopher Thoron, Christina J. Nielson, Bartholomew J. Baumstark and Gerald J. FitzGerald of the O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-792.

--Josie Gonzales of Texas claims her recently deceased husband, Eulalio Gonzales, developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer and foreman at various locations throughout Illinois, Missouri, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Texas from 1958 until 1985. Josie Gonzales is represented by Amy E. Garrett and W. Brent Copple of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-798.

--Joseph and Sandra Goudreau of Michigan claim Joseph Goudreau developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer, painter, operator and engineer at various locations in Illinois, Michigan, Alabama and Wisconsin from 1950 until 2000. The Goudreaus are represented by Timothy F. Thompson Jr. and Ryan J. Kiwala of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-801.

--Julie Hied of Montana claims her recently deceased husband, Lyle Woolston,developed mesothelioma after his work as a rancher and mechanic at various locations from 1968 until 1978. Hied is represented by Robert Phillips, Perry J. Browder and Rosalind M. Robertson of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-775.

--Betty Hughes of Virginia claims her recently deceased husband, Cecil Hughes, developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer and carpenter from 1970 until 1979. Hughes is represented by Robert Phillips, Perry J. Browder and Rosalind M. Robertson of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelisdes and Barnerd in East Alton. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-776.

--Robert and Barbara Krupp of Illinois allege Robert Krupp developed lung cancer after his work in the U.S. Coast Guard from 1952 until 1955; as a laborer at Mallinckrodt Chemical Company from 1955 until 1957; as a laborer at The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company from 1957 until 1961; as a laborer at Stickland Trucklines from 1962 until 1965; and as a laborer at Manufacturers Railway Company from 1965 until 1991. The Krupps are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-777.

--John Lappin of Missouri, a machinist and steelworker from 1947 until 1992, claims mesothelioma. Lappin is represented by Andrew O'Brien, Christopher Thoron, Christina J. Nielson, Bartholomew J. Baumstark and Gerald J. FitzGerald of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-772.

--Ronald H. and Karen L. Larson claim Ronald H. Larson developed mesothelioma after his work as a field lineman with the United States Army from 1960 until 1963 and as a steel plate inspector at Bethlehem Steel from 1963 until 1987. The Larsons are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville. W. Mark Lanier, Patrick N. Haines, C. Taylor Campbell, J.D. McMullen and William H. Barfield of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-781.

--Christopher Morelli of New Jersey claims his recently deceased wife, Michelle Morelli, developed mesothelioma after her work as a laborer at Lockheed Martin in 1982. She was also exposed to asbestos fibers while doing abatement work during the late 1990s and was secondarily exposed through her husband, who owned a painting, drywall and texture company from 1982 until now, according to the complaint. Christopher Morelli is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-782.

--Jimmy E. and Rosalee Murphy of Arkansas claim Jimmy Murphy developed mesothelioma after his work as a manufacturer from 1967 until 1971 at Tucker Duck and Rubber Company, Fort Smith Table and Chairs and Bowmen and Company; as a laborer for Capco from 1971 until 1976; as a welder for Structural Steel in 1976; as a forklift operator for Farmland Feed Mill from 1976 until 1980; as a welder for Branham Industries from 1980 until 1981; as a welder for Interstate Electric from 1983 until 1986; and as an assembly line worker for Trane from 1986 until 2000. The Murphys are represented by Elizabeth V. Heller and Robert Rowland of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-793.

--Shirley Jo Peeler of Ohio, a cashier for Liberal Markets from 1953 until 1956 and an employee at Revco and a press operator at Stanhope Products from 1956 until 1958, claims mesothelioma. Peeler is represented by Elizabeth V. Heller and Robert Rowland of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-794.

--Larry C. and Bettye M. Sims claim Larry C. Sims developed mesothelioma after his work as an engineer and machinist mate while in the U.S. Navy from 1962 until 1987; as a maintenance man at Dorchester School District in South Carolina from 1987 until 1998; as a home remodeler at his house from 1960 until 1970; and as a shadetree mechanic from 1959 until 1979. The Sims are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton. W. Mark Lanier, Patrick N. Haines, Angela B. Greenberg, Sam T. Richard, Bridget B. Truxillo and Lauren H. Ware of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-779.

--Toni Solano of Texas claims her recently deceased husband, John M. Solano, developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer and division engineer for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Road from 1975 until 2005. Toni Solano is represented by Elizabeth V. Heller and Robert Rowland of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-796.

