My son received a notice of a class action lawsuit against Southwest Airlines. I sent the below email to Southwest directors for whom I could find email addresses:
From: RDShatt
To: _______
Sent: 11/29/2008 _______ P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Kaye v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Re: Kaye v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Dear _________,
I am writing to you in your capacity as a director of Southwest Airlines related to the above class action lawsuit (http://www.southwest.com/landing/kaye_settlement_69162.html).
In this time of economic crisis, the skimming and scamming done by plaintiffs' lawyers is more objectionable than ever.
I have written letters to judges and lead plaintiffs in class action lawsuits of which I have received notice registering my strongest objection to the plaintiffs lawyers perpetrating their litigation. See these four links: credit card currency conversion fees; Xerox securities litigation; Middlesex County/Monster securities litigation; Charter cable fees.
I am doing what I can as a lowly citizen to complain, and I think the Southwest directors should take the opportunity of the above class action lawsuit to register their objection to the plaintiffs' lawyers' skimming and scamming, especially at this time of economic crisis and for the sake of the repairing and rebuilding of the economy that is going to have to take place as the country digs out of its problems. I hope you will find a way to register your objection.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Greed, anger, reform, repair, lawyers, judges
Our county is surveying the wreckage in its financial system and a serious threat to its economic functioning, and it is learning unhappy lessons.
One theme coming out is how compensation structures led to abusive disregard for the property of other parties and resulted in great harm.
The culprits that gave the country subprime included banks and mortgage companies that ginned up gobs of current income for themselves without due regard for whether the home purchaser could afford the house in the long run. This was enabled by investment banks and bankers who, for large underwriting fees and personal compensation, engineered the packaging of mortgage loans into securities that could be sold to investors around the world, which took the risk off the banks and mortgage companies, and offloaded it onto distant investors who, as things turned out, did not understand what they bought. Not all the packaged loans could be sold off, and in order to make their underwriting deals work and get their fees and hefty personal compensation, the management at investment banks used their shareholders' equity to take up some of the securities, thereby sticking that undue risk on their shareholders. The subprime people also included the rating agencies that compromised their ratings work for the compensation they received from the underwriters. In Washington, the executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in order to grow their exhorbitant compensation packages, were more than happy, using the taxpayer's credit, to have Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae inflate the bubble that burst and that became the debacle.
The foregoing litany, which could be extended, has focused anger on compensation structures for corporate executives, managers and other persons that resulted in commercial banks, mortgage companies, investment banks and other parties doing things without proper regard for the assets, property and value belonging to other parties, such as home buyers, investors, shareholders and taxpayers, and that ultimately did trillions of dollars of financial damage and put the nation's economy at risk.
As the country looks for ways to dig out of its problems, and as a new administration comes to Washington to lead the effort, the country is getting immersed in a new economic regimen of governmental investment and oversight that was inconceivable a year ago. The government, investors and public are taking a close look at compensation structures that led to damage to the economy. Where public funds have been brought to bear, the government has dictated limitations on executive compensation and the payment of dividends to stockholders.
With with all this attention to trying to understand the causes of the crisis, including the role of compensation structures, and how best to repair and rebuild the economy, this review should include looking at the country's legal system, the costs it imposes on the country, the compensation structures for plaintiffs' lawyers, and how the same has harmed the economy in the past and will hinder its rebuilding.
For many years, there has been strenuous contention that the legal system has been exploited by the plaintiffs lawyers to enrich themselves by imposing unjustifiable costs for the economy. For an excellent chronicle of this, see http://www.overlawyered.com/. Further consider how the plaintiffs' lawyers compensation structure has resulted in undermining the inculcation of ethical conduct by employees of corporations (see Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics? ). Consider also the destruction of shareholder value in Citigroup that was in the news last week. Citigroup shareholders who are angry at Citigroup executives for having compensation structures that led them to expose the shareholders to inappropriate risk in order to get underwriting business and thereby justify management paying themselves exhorbitant compensation should consider how something similar took place related to Citigroup's involvement with Enron earlier in the decade, and how the plaintiffs' lawyers, fueled by their compensation structure, complicitly enabled Citigroup's management and piled on to inflict even more damage on the hapless Citigroup shareholders. See Enron's smartest guys, crooks, victims and other saps.
With the Obama administration coming to Washingon, there is concern that the lawyers are going to be better positioned to promote their exploitive ways for enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of the society. With much repair work needed for the economy, and with the change in the national administration, now is more important than ever to bolster publicity and scrutiny of how the plaintiffs lawyers exploit the existing legal system to enrich themselves by imposing wasteful costs on the rest of the society and the need to lessen the economic drag of these costs that will hinder the country in repairing its economy and regaining the jobs and personal income that all of the citizens want.
Further, judges are the immediate overseers of the legal system. Just as other government regulators are under scrutiny for how well they performed in their oversight of activities that contributed to the current crisis, so judges ought to be scrutinized for how they have performed in overseeing the legal system and the costs that have been imposed on society. Primary attention should be given to the compensation structure of plaintiffs' lawyers and the deleterious effects of that. If those compensation structures were changed, and the amount of wasteful litigation lessened, the benefits would include savings of defense lawyers fees. Also judges could be more hard nosed about the fees they allow in bankruptcy cases, which would provide aid in rehabilitating and recycling business assets during the period of economic repair.
One theme coming out is how compensation structures led to abusive disregard for the property of other parties and resulted in great harm.
The culprits that gave the country subprime included banks and mortgage companies that ginned up gobs of current income for themselves without due regard for whether the home purchaser could afford the house in the long run. This was enabled by investment banks and bankers who, for large underwriting fees and personal compensation, engineered the packaging of mortgage loans into securities that could be sold to investors around the world, which took the risk off the banks and mortgage companies, and offloaded it onto distant investors who, as things turned out, did not understand what they bought. Not all the packaged loans could be sold off, and in order to make their underwriting deals work and get their fees and hefty personal compensation, the management at investment banks used their shareholders' equity to take up some of the securities, thereby sticking that undue risk on their shareholders. The subprime people also included the rating agencies that compromised their ratings work for the compensation they received from the underwriters. In Washington, the executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in order to grow their exhorbitant compensation packages, were more than happy, using the taxpayer's credit, to have Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae inflate the bubble that burst and that became the debacle.
The foregoing litany, which could be extended, has focused anger on compensation structures for corporate executives, managers and other persons that resulted in commercial banks, mortgage companies, investment banks and other parties doing things without proper regard for the assets, property and value belonging to other parties, such as home buyers, investors, shareholders and taxpayers, and that ultimately did trillions of dollars of financial damage and put the nation's economy at risk.
As the country looks for ways to dig out of its problems, and as a new administration comes to Washington to lead the effort, the country is getting immersed in a new economic regimen of governmental investment and oversight that was inconceivable a year ago. The government, investors and public are taking a close look at compensation structures that led to damage to the economy. Where public funds have been brought to bear, the government has dictated limitations on executive compensation and the payment of dividends to stockholders.
With with all this attention to trying to understand the causes of the crisis, including the role of compensation structures, and how best to repair and rebuild the economy, this review should include looking at the country's legal system, the costs it imposes on the country, the compensation structures for plaintiffs' lawyers, and how the same has harmed the economy in the past and will hinder its rebuilding.
For many years, there has been strenuous contention that the legal system has been exploited by the plaintiffs lawyers to enrich themselves by imposing unjustifiable costs for the economy. For an excellent chronicle of this, see http://www.overlawyered.com/. Further consider how the plaintiffs' lawyers compensation structure has resulted in undermining the inculcation of ethical conduct by employees of corporations (see Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics? ). Consider also the destruction of shareholder value in Citigroup that was in the news last week. Citigroup shareholders who are angry at Citigroup executives for having compensation structures that led them to expose the shareholders to inappropriate risk in order to get underwriting business and thereby justify management paying themselves exhorbitant compensation should consider how something similar took place related to Citigroup's involvement with Enron earlier in the decade, and how the plaintiffs' lawyers, fueled by their compensation structure, complicitly enabled Citigroup's management and piled on to inflict even more damage on the hapless Citigroup shareholders. See Enron's smartest guys, crooks, victims and other saps.
With the Obama administration coming to Washingon, there is concern that the lawyers are going to be better positioned to promote their exploitive ways for enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of the society. With much repair work needed for the economy, and with the change in the national administration, now is more important than ever to bolster publicity and scrutiny of how the plaintiffs lawyers exploit the existing legal system to enrich themselves by imposing wasteful costs on the rest of the society and the need to lessen the economic drag of these costs that will hinder the country in repairing its economy and regaining the jobs and personal income that all of the citizens want.
Further, judges are the immediate overseers of the legal system. Just as other government regulators are under scrutiny for how well they performed in their oversight of activities that contributed to the current crisis, so judges ought to be scrutinized for how they have performed in overseeing the legal system and the costs that have been imposed on society. Primary attention should be given to the compensation structure of plaintiffs' lawyers and the deleterious effects of that. If those compensation structures were changed, and the amount of wasteful litigation lessened, the benefits would include savings of defense lawyers fees. Also judges could be more hard nosed about the fees they allow in bankruptcy cases, which would provide aid in rehabilitating and recycling business assets during the period of economic repair.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Message for HR
Americans are experiencing significant pain and not a little anger from the worldwide plunge in the financial markets. Millions of employees are worried about their pension plans and retirement accounts. HR undoubtedly shares their employees' concerns, both for them as individuals and also for corporate compensation, morale and motivation objectives. Finger pointing about the financial and economic crisis has been taking place in order that corrective actions for the future may be taken. The below article does additional finger pointing towards that end. Employees and HR may consider the article worthy of their attention.
Why Aren’t Retirement Plan Trustees Screaming Bloody Murder?
Why Aren’t Retirement Plan Trustees Screaming Bloody Murder?
Why aren’t retirement plan trustees screaming bloody murder?
At 5:30 p.m. this coming Friday, November 21st, there will be held in the federal district court in New York City a settlement hearing in a class action securities lawsuit bearing the name Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation (http://www.berdonclaims.com/cases/details.asp?p=Main&CaseID=246). The lead plaintiff in this class action against Monster is Middlesex County Retirement System of Massachusetts.
The Monster case is cookie cutter litigation that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have been trotting around the country in recent years. In these cases, there are shareholders with real financial losses; there are also persons who are lucky and by chance walk away with windfall gains corresponding to those shareholder losses; and the plaintiffs lawyers have the shareholders with the losses sue the corporation for their losses. In the end, windfall gains remain in the hands of parties who are not before the court, and the lawsuit generates a circular payment that accomplishes a shuffling around of the losses among the shareholders who experienced the losses and also shifting a part of the losses to other shareholders who did not have losses (or windfall gain), and also shifts a part to some of the lucky persons who had windfall gains and who, by chance, are subject to a some partial reclamation of their windfall gains. In addition, the shareholder losses in question are more than just shuffled around; they are increased in total by the huge cut taken by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and also by very sizable fees of the lawyers who have to be hired to defend the corporation in the lawsuit.
Does the foregoing sound crazy? It is crazy, and you would think that, instead of aiding and abetting the plaintiffs’ lawyers in this type of litigation, Middlesex County Retirement System, as well as every other governmental retirement system and corporate retirement plan trustee in the country, would be screaming bloody murder about such craziness. Maybe the reason they have not done so is that they have just been plain snookered by a plaintiffs’ lawyers’ sleight of hand.
Some further detail is needed to explain this.
These class action lawsuits occur in the context of an accounting or other stock price related fraud that has occurred (or allegedly occurred).
If there has been such fraud, accountants, and officers and directors and others, who participated in the fraud should be held liable for damages, fines and imprisonment under applicable civil and criminal securities fraud laws. Also if the corporation sold stock and received the proceeds in connection with the fraud, there is a legitimate claim for recovery against the corporation. Neither persons such as officers, directors or accountants, nor proceeds received by the corporation, are the crux of the cookie cutter litigation exemplified by the Monster lawsuit. The crux is a tricky sleight of hand by the plaintiff’s lawyers.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers sue the corporation and third parties such as officers and directors and accountants. They allege that the defendants perpetrated the accounting or other fraud that resulted in the price of the corporation’s stock being artificially inflated during a period of time starting when the fraud began and ending when the fraud became publicly known, thereby causing the stock price to no longer be artificially inflated by reason of the fraud.
Now comes the sleight of hand by the plaintiffs’ lawyers. If there was fraud and the stock price was artificially inflated for a period of time, some persons (let’s call them the “unlucky” shareholders) who bought shares in the marketplace during that period will indeed experience losses from the fraud. The problems is, for every unlucky shareholder who bought shares and paid an artificially inflated price, the seller of those shares in the marketplace (let’s call these shareholders the “lucky” shareholders) got a windfall gain of receiving an artificially inflated price and that windfall gain is then in their pockets. The situation is thus that there are unlucky shareholders who have real financial losses from the fraud, there are the lucky shareholders who got windfall gains equal to the losses, and there are innocent bystander shareholders who did not receive any windfall gain but who also did not experience any losses (such as shareholders who bought before the start of the artificially inflated period and did not sell before the end of the period, or shareholders who bought after the end of the inflation period) .The sleight of hand of the plaintiffs lawyers is to keep mum about the fact that there will not be recovery from the lucky shareholders the windfall gains that they got by chance as a result of the fraud and who have walked away with such gains, and instead the plaintiffs lawyers will shuffle the losses around by having the shareholders who experienced the losses sue the corporation that generates a big payment from the corporation which is divvied up among unlucky shareholders who had losses from the fraud in proportion to the amount of their losses from the fraud.
How does this shake out? The burden of the big payment from the corporation is shared on an equal share basis by all current shareholders. The “lucky” shareholders who are no longer shareholders and have walked away with their windfall gains will bear no burden of the corporation’s big payment and their windfall gains will be completely untouched. “Lucky” shareholders who sold shares at an inflated price and got a windfall gain and who are still shareholders at the end of the inflation period because they did not sell all their shares or because they bought back shares at a lesser price will bear a burden of the corporation’s big payment in proportion to the shares they own at the end of the period, they will not get any share of the big corporate payment, and hence they have their windfall gain reduced to some extent. Innocent bystander shareholders (such as those who bought before the beginning of the artificial inflation period and held their shares throughout the period) have a share of the losses shifted onto them through their share of the burden of the big corporate payment. As to “unlucky” shareholders, some may no longer be shareholders, bear no burden of the corporation’s big payment, and will have their losses reduced by receiving their share of the big payment. Of the “unlucky” shareholders who are current shareholders, some will have their loss reduced on a net basis because their share of the burden of the big corporate payment by the corporation will be less than the share of the payment they receive based on the amount of their losses; for other “unlucky” shareholders, the burden of the corporation’s big payment on them will be greater than the share of the corporation’s big payment that they receive based on their amount of losses, so, on a net basis, their loss will be increased as a result of the litigation.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers big fee will come out of the corporation’s big payment, and the corporation will also pay sizable attorney fees to the corporation’s lawyers representing it in the class action lawsuit. All of these legal fees will increase the aggregate loss ultimately borne by the “unlucky” shareholders and by the innocent bystander shareholders.
In the Monster class action, the amount of the big corporate payment (the burden of which is borne by all current shareholders on an equal per share basis) will be $47,500,000. Presumably. the lucky shareholders in Monster obtained total windfall gains of at least that amount (and perhaps many times that amount). To an unknown extent there will be lucky shareholders who have walked away with their windfall gains and these windfall gains will be completely untouched by the litigation. The plaintiffs lawyers will take 25% of the $47,500,000, and the balance will be distributed among shareholders who had losses from the fraud. The net effect of this increases total losses by the aggregate of all attorney fees (25% of $47,500,000 for the plaintiffs attorneys plus whatever fees Monster has to pay to its lawyers) and shuffles $47,500,000 of the losses around as previously described, i.e., some “unlucky” shareholders effectively have their losses decreased, some "unlucky" shareholders have their losses increased, some of the losses get shuffled onto innocent bystander shareholders, and some “lucky” shareholders have their windfall gains reduced.
In 2007 there was consummated a cookie cutter class action involving Tyco Corporation (see http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/01/three-plaintiffs-firms-to-ask-for-460-million-in-tyco-suit/?mod=WSJBlog#commentsThe) that had much more eye popping numbers. In that case, the big corporate payment from Tyco was $2,975,000,000 (total windfall gains of lucky Tyco stockholders presumably being at least that much, and possibly many times more), and the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed $460,000,000 in attorneys fees for their services. Those services increased total losses by the amount of the fee plus the amount of legal fees of Tyco’s lawyers and shifted otherwise shifted around $2,975,000,000 in losses among the shareholders who had losses from the fraud and shuffling some of the losses onto innocent bystander shareholders of Tyco, to some chance extent reduced some of the windfall gains of some of the lucky Tyco stockholders in Tyco. In a further cookie cutterclass action that is currently being finalized involving Xerox Corporation (http://www.gilardi.com/xeroxsettlement), the amount of the big circular corporate payment will be $670,000,000, and the cut of the plaintiffs' lawyers will be 20%, or $134,000,000.
To repeat,you would think that, instead of aiding and abetting the plaintiffs lawyers in the Monster class action, Middlesex County Retirement System, as well as every other governmental retirement system and corporate retirement plan trustee in the country, would be screaming bloody murder about the craziness their stock investments are being subjected to by these kinds of lawsuits. Maybe the reason they have not so is that they have been just plain snookered by the plaintiffs’’ lawyers’ sleight of hand.
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades, and our country's huge governmental retirement systems, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have now collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets. Maybe governmental retirement systems and corporate retirement plan trustees will stop being snookered and start screaming bloody murder about what the plaintiffs lawyers have been doing in order for the lawyers to enrich themselves by possibly billions of dollars and thereby pile on further reductions in the value of stock investments of the retirement plans. (For further commentary on plaintiff lawyers' predations on innocent bystander shareholder value, go here.)
The Monster case is cookie cutter litigation that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have been trotting around the country in recent years. In these cases, there are shareholders with real financial losses; there are also persons who are lucky and by chance walk away with windfall gains corresponding to those shareholder losses; and the plaintiffs lawyers have the shareholders with the losses sue the corporation for their losses. In the end, windfall gains remain in the hands of parties who are not before the court, and the lawsuit generates a circular payment that accomplishes a shuffling around of the losses among the shareholders who experienced the losses and also shifting a part of the losses to other shareholders who did not have losses (or windfall gain), and also shifts a part to some of the lucky persons who had windfall gains and who, by chance, are subject to a some partial reclamation of their windfall gains. In addition, the shareholder losses in question are more than just shuffled around; they are increased in total by the huge cut taken by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and also by very sizable fees of the lawyers who have to be hired to defend the corporation in the lawsuit.
Does the foregoing sound crazy? It is crazy, and you would think that, instead of aiding and abetting the plaintiffs’ lawyers in this type of litigation, Middlesex County Retirement System, as well as every other governmental retirement system and corporate retirement plan trustee in the country, would be screaming bloody murder about such craziness. Maybe the reason they have not done so is that they have just been plain snookered by a plaintiffs’ lawyers’ sleight of hand.
Some further detail is needed to explain this.
These class action lawsuits occur in the context of an accounting or other stock price related fraud that has occurred (or allegedly occurred).
If there has been such fraud, accountants, and officers and directors and others, who participated in the fraud should be held liable for damages, fines and imprisonment under applicable civil and criminal securities fraud laws. Also if the corporation sold stock and received the proceeds in connection with the fraud, there is a legitimate claim for recovery against the corporation. Neither persons such as officers, directors or accountants, nor proceeds received by the corporation, are the crux of the cookie cutter litigation exemplified by the Monster lawsuit. The crux is a tricky sleight of hand by the plaintiff’s lawyers.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers sue the corporation and third parties such as officers and directors and accountants. They allege that the defendants perpetrated the accounting or other fraud that resulted in the price of the corporation’s stock being artificially inflated during a period of time starting when the fraud began and ending when the fraud became publicly known, thereby causing the stock price to no longer be artificially inflated by reason of the fraud.
Now comes the sleight of hand by the plaintiffs’ lawyers. If there was fraud and the stock price was artificially inflated for a period of time, some persons (let’s call them the “unlucky” shareholders) who bought shares in the marketplace during that period will indeed experience losses from the fraud. The problems is, for every unlucky shareholder who bought shares and paid an artificially inflated price, the seller of those shares in the marketplace (let’s call these shareholders the “lucky” shareholders) got a windfall gain of receiving an artificially inflated price and that windfall gain is then in their pockets. The situation is thus that there are unlucky shareholders who have real financial losses from the fraud, there are the lucky shareholders who got windfall gains equal to the losses, and there are innocent bystander shareholders who did not receive any windfall gain but who also did not experience any losses (such as shareholders who bought before the start of the artificially inflated period and did not sell before the end of the period, or shareholders who bought after the end of the inflation period) .The sleight of hand of the plaintiffs lawyers is to keep mum about the fact that there will not be recovery from the lucky shareholders the windfall gains that they got by chance as a result of the fraud and who have walked away with such gains, and instead the plaintiffs lawyers will shuffle the losses around by having the shareholders who experienced the losses sue the corporation that generates a big payment from the corporation which is divvied up among unlucky shareholders who had losses from the fraud in proportion to the amount of their losses from the fraud.
How does this shake out? The burden of the big payment from the corporation is shared on an equal share basis by all current shareholders. The “lucky” shareholders who are no longer shareholders and have walked away with their windfall gains will bear no burden of the corporation’s big payment and their windfall gains will be completely untouched. “Lucky” shareholders who sold shares at an inflated price and got a windfall gain and who are still shareholders at the end of the inflation period because they did not sell all their shares or because they bought back shares at a lesser price will bear a burden of the corporation’s big payment in proportion to the shares they own at the end of the period, they will not get any share of the big corporate payment, and hence they have their windfall gain reduced to some extent. Innocent bystander shareholders (such as those who bought before the beginning of the artificial inflation period and held their shares throughout the period) have a share of the losses shifted onto them through their share of the burden of the big corporate payment. As to “unlucky” shareholders, some may no longer be shareholders, bear no burden of the corporation’s big payment, and will have their losses reduced by receiving their share of the big payment. Of the “unlucky” shareholders who are current shareholders, some will have their loss reduced on a net basis because their share of the burden of the big corporate payment by the corporation will be less than the share of the payment they receive based on the amount of their losses; for other “unlucky” shareholders, the burden of the corporation’s big payment on them will be greater than the share of the corporation’s big payment that they receive based on their amount of losses, so, on a net basis, their loss will be increased as a result of the litigation.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers big fee will come out of the corporation’s big payment, and the corporation will also pay sizable attorney fees to the corporation’s lawyers representing it in the class action lawsuit. All of these legal fees will increase the aggregate loss ultimately borne by the “unlucky” shareholders and by the innocent bystander shareholders.
In the Monster class action, the amount of the big corporate payment (the burden of which is borne by all current shareholders on an equal per share basis) will be $47,500,000. Presumably. the lucky shareholders in Monster obtained total windfall gains of at least that amount (and perhaps many times that amount). To an unknown extent there will be lucky shareholders who have walked away with their windfall gains and these windfall gains will be completely untouched by the litigation. The plaintiffs lawyers will take 25% of the $47,500,000, and the balance will be distributed among shareholders who had losses from the fraud. The net effect of this increases total losses by the aggregate of all attorney fees (25% of $47,500,000 for the plaintiffs attorneys plus whatever fees Monster has to pay to its lawyers) and shuffles $47,500,000 of the losses around as previously described, i.e., some “unlucky” shareholders effectively have their losses decreased, some "unlucky" shareholders have their losses increased, some of the losses get shuffled onto innocent bystander shareholders, and some “lucky” shareholders have their windfall gains reduced.
In 2007 there was consummated a cookie cutter class action involving Tyco Corporation (see http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/01/three-plaintiffs-firms-to-ask-for-460-million-in-tyco-suit/?mod=WSJBlog#commentsThe) that had much more eye popping numbers. In that case, the big corporate payment from Tyco was $2,975,000,000 (total windfall gains of lucky Tyco stockholders presumably being at least that much, and possibly many times more), and the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed $460,000,000 in attorneys fees for their services. Those services increased total losses by the amount of the fee plus the amount of legal fees of Tyco’s lawyers and shifted otherwise shifted around $2,975,000,000 in losses among the shareholders who had losses from the fraud and shuffling some of the losses onto innocent bystander shareholders of Tyco, to some chance extent reduced some of the windfall gains of some of the lucky Tyco stockholders in Tyco. In a further cookie cutterclass action that is currently being finalized involving Xerox Corporation (http://www.gilardi.com/xeroxsettlement), the amount of the big circular corporate payment will be $670,000,000, and the cut of the plaintiffs' lawyers will be 20%, or $134,000,000.
To repeat,you would think that, instead of aiding and abetting the plaintiffs lawyers in the Monster class action, Middlesex County Retirement System, as well as every other governmental retirement system and corporate retirement plan trustee in the country, would be screaming bloody murder about the craziness their stock investments are being subjected to by these kinds of lawsuits. Maybe the reason they have not so is that they have been just plain snookered by the plaintiffs’’ lawyers’ sleight of hand.