--Robert A. and Darlene M. Switzer claim Robert A. Switzer developed mesothelioma after his work as a service representative, products liability specialist, maintenance, expert claims witness for Caterpillar Tractor Company from 1953 until 1988; while being enrolled in officer's candidate school where he learned and performed duties on Navy ship from 1944 until 1946; while working for a road equipment contractor and on welded metal tracks from 1949 until 1953; as a farmer at Norvel Switzer Farm from 1926 until 1944; as a shadetree mechanic from the 1950s until 1980; and in residential construction from the 1950s until 1980. The Switzers are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville. W. Mark Lanier, Patrick N. Haines, R. Craig Bullock and J. Kyle Beane of Houston will serve of counsel. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-780.

--Leo J. and Ruth A. Vietmeier claim Leo J. Vietmeier developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer, assembly line worker and maintenance man at American Vitrified in the 1950s; as a laborer while in the AFL-CIO Union in the 1960s; as a mine worker at Pegg's Run Coal Mill in Pennsylvania in the 1970s; as a meat cutter at Giant Eagle from 1980 until 1996; as a home remodeler at his home from 1967 until 1990; and as a shadetree mechanic on his automobiles from 1950 until 1980. The Vietmeiers are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton. W. Mark Lanier, Patrick N. Haines, Angela B. Greenburg, Sam T. Richard, Bridget Baragona and Lauren H. Ware of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-778.

--Mary Ellen White of New Hampshire claims her recently deceased husband, John Grohosky, developed mesothelioma after his work in the U.S. Navy from 1944 until 1964 and as a forklift driver from the early 1970s until 1988. White is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-784.

--Fred Young of Wisconsin, who served in the British Navy from August 1940 until August 1954 and who worked as a mechanical researcher from 1954 until 1956; as a mechanical researcher at AV Roc from 1956 until 1958; as a design engineer for Pratt and Whitney from 1958 until 1960; as a design engineer at the GE Nuclear Power Demonstration Plant from 1960 until 1963; as a senior reactor operator at Ontario Hydro from 1963 until 1965; as a maintenance supervisor at Thunder Bay Generating Plant from 1965 until 1967; as a maintenance supervisor at Wisconsin Electric Point Beach Plant from 1968 until 1972; as a laborer at Bechtel from 1972 until 1984; and as a consultant at Wisconsin Electric Point Beach Plant from 1984 until 1989, claims mesothelioma. Young is represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville. Madison County Circuit Court case number: 09-L-797.

Great Summary of Twombly/Iqbal Rulings

This August 6 post from the Device and Drug Law Blog provides a great summary of Twombly/Iqbal rulings over the last couple of years.

Plaintiff's Bar and US Chamber of Commerce Agree - Let's Make It Easier to Sue Non-US Manufacturers

Catching up on things I missed while on vacation. PointofLaw includes this interesting post on a draft federal statute to require overseas manufacturers of many consumer products to appoint registered agents in the US for service of process. The point is to make it equally easy to sue overseas companies. According to pointoflaw, the bill amazingly produced harmony between the plaintiff's bar and the US Chamber of Commerce- - now that's quite a feat:

"The bill follows on the footsteps of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in May, "Leveling the Playing Field and Protecting Americans." As the sponsors show, the issue crosses partisan lines. General support is also broad: Witnesses at the hearing included a representative of the trial lawyer lobby, AAJ, as well as Victor Schwartz, testifying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber."

Tax Breaks for Plaintiff's Lawyers ?

Further proving that law is just another industry, LegalNewsline has an interesting article here about legislative efforts to give plaintiff's lawyers a tax break. Instead of personal injury case expenses being treated as loans to the clients, the plaintiff's lawyers want to immediately expense the amounts spent. According to the article, the hoped-for tax break was a topic at the recent national meeting of the trade association plaintiff's personal injury bar.

Judge Delaughter Pleads Guilty to Putting Justice on Sale for Dickie Scruggs

This NYT article notes the guilty plea of Judge DeLaughter for obstruction of justice for tipping the scales in favor of asbestos and tobacco maven Dickie Scruggs. Stories of this sort are unfortunate reminders that John Grisham will never run out of grist for his novels exploring the many seamy sides of trying to dance on both sides of the many sharp edges in our legal system .