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades, and our country's huge governmental retirement systems, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have now collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets. Maybe governmental retirement systems and corporate retirement plan trustees will stop being snookered and start screaming bloody murder about what the plaintiffs lawyers have been doing in order for the lawyers to enrich themselves by possibly billions of dollars and thereby pile on further reductions in the value of stock investments of the retirement plans. (For further commentary on plaintiff lawyers' predations on innocent bystander shareholder value, go here.)
Why aren’t government retirement systems screaming bloody murder?
At 5:30 p.m. this coming Friday, November 21st, there will be held in the federal district court in New York City a settlement hearing in a class action securities lawsuit bearing the name Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation (http://www.berdonclaims.com/cases/details.asp?p=Main&CaseID=246). The lead plaintiff in this class action against Monster is Middlesex County Retirement System of Massachusetts.
The Monster case is cookie cutter litigation that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have been trotting around the country in recent years. In these cases, there are shareholders with real financial losses; there are also persons who are lucky and by chance walk away with windfall gains corresponding to those shareholder losses; and the plaintiffs lawyers have the shareholders with the losses sue the corporation for their losses. In the end, windfall gains remain in the hands of parties who are not before the court, and the lawsuit generates a circular payment that accomplishes a shuffling around of the losses among the shareholders who experienced the losses and also shifting a part of the losses to other shareholders who did not have losses (or windfall gain), and also shifts a part to some of the lucky persons who had windfall gains and who, by chance, are subject to a some partial reclamation of their windfall gains. In addition, the shareholder losses in question are more than just shuffled around; they are increased in total by the huge cut taken by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and also by very sizable fees of the lawyers who have to be hired to defend the corporation in the lawsuit.
Does the foregoing sound crazy? It is crazy, and you would think that, instead of aiding and abetting the plaintiffs’ lawyers in this type of litigation, Middlesex County Retirement System, as well as every other governmental retirement system in the country, would be screaming bloody murder about such craziness. Maybe the reason they have not done so is that they have just been plain snookered by a plaintiffs’ lawyers’ sleight of hand.
Some further detail is needed to explain this.
These class action lawsuits occur in the context of an accounting or other stock price related fraud that has occurred (or allegedly occurred).
If there has been such fraud, accountants, and officers and directors and others, who participated in the fraud should be held liable for damages, fines and imprisonment under applicable civil and criminal securities fraud laws. Also if the corporation sold stock and received the proceeds in connection with the fraud, there is a legitimate claim for recovery against the corporation. Neither persons such as officers, directors or accountants, nor proceeds received by the corporation, are the crux of the cookie cutter litigation exemplified by the Monster lawsuit. The crux is a tricky sleight of hand by the plaintiff’s lawyers.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers sue the corporation and third parties such as officers and directors and accountants. They allege that the defendants perpetrated the accounting or other fraud that resulted in the price of the corporation’s stock being artificially inflated during a period of time starting when the fraud began and ending when the fraud became publicly known, thereby causing the stock price to no longer be artificially inflated by reason of the fraud.
Now comes the sleight of hand by the plaintiffs’ lawyers. If there was fraud and the stock price was artificially inflated for a period of time, some persons (let’s call them the “unlucky” shareholders) who bought shares in the marketplace during that period will indeed experience losses from the fraud. The problems is, for every unlucky shareholder who bought shares and paid an artificially inflated price, the seller of those shares in the marketplace (let’s call these shareholders the “lucky” shareholders) got a windfall gain of receiving an artificially inflated price and that windfall gain is then in their pockets. The situation is thus that there are unlucky shareholders who have real financial losses from the fraud, there are the lucky shareholders who got windfall gains equal to the losses, and there are innocent bystander shareholders who did not receive any windfall gain but who also did not experience any losses (such as shareholders who bought before the start of the artificially inflated period and did not sell before the end of the period, or shareholders who bought after the end of the inflation period) .The sleight of hand of the plaintiffs lawyers is to keep mum about the fact that there will not be recovery from the lucky shareholders the windfall gains that they got by chance as a result of the fraud and who have walked away with such gains, and instead the plaintiffs lawyers will shuffle the losses around by having the shareholders who experienced the losses sue the corporation that generates a big payment from the corporation which is divvied up among unlucky shareholders who had losses from the fraud in proportion to the amount of their losses from the fraud.
How does this shake out? The burden of the big payment from the corporation is shared on an equal share basis by all current shareholders. The “lucky” shareholders who are no longer shareholders and have walked away with their windfall gains will bear no burden of the corporation’s big payment and their windfall gains will be completely untouched. “Lucky” shareholders who sold shares at an inflated price and got a windfall gain and who are still shareholders at the end of the inflation period because they did not sell all their shares or because they bought back shares at a lesser price will bear a burden of the corporation’s big payment in proportion to the shares they own at the end of the period, they will not get any share of the big corporate payment, and hence they have their windfall gain reduced to some extent. Innocent bystander shareholders (such as those who bought before the beginning of the artificial inflation period and held their shares throughout the period) have a share of the losses shifted onto them through their share of the burden of the big corporate payment. As to “unlucky” shareholders, some may no longer be shareholders, bear no burden of the corporation’s big payment, and will have their losses reduced by receiving their share of the big payment. Of the “unlucky” shareholders who are current shareholders, some will have their loss reduced on a net basis because their share of the burden of the big corporate payment by the corporation will be less than the share of the payment they receive based on the amount of their losses; for other “unlucky” shareholders, the burden of the corporation’s big payment on them will be greater than the share of the corporation’s big payment that they receive based on their amount of losses, so, on a net basis, their loss will be increased as a result of the litigation.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers big fee will come out of the corporation’s big payment, and the corporation will also pay sizable attorney fees to the corporation’s lawyers representing it in the class action lawsuit. All of these legal fees will increase the aggregate loss ultimately borne by the “unlucky” shareholders and by the innocent bystander shareholders.
In the Monster class action, the amount of the big corporate payment (the burden of which is borne by all current shareholders on an equal per share basis) will be $47,500,000. Presumably. the lucky shareholders in Monster obtained total windfall gains of at least that amount (and perhaps many times that amount). To an unknown extent there will be lucky shareholders who have walked away with their windfall gains and these windfall gains will be completely untouched by the litigation. The plaintiffs lawyers will take 25% of the $47,500,000, and the balance will be distributed among shareholders who had losses from the fraud. The net effect of this increases total losses by the aggregate of all attorney fees (25% of $47,500,000 for the plaintiffs attorneys plus whatever fees Monster has to pay to its lawyers) and shuffles $47,500,000 of the losses around as previously described, i.e., some “unlucky” shareholders effectively have their losses decreased, some "unlucky" shareholders have their losses increased, some of the losses get shuffled onto innocent bystander shareholders, and some “lucky” shareholders have their windfall gains reduced.
In 2007 there was consummated a cookie cutter class action involving Tyco Corporation (see http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/01/three-plaintiffs-firms-to-ask-for-460-million-in-tyco-suit/?mod=WSJBlog#commentsThe) that had much more eye popping numbers. In that case, the big corporate payment from Tyco was $2,975,000,000 (total windfall gains of lucky Tyco stockholders presumably being at least that much, and possibly many times more), and the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed $460,000,000 in attorneys fees for their services. Those services increased total losses by the amount of the fee plus the amount of legal fees of Tyco’s lawyers and shifted otherwise shifted around $2,975,000,000 in losses among the shareholders who had losses from the fraud and shuffling some of the losses onto innocent bystander shareholders of Tyco, to some chance extent reduced some of the windfall gains of some of the lucky Tyco stockholders in Tyco. In a further cookie cutterclass action that is currently being finalized involving Xerox Corporation (http://www.gilardi.com/xeroxsettlement), the amount of the big circular corporate payment will be $670,000,000, and the cut of the plaintiffs' lawyers will be 20%, or $134,000,000.
To repeat,you would think that, instead of aiding and abetting the plaintiffs lawyers in the Monster class action, Middlesex County Retirement System, as well as every other governmental retirement system in the country, would be screaming bloody murder about the craziness their stock investments are being subjected to by these kinds of lawsuits. Maybe the reason they have not so is that they have been just plain snookered by the plaintiffs’’ lawyers’ sleight of hand.
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades, and our country's huge governmental retirement systems, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have now collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets. Maybe governmental retirement systems will stop being snookered and start screaming bloody murder about what the plaintiffs lawyers have been doing in order for the lawyers to enrich themselves by possibly billions of dollars and thereby pile on further reductions in the value of stock investments of the retirement systems. (For further commentary on plaintiff lawyers' predations on innocent bystander shareholder value, go here.)
The Monster case is cookie cutter litigation that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have been trotting around the country in recent years. In these cases, there are shareholders with real financial losses; there are also persons who are lucky and by chance walk away with windfall gains corresponding to those shareholder losses; and the plaintiffs lawyers have the shareholders with the losses sue the corporation for their losses. In the end, windfall gains remain in the hands of parties who are not before the court, and the lawsuit generates a circular payment that accomplishes a shuffling around of the losses among the shareholders who experienced the losses and also shifting a part of the losses to other shareholders who did not have losses (or windfall gain), and also shifts a part to some of the lucky persons who had windfall gains and who, by chance, are subject to a some partial reclamation of their windfall gains. In addition, the shareholder losses in question are more than just shuffled around; they are increased in total by the huge cut taken by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and also by very sizable fees of the lawyers who have to be hired to defend the corporation in the lawsuit.
Does the foregoing sound crazy? It is crazy, and you would think that, instead of aiding and abetting the plaintiffs’ lawyers in this type of litigation, Middlesex County Retirement System, as well as every other governmental retirement system in the country, would be screaming bloody murder about such craziness. Maybe the reason they have not done so is that they have just been plain snookered by a plaintiffs’ lawyers’ sleight of hand.
Some further detail is needed to explain this.
These class action lawsuits occur in the context of an accounting or other stock price related fraud that has occurred (or allegedly occurred).
If there has been such fraud, accountants, and officers and directors and others, who participated in the fraud should be held liable for damages, fines and imprisonment under applicable civil and criminal securities fraud laws. Also if the corporation sold stock and received the proceeds in connection with the fraud, there is a legitimate claim for recovery against the corporation. Neither persons such as officers, directors or accountants, nor proceeds received by the corporation, are the crux of the cookie cutter litigation exemplified by the Monster lawsuit. The crux is a tricky sleight of hand by the plaintiff’s lawyers.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers sue the corporation and third parties such as officers and directors and accountants. They allege that the defendants perpetrated the accounting or other fraud that resulted in the price of the corporation’s stock being artificially inflated during a period of time starting when the fraud began and ending when the fraud became publicly known, thereby causing the stock price to no longer be artificially inflated by reason of the fraud.
Now comes the sleight of hand by the plaintiffs’ lawyers. If there was fraud and the stock price was artificially inflated for a period of time, some persons (let’s call them the “unlucky” shareholders) who bought shares in the marketplace during that period will indeed experience losses from the fraud. The problems is, for every unlucky shareholder who bought shares and paid an artificially inflated price, the seller of those shares in the marketplace (let’s call these shareholders the “lucky” shareholders) got a windfall gain of receiving an artificially inflated price and that windfall gain is then in their pockets. The situation is thus that there are unlucky shareholders who have real financial losses from the fraud, there are the lucky shareholders who got windfall gains equal to the losses, and there are innocent bystander shareholders who did not receive any windfall gain but who also did not experience any losses (such as shareholders who bought before the start of the artificially inflated period and did not sell before the end of the period, or shareholders who bought after the end of the inflation period) .The sleight of hand of the plaintiffs lawyers is to keep mum about the fact that there will not be recovery from the lucky shareholders the windfall gains that they got by chance as a result of the fraud and who have walked away with such gains, and instead the plaintiffs lawyers will shuffle the losses around by having the shareholders who experienced the losses sue the corporation that generates a big payment from the corporation which is divvied up among unlucky shareholders who had losses from the fraud in proportion to the amount of their losses from the fraud.
How does this shake out? The burden of the big payment from the corporation is shared on an equal share basis by all current shareholders. The “lucky” shareholders who are no longer shareholders and have walked away with their windfall gains will bear no burden of the corporation’s big payment and their windfall gains will be completely untouched. “Lucky” shareholders who sold shares at an inflated price and got a windfall gain and who are still shareholders at the end of the inflation period because they did not sell all their shares or because they bought back shares at a lesser price will bear a burden of the corporation’s big payment in proportion to the shares they own at the end of the period, they will not get any share of the big corporate payment, and hence they have their windfall gain reduced to some extent. Innocent bystander shareholders (such as those who bought before the beginning of the artificial inflation period and held their shares throughout the period) have a share of the losses shifted onto them through their share of the burden of the big corporate payment. As to “unlucky” shareholders, some may no longer be shareholders, bear no burden of the corporation’s big payment, and will have their losses reduced by receiving their share of the big payment. Of the “unlucky” shareholders who are current shareholders, some will have their loss reduced on a net basis because their share of the burden of the big corporate payment by the corporation will be less than the share of the payment they receive based on the amount of their losses; for other “unlucky” shareholders, the burden of the corporation’s big payment on them will be greater than the share of the corporation’s big payment that they receive based on their amount of losses, so, on a net basis, their loss will be increased as a result of the litigation.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers big fee will come out of the corporation’s big payment, and the corporation will also pay sizable attorney fees to the corporation’s lawyers representing it in the class action lawsuit. All of these legal fees will increase the aggregate loss ultimately borne by the “unlucky” shareholders and by the innocent bystander shareholders.
In the Monster class action, the amount of the big corporate payment (the burden of which is borne by all current shareholders on an equal per share basis) will be $47,500,000. Presumably. the lucky shareholders in Monster obtained total windfall gains of at least that amount (and perhaps many times that amount). To an unknown extent there will be lucky shareholders who have walked away with their windfall gains and these windfall gains will be completely untouched by the litigation. The plaintiffs lawyers will take 25% of the $47,500,000, and the balance will be distributed among shareholders who had losses from the fraud. The net effect of this increases total losses by the aggregate of all attorney fees (25% of $47,500,000 for the plaintiffs attorneys plus whatever fees Monster has to pay to its lawyers) and shuffles $47,500,000 of the losses around as previously described, i.e., some “unlucky” shareholders effectively have their losses decreased, some "unlucky" shareholders have their losses increased, some of the losses get shuffled onto innocent bystander shareholders, and some “lucky” shareholders have their windfall gains reduced.
In 2007 there was consummated a cookie cutter class action involving Tyco Corporation (see http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/01/three-plaintiffs-firms-to-ask-for-460-million-in-tyco-suit/?mod=WSJBlog#commentsThe) that had much more eye popping numbers. In that case, the big corporate payment from Tyco was $2,975,000,000 (total windfall gains of lucky Tyco stockholders presumably being at least that much, and possibly many times more), and the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed $460,000,000 in attorneys fees for their services. Those services increased total losses by the amount of the fee plus the amount of legal fees of Tyco’s lawyers and shifted otherwise shifted around $2,975,000,000 in losses among the shareholders who had losses from the fraud and shuffling some of the losses onto innocent bystander shareholders of Tyco, to some chance extent reduced some of the windfall gains of some of the lucky Tyco stockholders in Tyco. In a further cookie cutterclass action that is currently being finalized involving Xerox Corporation (http://www.gilardi.com/xeroxsettlement), the amount of the big circular corporate payment will be $670,000,000, and the cut of the plaintiffs' lawyers will be 20%, or $134,000,000.
To repeat,you would think that, instead of aiding and abetting the plaintiffs lawyers in the Monster class action, Middlesex County Retirement System, as well as every other governmental retirement system in the country, would be screaming bloody murder about the craziness their stock investments are being subjected to by these kinds of lawsuits. Maybe the reason they have not so is that they have been just plain snookered by the plaintiffs’’ lawyers’ sleight of hand.
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades, and our country's huge governmental retirement systems, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have now collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets. Maybe governmental retirement systems will stop being snookered and start screaming bloody murder about what the plaintiffs lawyers have been doing in order for the lawyers to enrich themselves by possibly billions of dollars and thereby pile on further reductions in the value of stock investments of the retirement systems. (For further commentary on plaintiff lawyers' predations on innocent bystander shareholder value, go here.)
Friday, November 14, 2008
Letter to Dr. David Bronner, Alabama Retirement Systems
From: RDShatt
To: ersinfo@rsa-al.gov
Sent: 11/14/2008 4:39:30 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Letter for Dr. David Bronner re: Middlesex County Retirement System
Letter for Dr. David Bronner re: Middlesex County Retirement System
Dear Dr. Bronner:
I have sent the below email to Mr. Thomas Gibson, Chairman of the Middlesex County Retirement System in Massachusetts. In my email to Mr. Gibson, I ask why the Middlesex County Retirement System is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Monster Worldwide, Inc. that aids and abets plaintiffs' lawyers in their enterprise of having shareholders of corporations sue themselves to recover investment losses the shareholders have experienced and to have the shareholders make circular payments to themselves (that don't compensate for the losses because the shareholders are effectively making payment to themselves), all so that the plaintiffs lawyers can take a big cut and leave the shareholders all the poorer.
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades. The Retirement Systems of Alabama and other governmental retirement systems, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets, while plaintiffs lawyers are going around the country having shareholders sue themselves in order that the plaintiffs lawyers can collect hundreds of millions of dollars of fees for themselves.and make the shareholders, including The Retirement Systems of Alabama, all the poorer.
Is my analysis correct? Am I missing something here? Why aren't governmental retirement systems screaming bloody murder about this? Would you mind taking the time to answer these questions?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
[email sent to Mr. Thomas Gibson]
To: ersinfo@rsa-al.gov
Sent: 11/14/2008 4:39:30 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Letter for Dr. David Bronner re: Middlesex County Retirement System
Letter for Dr. David Bronner re: Middlesex County Retirement System
Dear Dr. Bronner:
I have sent the below email to Mr. Thomas Gibson, Chairman of the Middlesex County Retirement System in Massachusetts. In my email to Mr. Gibson, I ask why the Middlesex County Retirement System is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Monster Worldwide, Inc. that aids and abets plaintiffs' lawyers in their enterprise of having shareholders of corporations sue themselves to recover investment losses the shareholders have experienced and to have the shareholders make circular payments to themselves (that don't compensate for the losses because the shareholders are effectively making payment to themselves), all so that the plaintiffs lawyers can take a big cut and leave the shareholders all the poorer.
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades. The Retirement Systems of Alabama and other governmental retirement systems, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets, while plaintiffs lawyers are going around the country having shareholders sue themselves in order that the plaintiffs lawyers can collect hundreds of millions of dollars of fees for themselves.and make the shareholders, including The Retirement Systems of Alabama, all the poorer.
Is my analysis correct? Am I missing something here? Why aren't governmental retirement systems screaming bloody murder about this? Would you mind taking the time to answer these questions?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
[email sent to Mr. Thomas Gibson]
Email to Steven Syre of Boston Globe
From: RDShatt
To: syre@globe.com
Sent: 11/13/2008 7:21:08 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Middlesex County Retirement System
Dear Mr. Syre,
This email may seem meddlesome coming from a resident of Alabama, but I think, upon your full consideration that all citizens of the United States are affected, you will not see me as inappropriately meddling.
I have sent the below email to Mr. Thomas Gibson, Chairman of the Middlesex County Retirement System. In my email to Mr. Gibson, I ask why the Retirement System is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Monster Worldwide, Inc. that aids and abets plaintiffs' lawyers in their enterprise of having shareholders of corporations sue themselves to recover investment losses the shareholders have experienced and to have the shareholders make circular payments to themselves (that don't compensate for the losses because the shareholders are effectively making payment to themselves), all so that the plaintiffs lawyers can take a big cut and leave the shareholders all the poorer.
I hope you will take an interest in this story. I have some ways in mind that I am going to pursue this matter further, and I will keep you informed of what I do.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
[email sent to Mr. Thomas Gibson]
To: syre@globe.com
Sent: 11/13/2008 7:21:08 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Middlesex County Retirement System
Dear Mr. Syre,
This email may seem meddlesome coming from a resident of Alabama, but I think, upon your full consideration that all citizens of the United States are affected, you will not see me as inappropriately meddling.
I have sent the below email to Mr. Thomas Gibson, Chairman of the Middlesex County Retirement System. In my email to Mr. Gibson, I ask why the Retirement System is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Monster Worldwide, Inc. that aids and abets plaintiffs' lawyers in their enterprise of having shareholders of corporations sue themselves to recover investment losses the shareholders have experienced and to have the shareholders make circular payments to themselves (that don't compensate for the losses because the shareholders are effectively making payment to themselves), all so that the plaintiffs lawyers can take a big cut and leave the shareholders all the poorer.
I hope you will take an interest in this story. I have some ways in mind that I am going to pursue this matter further, and I will keep you informed of what I do.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
[email sent to Mr. Thomas Gibson]
Email to Middlesex County directors and staff
From: RDShatt
To: Tgibson@middlesexretirement.org
Sent: 11/13/2008 11:52:42 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Middlesex County Retirement System v. Monster Worldwide Inc.
Re: Middlesex County Retirement System v. Monster Worldwide Inc.
To the Directors and Staff of Middlesex County Retirement System:
Your Retirement System is the plaintiff Class Representative in the above class action lawsuit. (For more information about your Retirement System's lawsuit you can go here: http://www.berdonclaims.com/cases/details.asp?p=Main&CaseID=246.)
Do you understand your Retirement System's lawsuit?
Do you understand how your plaintiffs lawyers and others like them are going around the country with this kind of litigation and filing lawsuits that are in substance shareholders of a corporation who have had losses suing themselves to recover the losses, the plaintiffs lawyers have the shareholders effectively make a payment to themselves (that doesn't compensate for any losses because the shareholders are paying it to themselves), and the plaintiffs lawyers take a big cut out of the payment and leave the shareholders that much the poorer on top of the investment losses the shareholders previously experienced?
In your Retirement System's lawsuit against Monster Worldwide, Inc., your Retirement System and other shareholders of Monster Worldwide, Inc. experienced investment losses and they are in effect going to make a payment to themselves of $47.5 million and the Retirement System's plaintiffs lawyers in the case, Labaton Sucharow LLP of New York City, will take a 25% cut of that, and leave your Retirement System and other shareholders with increased losses. Other class action plaintiffs lawyers are in the process of doing the same thing to Xerox Corpopration shareholders and having the Xerox shareholders in effect sue themselves to recover investment losses (which won't be recovered and will only be increased), and I wrote a letter to the judge in that Xerox case that details this insanity. You may read that letter here: Letter to Judge Thompson. The plaintiffs lawyers in the Xerox case previously had Tyco Corporation shareholders sue themselves, and the lawyers took a whopping $465,000,000 out of the pockets of the shareholders, which you can read about in the Wall Street Journal Blog. (Maybe your Retirement System owned Xerox or Tyco stock and had investment losses that were increased courtesy of these plaintiffs lawyers.)
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades. Your Retirement System and other governmental retirement systems, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets, while these plaintiffs lawyers are going around the country having shareholders sue themselves in order that the plaintiffs lawyers can collect hundreds of millions of dollars of fees for themselves.and make the shareholders all the poorer.
That should make you very angry.
I hope you will ask yourselves why is your Retirement System involved in the Monster Worldwide litigation and why is your Retirement System aiding an abetting these plaintiffs lawyers in their enterprise of having shareholders of corporations sue themselves to recover investment losses and make payments to themselves (that don't compensate them for losses because they are effectively making payment to themselves), all so that the plaintiffs lawyers can take a big cut and leave the shareholders all the poorer.
After you have had internal discussion at the Retirement System, I hope someone on behalf of the Retirement System will ask the Retirement System's class action lawyer Ms. Zeiss of Labaton Sucharow LLP to explain and defend this insanity. After that, I further hope someone on behalf of the Retirement System will go to the fairness hearing scheduled for next Friday in the federal district court in New York City and ask the judge in the case also to explain and defend the insanity.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
To: Tgibson@middlesexretirement.org
Sent: 11/13/2008 11:52:42 A.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Re: Middlesex County Retirement System v. Monster Worldwide Inc.
Re: Middlesex County Retirement System v. Monster Worldwide Inc.
To the Directors and Staff of Middlesex County Retirement System:
Your Retirement System is the plaintiff Class Representative in the above class action lawsuit. (For more information about your Retirement System's lawsuit you can go here: http://www.berdonclaims.com/cases/details.asp?p=Main&CaseID=246.)
Do you understand your Retirement System's lawsuit?
Do you understand how your plaintiffs lawyers and others like them are going around the country with this kind of litigation and filing lawsuits that are in substance shareholders of a corporation who have had losses suing themselves to recover the losses, the plaintiffs lawyers have the shareholders effectively make a payment to themselves (that doesn't compensate for any losses because the shareholders are paying it to themselves), and the plaintiffs lawyers take a big cut out of the payment and leave the shareholders that much the poorer on top of the investment losses the shareholders previously experienced?
In your Retirement System's lawsuit against Monster Worldwide, Inc., your Retirement System and other shareholders of Monster Worldwide, Inc. experienced investment losses and they are in effect going to make a payment to themselves of $47.5 million and the Retirement System's plaintiffs lawyers in the case, Labaton Sucharow LLP of New York City, will take a 25% cut of that, and leave your Retirement System and other shareholders with increased losses. Other class action plaintiffs lawyers are in the process of doing the same thing to Xerox Corpopration shareholders and having the Xerox shareholders in effect sue themselves to recover investment losses (which won't be recovered and will only be increased), and I wrote a letter to the judge in that Xerox case that details this insanity. You may read that letter here: Letter to Judge Thompson. The plaintiffs lawyers in the Xerox case previously had Tyco Corporation shareholders sue themselves, and the lawyers took a whopping $465,000,000 out of the pockets of the shareholders, which you can read about in the Wall Street Journal Blog. (Maybe your Retirement System owned Xerox or Tyco stock and had investment losses that were increased courtesy of these plaintiffs lawyers.)
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades. Your Retirement System and other governmental retirement systems, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets, while these plaintiffs lawyers are going around the country having shareholders sue themselves in order that the plaintiffs lawyers can collect hundreds of millions of dollars of fees for themselves.and make the shareholders all the poorer.
That should make you very angry.
I hope you will ask yourselves why is your Retirement System involved in the Monster Worldwide litigation and why is your Retirement System aiding an abetting these plaintiffs lawyers in their enterprise of having shareholders of corporations sue themselves to recover investment losses and make payments to themselves (that don't compensate them for losses because they are effectively making payment to themselves), all so that the plaintiffs lawyers can take a big cut and leave the shareholders all the poorer.
After you have had internal discussion at the Retirement System, I hope someone on behalf of the Retirement System will ask the Retirement System's class action lawyer Ms. Zeiss of Labaton Sucharow LLP to explain and defend this insanity. After that, I further hope someone on behalf of the Retirement System will go to the fairness hearing scheduled for next Friday in the federal district court in New York City and ask the judge in the case also to explain and defend the insanity.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586
Middlesex County Retirement System
The Middlesex County Retirement System in Massachussetts is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Monster Worldwide, Inc. that, in my opinion, aids and abets plaintiffs' lawyers in their enterprise of having shareholders of corporations sue themselves to recover investment losses the shareholders have experienced and to have the shareholders make circular payments to themselves (that don't compensate for the losses because the shareholders are effectively making payment to themselves), all so that the plaintiffs lawyers can take a big cut and leave the shareholders all the poorer.
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades. Governmental retirement systems, including in my state of Alabama, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets, while plaintiffs lawyers are going around the country having shareholders sue themselves in order that the plaintiffs lawyers can collect hundreds of millions of dollars of fees for themselves.and make the shareholders, including such retirement systems, pension plans and 401(k) plans, all the poorer.
I think trustees and corporate sponsors should be screaming bloody murder.
We'll see.
Our country is on the brink of its worst economic crisis in decades. Governmental retirement systems, including in my state of Alabama, as well as thousands of private pension plans, and millions of 401(k) owners, have collectively experienced trillions of dollars of losses in the financial markets, while plaintiffs lawyers are going around the country having shareholders sue themselves in order that the plaintiffs lawyers can collect hundreds of millions of dollars of fees for themselves.and make the shareholders, including such retirement systems, pension plans and 401(k) plans, all the poorer.
I think trustees and corporate sponsors should be screaming bloody murder.
We'll see.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Election Eve thoughts- End corruption in Washington
Lawmakers have a responsibility of a specific nature and also a responsibility of a general nature that are relevant to the subject matter of this blog.
The specific responsibility is that lawmakers make the laws that determine the contours and rules of our civil liability system, and, if that system is being abused by the plaintiffs' lawyers and is not properly serving societal interests, our lawmakers have the authority and responsibility to correct that through legislation.
Second, lawmakers have a responsibility in a general way to be ethical public servants who act honestly and in good faith in passing laws, including establishing regulatory and criminal law apparatus, that attempt to achieve a defensible balance of societal interests, including the protection of consumers. Frequently lawmakers fail this responsibility, and instead they furtively do the bidding of campaign contributors in casting votes and sponsoring legislation that the contributors want but that are not defensible in a proper and good faith discharge of the lawmaker's responsiblity as an ethical public servant. This is particularly evidenced by lawmakers lying and dissembling about and hiding from voters what the lawmaker's actions have been and the reasons for those actions. Consequences of this corruption include that lawmakers become derelict in tending to legislative business they ought to be tending to for their consitutuents, and further the laws they enact are viewed as the tainted result of bribes and corruption that need not be respected and that may be overridden by judges and juries. This is particularly the case in areas of consumer protection where business is viewed as having corrupted the legislative process.
In the 2006 elections, the issue of corruption in Washington was viewed to have figured very prominently. It has also been viewed as an important issue in the 2008 Presidential election. I personally felt it should have been the most important issue to the voters in the 2008 Presidential election. My reasons for this are detailed in a separate blog of mine that may be found at this link.
All of us as citizens should have an interest in ending the culture of corruption in Washington. This culture of corruption in Washington, as indicated above, also has bearing on issues related to tort reform and on nuturing ethical business conduct that are discussed in this blog. Thus it seems appropriate to make this election eve entry here.
The specific responsibility is that lawmakers make the laws that determine the contours and rules of our civil liability system, and, if that system is being abused by the plaintiffs' lawyers and is not properly serving societal interests, our lawmakers have the authority and responsibility to correct that through legislation.
Second, lawmakers have a responsibility in a general way to be ethical public servants who act honestly and in good faith in passing laws, including establishing regulatory and criminal law apparatus, that attempt to achieve a defensible balance of societal interests, including the protection of consumers. Frequently lawmakers fail this responsibility, and instead they furtively do the bidding of campaign contributors in casting votes and sponsoring legislation that the contributors want but that are not defensible in a proper and good faith discharge of the lawmaker's responsiblity as an ethical public servant. This is particularly evidenced by lawmakers lying and dissembling about and hiding from voters what the lawmaker's actions have been and the reasons for those actions. Consequences of this corruption include that lawmakers become derelict in tending to legislative business they ought to be tending to for their consitutuents, and further the laws they enact are viewed as the tainted result of bribes and corruption that need not be respected and that may be overridden by judges and juries. This is particularly the case in areas of consumer protection where business is viewed as having corrupted the legislative process.
In the 2006 elections, the issue of corruption in Washington was viewed to have figured very prominently. It has also been viewed as an important issue in the 2008 Presidential election. I personally felt it should have been the most important issue to the voters in the 2008 Presidential election. My reasons for this are detailed in a separate blog of mine that may be found at this link.
All of us as citizens should have an interest in ending the culture of corruption in Washington. This culture of corruption in Washington, as indicated above, also has bearing on issues related to tort reform and on nuturing ethical business conduct that are discussed in this blog. Thus it seems appropriate to make this election eve entry here.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
What does ECOA say about rating agency scandal?
This week the rating agency scandal was in full bloom before the public's eyes in Congressional hearings. It showed a colossal and appalling failure of business ethics that materially contributed to the global financial system meltdown that is now threatening to turn into global recession and that is having profound adverse impact in untold ways in the lives of tens of millions of Americans, not to mention around the world.
Is the rating agency scandal the Katrina of the business ethics industry? Is there going to be soul searching by the industry concerning how all its work, efforts, systems, studies, and conferences did not prevent the rating agency scandal; and to ask what went so wrong, and what can the industry do in order to better accomplish its mission of inculcating ethical business conduct by corporations?
For more than a year I have been pushing on the ECOA that the law undermines the business ethics industry in the prosecution of its mission in a manner that I have explicated in my writing Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?. I have urged the ECOA to explore this with its members in the ECOA's conferences and other educational programs with a view to deciding what the ECOA thinks and whether the ethics industry can do anything about it if there is a problem. Thus far I have been unsuccessful, as I reported to ECOA members in this letter.
I hope the rating agency scandal is a Katrina for the business ethics industry that will lead to more openness on the part of the ECOA in considering my proposition that the law undermines the industry and the industry ought to take a stance on the matter.
Is the rating agency scandal the Katrina of the business ethics industry? Is there going to be soul searching by the industry concerning how all its work, efforts, systems, studies, and conferences did not prevent the rating agency scandal; and to ask what went so wrong, and what can the industry do in order to better accomplish its mission of inculcating ethical business conduct by corporations?
For more than a year I have been pushing on the ECOA that the law undermines the business ethics industry in the prosecution of its mission in a manner that I have explicated in my writing Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?. I have urged the ECOA to explore this with its members in the ECOA's conferences and other educational programs with a view to deciding what the ECOA thinks and whether the ethics industry can do anything about it if there is a problem. Thus far I have been unsuccessful, as I reported to ECOA members in this letter.
I hope the rating agency scandal is a Katrina for the business ethics industry that will lead to more openness on the part of the ECOA in considering my proposition that the law undermines the industry and the industry ought to take a stance on the matter.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Prof. Cohen
From: RDShatt
To: cohenm@uchastings.edu
Sent: 10/16/2008 7:43:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Please see my blog entry re: Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter. ...
Thank you for replying, Prof. Cohen. In my proposed project, there is no need whatsoever to agree, just state views on some significant public legal policy issues.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
In a message dated 10/5/2008 2:53:10 P.M. Central Daylight Time, cohenm@uchastings.edu writes:
Hmmmm, I imagine that we wouldn’t actually AGREE on this subject.
I guess there are a LOT of Bob Shattucks. As there are a lot of Marsha Cohens. So if you were the one from Paterson, NJ, you probably would’ve pointed that out ................... --
Professor Marsha N. Cohen
To: cohenm@uchastings.edu
Sent: 10/16/2008 7:43:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Please see my blog entry re: Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter. ...
Thank you for replying, Prof. Cohen. In my proposed project, there is no need whatsoever to agree, just state views on some significant public legal policy issues.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
In a message dated 10/5/2008 2:53:10 P.M. Central Daylight Time, cohenm@uchastings.edu writes:
Hmmmm, I imagine that we wouldn’t actually AGREE on this subject.
I guess there are a LOT of Bob Shattucks. As there are a lot of Marsha Cohens. So if you were the one from Paterson, NJ, you probably would’ve pointed that out ................... --
Professor Marsha N. Cohen
Prof. Alan Weisbard
From: RDShatt
To: weisbard@wisc.edu
Sent: 10/16/2008 7:33:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Please see my blog entry re: Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter.
Thank you very much, Prof. Weisbard.
Both elitism and cowardice are understandable in academia. Please consult Prof. John Lachs of Vanderbilt University as to the phenomenon of cowardice ( "Intellectuals and Courage"), and, as to elitist arrogance, the ECOA would provide you with some excellent drinking buddies (see ECOA correspondence ).
Now, if you desire to engage in some intellectually respectable dialogue, I would be very pleased to engage with you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
In a message dated 10/6/2008 10:57:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time, weisbard@wisc.edu writes:
Dear Mr. Shattuck,
Please add me to the list of law professors summarily dismissive of your efforts.
Thank you, Alan J. Weisbard
To: weisbard@wisc.edu
Sent: 10/16/2008 7:33:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Please see my blog entry re: Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter.
Thank you very much, Prof. Weisbard.
Both elitism and cowardice are understandable in academia. Please consult Prof. John Lachs of Vanderbilt University as to the phenomenon of cowardice ( "Intellectuals and Courage"), and, as to elitist arrogance, the ECOA would provide you with some excellent drinking buddies (see ECOA correspondence ).
Now, if you desire to engage in some intellectually respectable dialogue, I would be very pleased to engage with you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
In a message dated 10/6/2008 10:57:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time, weisbard@wisc.edu writes:
Dear Mr. Shattuck,
Please add me to the list of law professors summarily dismissive of your efforts.
Thank you, Alan J. Weisbard
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Email to the law professors today
From: RDShatt
To: ______
Sent: 10/5/2008 _____ P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Please see my blog entry re: Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter
Please see my blog entry re: Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter.
Please contact me if you would like to participate in a letter or letters to The Wall Street Journal or possibly other newspapers or periodicals.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
To: ______
Sent: 10/5/2008 _____ P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Please see my blog entry re: Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter
Please see my blog entry re: Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter.
Please contact me if you would like to participate in a letter or letters to The Wall Street Journal or possibly other newspapers or periodicals.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Prof. Marsha Cohen's WSJ letter
Professor Marsha Cohen of the Hastings College of Law wrote the below letter to The Wall Street Journal commenting on the Journal's op/ed piece "The Tort Bar's Comeback" from September 16, 2008 that appears below the letter.
I think Professor Cohen and other law professors ought to have a lot more to say on the subject than this brief letter. I have in the past advocated a letter to the Journal that "frames" the important issues (see this entry) and further have advocated the taking of positions on the issues (see this entry). As indicated in the first link, the idea of "dueling" letters took my fancy.
I will probably resume the efforts I made in 2004/5. This seems particularly appropriate in light of the significant economic problems the country is facing and the need for reducing waste and increasing efficiencies in the economy.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2008
China Could Use Tort Lawyers, More Accountability
It is ironic that you picked Sept. 16 for one of your periodic editorial attacks on the civil justice system ("The Tort Bar's Comeback," Review & Outlook) in light of the news breaking on the same day about the tragic harm to a large number of Chinese babies from infant formula contaminated by the industrial chemical melamine. The same chemical was responsible for the deaths of many Americans' pets some months ago, also because of contamination originating in China. Why are Chinese products causing so much consumer harm (both there and, because of our globalized marketplace, here as well)? China has neither well-enforced regulatory mechanisms nor a torts/insurance system to protect consumers, although my understanding is that it is moving to adopt both. Without a civil justice system that enables those harmed to seek recompense from those who caused them harm, why would any product seller bother to invest in quality control or any other product safety measure?
Are there unethical plaintiffs attorneys? Sure. And there are unethical defense attorneys as well. Are there bad judgments made in personal injury decisions? Absolutely. But there are probably as many denying compensation as granting too much of it. While there are undoubtedly more efficient and equally fair ways to assure appropriate compensation to those injured by economic actors, demonizing the entire civil justice system is an entirely ineffective way to galvanize support for systemic change.
Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be the unfortunate victims of accidental harm.
Prof. Marsha N. Cohen
University of California
Hastings College of the Law
San Francisco
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
The Tort Bar's Comeback
As voters mull the stakes in this year's election, here's an issue that ought to ring alarms in the ears of serious people: tort reform. After 20 years of state and federal efforts to reform a runaway legal system, the trial bar is reviving the monster.
At the federal level, lawyers and law firms invested in 2006 more than $85 million to get pro-lawsuit Democrats elected. Congress's new leadership has begun a political repayment plan -- packing legislation with provisions to increase the number and size of lawsuits. So far, this effort has been largely stymied by President Bush's veto threat. The tort bar sees 2008 as the real prize; it has already thrown $107 million toward increasing Democratic majorities.
The trial barons are making more progress at the state level, as described in a report by the American Tort Reform Association. States had been making progress: New laws cleaned up venue requirements, reformed punitive and noneconomic damages, and enacted medical malpractice reform. So-called "judicial hellholes" like Texas and Mississippi have seen insurers return and premiums fall.
The trial bar is fighting back, with success. In last year's legislative session, Michigan lawmakers proposed repealing safeguards for prescription drug providers; Maryland legislators wanted to revoke medical liability reforms; and Florida's legislature entertained the nullification of its joint and several liability reforms. The trial bar's big coup was in Colorado, where Democratic Governor Bill Ritter signed a law increasing previous limits on noneconomic damages.
Lawyers have also been laboring to create opportunities for more lawsuits, more money and more time to sue. Last year, Alabama saw legislation that would allow a tort claim to continue even after a plaintiff had died, while California proposed authorizing lawsuits for any violation of privacy. New Mexico and New Jersey passed laws authorizing citizens to file "false claims" suits on behalf of the state -- in effect turning private individuals into state bounty hunters.
Four states -- Colorado, Washington, Illinois and Texas -- considered proposals to increase the size of awards plaintiffs could claim, and with it attorneys' contingency fees. The tort bar pushed bills across the country to expand "consumer protection" damages and in at least three states to allow plaintiffs to claim damages for "emotional harm" when their pets are injured. In Maryland and Oregon, lawyers successfully shepherded new laws to extend the time in which plaintiffs could file lawsuits.
Plenty of legislatures remain wary of walking back down the highway of ruinous lawsuits, while many Governors say they'll veto this legislation. Still, the lawsuit industry is counting on discontent this fall to help flip a few more legislatures and governorships to pro-tort majorities, laying the groundwork for their proposals to become law. Tort reformers will have to push back.
I think Professor Cohen and other law professors ought to have a lot more to say on the subject than this brief letter. I have in the past advocated a letter to the Journal that "frames" the important issues (see this entry) and further have advocated the taking of positions on the issues (see this entry). As indicated in the first link, the idea of "dueling" letters took my fancy.
I will probably resume the efforts I made in 2004/5. This seems particularly appropriate in light of the significant economic problems the country is facing and the need for reducing waste and increasing efficiencies in the economy.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2008
China Could Use Tort Lawyers, More Accountability
It is ironic that you picked Sept. 16 for one of your periodic editorial attacks on the civil justice system ("The Tort Bar's Comeback," Review & Outlook) in light of the news breaking on the same day about the tragic harm to a large number of Chinese babies from infant formula contaminated by the industrial chemical melamine. The same chemical was responsible for the deaths of many Americans' pets some months ago, also because of contamination originating in China. Why are Chinese products causing so much consumer harm (both there and, because of our globalized marketplace, here as well)? China has neither well-enforced regulatory mechanisms nor a torts/insurance system to protect consumers, although my understanding is that it is moving to adopt both. Without a civil justice system that enables those harmed to seek recompense from those who caused them harm, why would any product seller bother to invest in quality control or any other product safety measure?
Are there unethical plaintiffs attorneys? Sure. And there are unethical defense attorneys as well. Are there bad judgments made in personal injury decisions? Absolutely. But there are probably as many denying compensation as granting too much of it. While there are undoubtedly more efficient and equally fair ways to assure appropriate compensation to those injured by economic actors, demonizing the entire civil justice system is an entirely ineffective way to galvanize support for systemic change.
Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be the unfortunate victims of accidental harm.
Prof. Marsha N. Cohen
University of California
Hastings College of the Law
San Francisco
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008
The Tort Bar's Comeback
As voters mull the stakes in this year's election, here's an issue that ought to ring alarms in the ears of serious people: tort reform. After 20 years of state and federal efforts to reform a runaway legal system, the trial bar is reviving the monster.
At the federal level, lawyers and law firms invested in 2006 more than $85 million to get pro-lawsuit Democrats elected. Congress's new leadership has begun a political repayment plan -- packing legislation with provisions to increase the number and size of lawsuits. So far, this effort has been largely stymied by President Bush's veto threat. The tort bar sees 2008 as the real prize; it has already thrown $107 million toward increasing Democratic majorities.
The trial barons are making more progress at the state level, as described in a report by the American Tort Reform Association. States had been making progress: New laws cleaned up venue requirements, reformed punitive and noneconomic damages, and enacted medical malpractice reform. So-called "judicial hellholes" like Texas and Mississippi have seen insurers return and premiums fall.
The trial bar is fighting back, with success. In last year's legislative session, Michigan lawmakers proposed repealing safeguards for prescription drug providers; Maryland legislators wanted to revoke medical liability reforms; and Florida's legislature entertained the nullification of its joint and several liability reforms. The trial bar's big coup was in Colorado, where Democratic Governor Bill Ritter signed a law increasing previous limits on noneconomic damages.
Lawyers have also been laboring to create opportunities for more lawsuits, more money and more time to sue. Last year, Alabama saw legislation that would allow a tort claim to continue even after a plaintiff had died, while California proposed authorizing lawsuits for any violation of privacy. New Mexico and New Jersey passed laws authorizing citizens to file "false claims" suits on behalf of the state -- in effect turning private individuals into state bounty hunters.
Four states -- Colorado, Washington, Illinois and Texas -- considered proposals to increase the size of awards plaintiffs could claim, and with it attorneys' contingency fees. The tort bar pushed bills across the country to expand "consumer protection" damages and in at least three states to allow plaintiffs to claim damages for "emotional harm" when their pets are injured. In Maryland and Oregon, lawyers successfully shepherded new laws to extend the time in which plaintiffs could file lawsuits.
Plenty of legislatures remain wary of walking back down the highway of ruinous lawsuits, while many Governors say they'll veto this legislation. Still, the lawsuit industry is counting on discontent this fall to help flip a few more legislatures and governorships to pro-tort majorities, laying the groundwork for their proposals to become law. Tort reformers will have to push back.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Opportunity to solicit views of HR
This also was on the agenda update for the ECOA Annual Conference this coming week:
Not being able to immediately find an email address for Ms. Keary, I sent the following email to each of the SHRM directors shown on the SHRM website:
Measuring the Divide between HR and Ethics featuring Patricia Harned, president, Ethics Resource Center and Deborah Keary, HR director, Society for Human Resource Management. This plenary session will review and analyze results of two recent surveys, each of which separately asked HR professionals and ethics and compliance professionals about their experiences and perceptions regarding working with the other.
Not being able to immediately find an email address for Ms. Keary, I sent the following email to each of the SHRM directors shown on the SHRM website:
From: RDShatt
To:
Sent: 9/21/2008 ____P.M. Central Daylight
Time
Subj: HR and Ethics & Compliance
Dear ________,
I am writing this email to you in your capacity as a director of SHRM and because I have noticed that Deborah Keary is speaking this week at the Annual Conference of the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association on the subject of the experiences and perceptions of HR professionals and ethics and compliance professionals regarding working together.
The reason for my interest in this is that I have been badgering the ECOA and ethics professionals with the question, "Do you think the law undermines business ethics?" My question has been accompanied by this argumentation in which I set forth a "yes" answer based on common knowledge about human nature and common sense analysis of what is needed for society to be able to regulate behavior to be ethical.
In my argumentation, I supplicate ethics academics, officers and consultants as follows:[You ethics officers] have front line involvement and first hand experience that specially enable [you] to discern circumstances and factors that abet or that impede the inculcation and institutionalized practice of business ethics in [your] corporation. [You] are in the best position to evaluate my descriptions of how the law affects the pychology and thinking of employees when it comes to deciding to engage in an unethical activity or not. To the extent [you] ethics officers are uncertain about what I describe, [you] can conduct interviews and surveys of employees to find out about employee thinking and psychology. [You] consultants and academics working in the business ethics field also have a close in view of things.
For good or bad reasons (you can decide which; see Letter to ECOA Members), the ECOA has told me not to bother them anymore.
My feeling is that HR has as close in a view of the employees as the ethics officers, HR's thoughts about my argumentation would be of equal value as those of ethics officers, and my question about the law undermining the business ethics of employees is something HR, as well as ethics officers, can and should have a legitimate interest in.
If you would care to inform yourself about what I have been urging on the ECOA and to offer me your thoughts from an HR perspective, I would be very interested in hearing from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Friday, September 19, 2008
Profs. Agle, Hart and Thompson re ethics "surveys, ratings and metrics"
Email earlier today to each of the three professors:
From: RDShatt
To:
Sent: 9/19/2008 ____-P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Profs. Agle, Hart and Thompson re ethics "surveys, ratings and metrics"
Dear Professors Agle, Hart, and Thompson,
The below is from an updated agenda release of the ECOA I saw related to its Annual Conference:
I am not sure exactly what the parameters are of "surveys, ratings, and metrics," but I have a question I am interested in that I think falls within the scope of the same.
For the past year I have been an Ancient Mariner asking of ethics academics, officers and consultants, "Do you think the law undermines business ethics?" My rhymes may be found here.
In my rhymes, I supplicate ethics academics, officers and consultants as follows:
Just asking.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
From: RDShatt
To:
Sent: 9/19/2008 ____-P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Profs. Agle, Hart and Thompson re ethics "surveys, ratings and metrics"
Dear Professors Agle, Hart, and Thompson,
The below is from an updated agenda release of the ECOA I saw related to its Annual Conference:
Surveys, Ratings, and Metrics: Ethical Issues in Data Collection and Analysis
featuring Brad Agle, Associate Professor of Business Administration, University
of Pittsburgh; and, from the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young
University, Associate Professor of Ethics and Public Management David W. Hart
and Assistant Professor of Public Management Jeffrey A. Thompson. The professors
address the numerous traps and failings that can undermine efforts to build
accurate ethics and compliance metrics. They will help attendees learn how to
see behind published surveys and ratings to see if the underlying methodology
makes them invalid or, even worse, misleading.
I am not sure exactly what the parameters are of "surveys, ratings, and metrics," but I have a question I am interested in that I think falls within the scope of the same.
For the past year I have been an Ancient Mariner asking of ethics academics, officers and consultants, "Do you think the law undermines business ethics?" My rhymes may be found here.
In my rhymes, I supplicate ethics academics, officers and consultants as follows:
I ask you, Professors Agle, Hart and Thompson, in your consideration and evaluation of "surveys, ratings and metrics" related to ethics, have you delved into, or are you aware of others delving into, surveying of employees and their thinking and psychology, as referred to above, that may reveal something that has an effect of making their conduct less ethical?[You ethics officers] have front line involvement and first hand experience that
specially enable [you] to discern circumstances and factors that abet or that
impede the inculcation and institutionalized practice of business ethics
in [your] corporation. [You] are in the best position to evaluate my
descriptions of how the law affects the psychology and thinking of employees
when it comes to deciding to engage in an unethical activity or not. To the
extent [you] ethics officers are uncertain about what I describe, [you] can
conduct interviews and surveys of employees to find out about employee thinking
and psychology. [You] consultants and academics working in the business ethics
field also have a close in view of things.
Just asking.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Nada from the law professors
I did not receive a reply from any law professor to my March/April 2008 email or my August 2008 email.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Form of emails to state chambers of commerce
Subj: Help me complain about idiotic federal judges
I have contacted my senator, Senator Jeff Sessions, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and complained about the stupidity of two United States district court judges, The Honorable William H. Pauley, III, of the Southern District of New York, and The Honorable Alvin W. Thompson, of the District of Connecticut, and urged that the Judiciary Committee in the future weed out judicial nominees who are are totally devoid of real world common sense as are Judge Pauley and Judge Thompson. See this link. I have informed the US Chamber about this (see this link).
I hope your state Chamber of Commerce will contact your US Senators and Representatives about these idiotic judges and complain as well.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
I have contacted my senator, Senator Jeff Sessions, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and complained about the stupidity of two United States district court judges, The Honorable William H. Pauley, III, of the Southern District of New York, and The Honorable Alvin W. Thompson, of the District of Connecticut, and urged that the Judiciary Committee in the future weed out judicial nominees who are are totally devoid of real world common sense as are Judge Pauley and Judge Thompson. See this link. I have informed the US Chamber about this (see this link).
I hope your state Chamber of Commerce will contact your US Senators and Representatives about these idiotic judges and complain as well.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
US Chamber and complaining about idiotic judges
Subj: Re: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 9/11/2008 7:10:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
CC: RLundberg@USChamber.com
In a message dated 8/11/2008 6:38:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, LRickard@USChamber.com writes:
Mr Eskelson is no longer with ILR. I am sorry, but this is not the type of work we do. The names and addresses of Members of Congress are readily available on their website.
Thank you, Ms. Rickard. I have initiated a complaint to the Senate Judiciary Committee about Judge Pauley and Judge Thompson by sending to my senator, Senator Jeff Sessions, who is on the Judiciary Committee, the message set forth at this link. I will also contact my representative, Spencer Bachus, and perhaps other Senators and Representatives. I previously forwarded to Mr. Lundberg at the US Chamber my correspondence with you, and I am, accordingly, copying Mr. Lundberg on this email. Further I have been in touch with state Chambers of Commerce and will follow up with them to urge them to contact their US Senators and Representatives about the situation with Judge Pauley and Judge Thompson, and judicial nominees who are like Pauley and Thompson.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Date: 9/11/2008 7:10:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
CC: RLundberg@USChamber.com
In a message dated 8/11/2008 6:38:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, LRickard@USChamber.com writes:
Mr Eskelson is no longer with ILR. I am sorry, but this is not the type of work we do. The names and addresses of Members of Congress are readily available on their website.
Thank you, Ms. Rickard. I have initiated a complaint to the Senate Judiciary Committee about Judge Pauley and Judge Thompson by sending to my senator, Senator Jeff Sessions, who is on the Judiciary Committee, the message set forth at this link. I will also contact my representative, Spencer Bachus, and perhaps other Senators and Representatives. I previously forwarded to Mr. Lundberg at the US Chamber my correspondence with you, and I am, accordingly, copying Mr. Lundberg on this email. Further I have been in touch with state Chambers of Commerce and will follow up with them to urge them to contact their US Senators and Representatives about the situation with Judge Pauley and Judge Thompson, and judicial nominees who are like Pauley and Thompson.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Complaint to Senator Jeff Sessions about Pauley and Thompson
Dear Senator Sessions,
I wish to complain to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the stupidity of two United States district court judges, The Honorable William H. Pauley, III, of the Southern District of New York, and The Honorable Alvin W. Thompson, of the District of Connecticut. The gist of my problems with these two judges may be found at the following two links: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-2007-credit-card-currency.html and http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/04/letter-to-judge-thompson.html.
I hope the Judiciary Committee can in the future weed out judicial nominees who are are totally devoid of real world common sense as are Judge Pauley and Judge Thompson.
Thank you.
Robert Shattuck
I wish to complain to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the stupidity of two United States district court judges, The Honorable William H. Pauley, III, of the Southern District of New York, and The Honorable Alvin W. Thompson, of the District of Connecticut. The gist of my problems with these two judges may be found at the following two links: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-2007-credit-card-currency.html and http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/04/letter-to-judge-thompson.html.
I hope the Judiciary Committee can in the future weed out judicial nominees who are are totally devoid of real world common sense as are Judge Pauley and Judge Thompson.
Thank you.
Robert Shattuck
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Alabama Attorney General Troy King
From The Birmingham News
Alabama Attorney General Troy King has no accountability in deal with trial lawyers
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Skip Tucker
There is a disturbing lack of accountability in Attorney General Troy King's burgeoning relationship with trial lawyers in his contracting them to sue on behalf of Alabama, as in the state's lawsuits against 73 pharmaceutical companies.
Importantly, Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse doesn't oppose these suits, as such. What AVALA opposes is King's secretive handling of the lawsuits. King promised openness, honesty and restraint. Alabama citizens have seen none of these.
Instead, he is misrepresenting AVALA's call for state accountability as an effort to thwart or undermine the lawsuits. That charge is untrue.
AVALA has only asked, in the main, that contracts with private, personal-injury trial lawyers be publicly put up for bid and that such contracts, once agreed upon, be put on the Internet for public consumption. And that all trial lawyers hired to represent the citizens of Alabama submit a detailed accounting of time and expenses before they are paid, and that most of the money from any award go to the state General Fund.
King says he is putting the contracts up for bid and that, since they are reviewed by a legislative committee, they are open to sunshine. These things just aren't true. King's bid process has been strictly in-house, so nobody but King and his fellow travelers know how he uses it.
King hired the firm of Hand Arendall to handle the pharmaceutical lawsuits. Hand Arendall immediately associated the infamous Jere Beasley law firm to handle the lawsuits.
Everyone knows the contracts/association were a done deal from the start. Every lawyer I have talked to about it, whether plaintiff or defense, agrees on it. Where is the openness? The Legislative Review Committee can delay such a contract but cannot void it. Where is the accountability?
Beasley has asked, and been refused by a jury, for some $800 million in punitive damages. In the state's lower courts, out-of-town defendants such as the pharmaceutical companies are often on the short side where justice is concerned. When you add the power of the state to such a lawsuit, the playing field is tilted even more.
The fact that punitive damages were refused proves the lightness of the case. Yet King agreed to push for maximum punitives. Where is restraint in this lawsuit-hungry land for which state-sponsored cases cry out?
AVALA has been asking for openness and restraint from the attorney general and the governor's office for more than a year. King has flatly and continuously misrepresented his position and ours on sunshine and restraint. He has demanded it of other offices and yet protects his own fiefdom. That's intolerable.
King says AVALA has been bought by pharmaceutical companies. Nothing is farther from the truth. We've even offered to take a polygraph on that fact.
King has said he's representing the people of Alabama. Sadly, his record doesn't appear to reflect it. On top of this sorry episode, there's King's questionable use of his office and his position. He had an expensive night in Atlanta for which someone else picked up most of the tab. He apparently used his position to try to get someone in his office a job with the state two-year college system, even while his office was supposed to be investigating the system.
King is the second-highest paid attorney general in the United States. Unfortunately, he might be the most secretive. A darkness greater than night hangs over his office like a pall.
Skip Tucker is executive director of Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse.
E-mail: 1avala@bellsouth.net.
©2008
© 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved.
Alabama Attorney General Troy King has no accountability in deal with trial lawyers
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Skip Tucker
There is a disturbing lack of accountability in Attorney General Troy King's burgeoning relationship with trial lawyers in his contracting them to sue on behalf of Alabama, as in the state's lawsuits against 73 pharmaceutical companies.
Importantly, Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse doesn't oppose these suits, as such. What AVALA opposes is King's secretive handling of the lawsuits. King promised openness, honesty and restraint. Alabama citizens have seen none of these.
Instead, he is misrepresenting AVALA's call for state accountability as an effort to thwart or undermine the lawsuits. That charge is untrue.
AVALA has only asked, in the main, that contracts with private, personal-injury trial lawyers be publicly put up for bid and that such contracts, once agreed upon, be put on the Internet for public consumption. And that all trial lawyers hired to represent the citizens of Alabama submit a detailed accounting of time and expenses before they are paid, and that most of the money from any award go to the state General Fund.
King says he is putting the contracts up for bid and that, since they are reviewed by a legislative committee, they are open to sunshine. These things just aren't true. King's bid process has been strictly in-house, so nobody but King and his fellow travelers know how he uses it.
King hired the firm of Hand Arendall to handle the pharmaceutical lawsuits. Hand Arendall immediately associated the infamous Jere Beasley law firm to handle the lawsuits.
Everyone knows the contracts/association were a done deal from the start. Every lawyer I have talked to about it, whether plaintiff or defense, agrees on it. Where is the openness? The Legislative Review Committee can delay such a contract but cannot void it. Where is the accountability?
Beasley has asked, and been refused by a jury, for some $800 million in punitive damages. In the state's lower courts, out-of-town defendants such as the pharmaceutical companies are often on the short side where justice is concerned. When you add the power of the state to such a lawsuit, the playing field is tilted even more.
The fact that punitive damages were refused proves the lightness of the case. Yet King agreed to push for maximum punitives. Where is restraint in this lawsuit-hungry land for which state-sponsored cases cry out?
AVALA has been asking for openness and restraint from the attorney general and the governor's office for more than a year. King has flatly and continuously misrepresented his position and ours on sunshine and restraint. He has demanded it of other offices and yet protects his own fiefdom. That's intolerable.
King says AVALA has been bought by pharmaceutical companies. Nothing is farther from the truth. We've even offered to take a polygraph on that fact.
King has said he's representing the people of Alabama. Sadly, his record doesn't appear to reflect it. On top of this sorry episode, there's King's questionable use of his office and his position. He had an expensive night in Atlanta for which someone else picked up most of the tab. He apparently used his position to try to get someone in his office a job with the state two-year college system, even while his office was supposed to be investigating the system.
King is the second-highest paid attorney general in the United States. Unfortunately, he might be the most secretive. A darkness greater than night hangs over his office like a pall.
Skip Tucker is executive director of Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse.
E-mail: 1avala@bellsouth.net.
©2008
© 2008 al.com All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Email to law professors
"Intellectuals and Courage" by Professor John Lachs
Dear Professor ________ (I apologize for dispensing with individualized salutation and for not taking the time to type your last name as I have done previously),
I would be interested in any comment you would have about the above essay by Professor John Lachs, a professor of philosophy at Vanderbilt University (which essay you can find at this link "Intellectuals and Courage"). I find the essay to be very a propos of some of the experience I have encountered over the past several years, and I was wondering what you think.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Dear Professor ________ (I apologize for dispensing with individualized salutation and for not taking the time to type your last name as I have done previously),
I would be interested in any comment you would have about the above essay by Professor John Lachs, a professor of philosophy at Vanderbilt University (which essay you can find at this link "Intellectuals and Courage"). I find the essay to be very a propos of some of the experience I have encountered over the past several years, and I was wondering what you think.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Monday, August 25, 2008
Intellectuals and courage
I came across an essay by Professor John Lachs of Vanderbilt University, entitled Intellectuals and Courage, that I found very a propos of some of the experience I have had that is recorded in this blog and which you can find at D. Law Professors and at F. Ethics Organizations. I contacted Professor Lachs and asked him whether it was ok for me to publish and make use of his essay in my blog. Professor Lachs said it was ok, and you may find his essay here: Intellectuals and Courage.
Intellectuals and courage
Intellectuals and Courage
By John Lachs
The will to group is one of the most profound characteristics of the
modern world. Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals (1969), p. 4
Intellectuals do not enjoy a distinguished history of courage. There are, of course, shining exemplars of heroism among thinkers, writers and scientists. Some told the truth unmindful of the consequences; others were dauntless in their criticism of the established powers; a few even went to their deaths for principle. Zeno bit off the ear of a tyrant, Gandhi spent years in jail for his beliefs, and a number of Russian scientists lost their health, their freedom and their jobs for their resistance.
Most intellectuals, however, are compliant workers who don’t want to bite the hands that feed them. Some, unfortunately, feel they are little people whose insignificance entitles them to cowardice. A few—we could all provide names—combine bad judgment with ambition and servility to emerge as particularly despicable human beings.
This is no different from the course of affairs among ordinary people. But intellectuals receive a great deal more public attention, and that is how the few courageous ones among them come to serve as icons of moral achievement. We focus on Dr. Schweitzer and on Dr. King, overlooking the acts of valor and endurance that surround us on all sides. Yet the proportion of fortitude among those who earn their living by the use of their minds is not likely to be greater than in the general population.
This is unfortunate for two important reasons. Being in the public eye, intellectuals serve as exemplars of how one is to behave. Thinkers and scientists seem to or ought to know what is acceptable or right. So people look to them for guidance in life, and such reliance imposes obligations. Furthermore, intellectuals in fact know or at least could know better than anyone else what is worth having and what we need to do to obtain it. The social investment such knowledge represents also confers serious, potentially burdensome responsibilities.
Freedom of thought and investigation, for example, is a structuring value of all the arts and sciences. Without it, we cannot hope to attain novel and sustainable results. Writers and scientists know the importance of being unhampered in their own work, so they have every reason to generalize this value and to support its application to social life. Although some parts of moral life are full of problems and doubts, there is no uncertainty about what is right in this case. Yet many intellectuals are willing to live with whatever restrictions church or state imposes, instead of acting as steadfast champions of freedom.
How can we understand such disappointing failures of nerve? A distinction might be helpful. Writers and scientists exhibit considerable intellectual courage. In the privacy of their studies and labs, they investigate boldly. They experiment with ideas and are always ready to abandon those that do not work. They follow the argument wherever it leads and are happy to embrace any conclusion the evidence warrants.
Intellectual courage, however, does not make for courageous intellectuals. One does not have to be very daring to think dangerous thoughts in quiet privacy; the test of valor is one’s readiness to publish them. Opening one’s mind to the public may have dangerous consequences, and it is just these consequences that one can avoid by remaining silent and letting the world go its way. Intellectuals worthy of the name do not lack the courage to think, but many of them lack the courage to speak, to act on what they believe, and to expose themselves to the effects of being unpopular.
We know why the people who run established institutions do not wish to be criticized. They think objections hurt their image and thereby diminish their power. To retain their privileged positions, they withhold information, which then entitles them to claim that things are vastly more complicated than any outsider can know. But why are intellectuals, who know that criticism is essential for the vitality of institutions, hesitant to provide it? There are at least two powerful reasons.
The first is well expressed by Benda in the claim that nowadays everyone wants to run with the crowd. The desire to be, at least in our opinions, indistinguishable from anyone else exercises great influence over us. Intellectuals no less than other people find it safe and comforting to fade
into the group, to mouth favored dogmas and prejudices so they may convince their friends and employers that they are just regular folks, after all. The day of the great British eccentrics is gone. Perhaps they could afford not to care what others thought about them; for us even the bizarre is governed by universal rules.
The second reason for the failure of intellectuals to offer criticism is the sad one that they are afraid. In most of us, petty concern for self overshadows all other allegiances. Intellectuals want to be safe, they want to do well, they even rationalize and say they want to take care of their families. The fact is that they know criticism draws punishment, and they can’t think of a principle for which they are willing to suffer. The great ideas of humankind are only abstractions, after all; concrete flesh and feelings, on the other hand, can really hurt. They reason that if the truth is destined to triumph in the end, it certainly doesn’t need their measly contributions.
Pervasive misunderstandings of the function of scientists and writers lurk behind this avoidance of responsibility. Managers and the public at large think of intellectuals on an analogy with other producers of social goods, and those normally do not, and perhaps cannot, threaten the stability of the existing order. At a minimum, "knowledge industry" employees are expected to be team players, although they are always welcome to do what Marx claimed they were hired for and develop justifications of the status quo. Intellectuals themselves seem not to understand that their social role, like that of doctors, firefighters and the police, involves the potential for self-sacrifice: it requires that they value truth more highly than their private good. This is what renders being a writer or a scientist not just a wonderful privilege, but also a costly duty.
What makes thinkers and researchers different from other producers is that their job is to generate ideas. Nothing is potentially more destabilizing and revitalizing than a new idea. Many major advances and major collapses in the history of humankind were precipitated by ideas whose time had come. In spite of the known connection, however, we have not learned to deal with thoughts in a way sufficiently deliberate to capture their potential. This is particularly surprising and distressing today, when the availability of information and rapid reaction to it are essential for commercial, social, political and national success.
A society’s thoughts constitute its most striking and most precious possessions. Learning to view the studies and laboratories of intellectuals as factories for manufacturing ideas might help the leaders of nations to keep this in mind. If they could think this way, they would insist on finding out about everything writers and scientists turn up: they would demand into each new idea be made public for assessment and potential application. It goes without saying that some notions are too clever or abstract or impractical to be applicable, while others have no conceivable use. Public laughter might eliminate a few of them, and open debate would show the weaknesses of many others. But that would still leave some whose potential value could be learned only by small-scale social experiments.
Politicians have, from time to time, paid lip service to just such trials, calling them pilot projects and hoping to learn valuable lessons from their successes and failures. Unfortunately, however, no one seems to have the courage to let them fail. As egos and careers become invested in them, they begin to be viewed as potential solutions to problems rather than as experiments. Moreover, knowledge that any experiment, once started, is difficult to stop makes us reluctant to try anything: we do not want society saddled with a string of enduring failures.
Convincing national leaders and the managers of institutions that ideas constitute our most important resource is, unfortunately, not enough. To be sure, it would make these individuals revise their view of their own roles: they would begin to welcome, even to seek, criticism and to think of themselves as initiators of improvement through change. But the public also needs to be taught to expect intellectuals to speak their minds. The central problem here is to keep people listening, in spite of the fact that a good deal of what thinkers and scientists and writers are likely to say will be of little value. Yet we can treat food with respect even if we do not carry home everything we see in the store. Similarly, we can dismiss many ideas as worthless, even as we look with interest to future fruits of thought.
Most difficult of all, we must find ways to overcome the diffidence and fear that beset intellectuals. Institutional reforms to eliminate punishment of criticism promise some results. But in the nature of the case, it is impossible to safeguard against secret retaliation. So a more positive approach might work better: we must bestow the highest honors on those who undertake to assess our practices and to pronounce judgment on them. Support of the existing state of things is necessary only when it is under external attack; for the rest, it has enough power and momentum to sustain itself. We can expect far more good from constructive, well-aimed critique. Criticism must, of course, be viewed as serious business. Fortunately, if we place a high social value on it, even those who engage in it will tend to respect its dignity and refrain from making it cheap or capricious.
If encouraging intellectuals to engage in public debate does not work, we may have to make it mandatory. As part of the job description of thinkers, writers and scientists, such participation would become a matter of habit. To get things going, we might have to impose the obligation that each intellectual undertake two or three critical sallies a year. Mechanical as this sounds, it would tend to break the cycle of fear and withdrawal in which many of the most intelligent humans are now caught. In the long run, intellectuals have to understand that they are on the payroll of the community in order, among other things, to warn us about our ways, to help us see our practices in perspective, to present arguments against what we are bent on doing and, again and again, to present interesting alternatives. Their job is to shake up state and institutional orthodoxies, instead of working to preserve them.
In unstable societies, intellectuals have an even more pressing obligation to contribute to public dialogue. Economic problems, social upheaval and political turmoil prepare fertile soil for irrationality. In hard times, it is attractive to look for scapegoats, to resort to desperate measures, to substitute naked power for consensual policy. Under such circumstances, thinkers, writers and scientists must have the courage to act as the consciences of their communities, even if they are the only people who speak on behalf of sanity and good sense.
The spectacular failures of human history hold important lessons about what simply does not work or works only for a short, painful time. The American philosopher George Santayana once said that those who do not remember their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.1 Who but intellectuals are in a position to remind us of these errors, to warn us of impending folly and to present sensible alternatives to failed or suicidal policies? Who but thinkers and scientists have the knowledge and the trained calm to overcome panic and point the way out of our difficulties?
When intellectuals take public positions, they may find themselves drawn into the political power struggles of their society. This is dangerous because once they are perceived as partisan, they lose their claim to speak on behalf of the good of the entire community and with that they forfeit the attention of all who disagree. For this reason, they must scrupulously retain their objectivity and remain above the fray. They do enough in providing ideas and nothing of value in trying to ride to power on their backs. They set a great example by showing that not everyone is out for selfish gain and that cool reason retains its hold on better minds.
Beyond that, they need to remind us that acting on even the best idea is not a solution, only an experiment. No one, therefore, has the right to claim possession of the answers to our social ills. As in science and in all constructive thought, we must try the hypothesis that looks most promising and continue with it if the results bear it out. Such experimental work has borne fruit in intellectual life. Although it denies us the comfort of certainty, it represents the only intelligent approach to the broader problems we face.
By John Lachs
The will to group is one of the most profound characteristics of the
modern world. Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals (1969), p. 4
Intellectuals do not enjoy a distinguished history of courage. There are, of course, shining exemplars of heroism among thinkers, writers and scientists. Some told the truth unmindful of the consequences; others were dauntless in their criticism of the established powers; a few even went to their deaths for principle. Zeno bit off the ear of a tyrant, Gandhi spent years in jail for his beliefs, and a number of Russian scientists lost their health, their freedom and their jobs for their resistance.
Most intellectuals, however, are compliant workers who don’t want to bite the hands that feed them. Some, unfortunately, feel they are little people whose insignificance entitles them to cowardice. A few—we could all provide names—combine bad judgment with ambition and servility to emerge as particularly despicable human beings.
This is no different from the course of affairs among ordinary people. But intellectuals receive a great deal more public attention, and that is how the few courageous ones among them come to serve as icons of moral achievement. We focus on Dr. Schweitzer and on Dr. King, overlooking the acts of valor and endurance that surround us on all sides. Yet the proportion of fortitude among those who earn their living by the use of their minds is not likely to be greater than in the general population.
This is unfortunate for two important reasons. Being in the public eye, intellectuals serve as exemplars of how one is to behave. Thinkers and scientists seem to or ought to know what is acceptable or right. So people look to them for guidance in life, and such reliance imposes obligations. Furthermore, intellectuals in fact know or at least could know better than anyone else what is worth having and what we need to do to obtain it. The social investment such knowledge represents also confers serious, potentially burdensome responsibilities.
Freedom of thought and investigation, for example, is a structuring value of all the arts and sciences. Without it, we cannot hope to attain novel and sustainable results. Writers and scientists know the importance of being unhampered in their own work, so they have every reason to generalize this value and to support its application to social life. Although some parts of moral life are full of problems and doubts, there is no uncertainty about what is right in this case. Yet many intellectuals are willing to live with whatever restrictions church or state imposes, instead of acting as steadfast champions of freedom.
How can we understand such disappointing failures of nerve? A distinction might be helpful. Writers and scientists exhibit considerable intellectual courage. In the privacy of their studies and labs, they investigate boldly. They experiment with ideas and are always ready to abandon those that do not work. They follow the argument wherever it leads and are happy to embrace any conclusion the evidence warrants.
Intellectual courage, however, does not make for courageous intellectuals. One does not have to be very daring to think dangerous thoughts in quiet privacy; the test of valor is one’s readiness to publish them. Opening one’s mind to the public may have dangerous consequences, and it is just these consequences that one can avoid by remaining silent and letting the world go its way. Intellectuals worthy of the name do not lack the courage to think, but many of them lack the courage to speak, to act on what they believe, and to expose themselves to the effects of being unpopular.
We know why the people who run established institutions do not wish to be criticized. They think objections hurt their image and thereby diminish their power. To retain their privileged positions, they withhold information, which then entitles them to claim that things are vastly more complicated than any outsider can know. But why are intellectuals, who know that criticism is essential for the vitality of institutions, hesitant to provide it? There are at least two powerful reasons.
The first is well expressed by Benda in the claim that nowadays everyone wants to run with the crowd. The desire to be, at least in our opinions, indistinguishable from anyone else exercises great influence over us. Intellectuals no less than other people find it safe and comforting to fade
into the group, to mouth favored dogmas and prejudices so they may convince their friends and employers that they are just regular folks, after all. The day of the great British eccentrics is gone. Perhaps they could afford not to care what others thought about them; for us even the bizarre is governed by universal rules.
The second reason for the failure of intellectuals to offer criticism is the sad one that they are afraid. In most of us, petty concern for self overshadows all other allegiances. Intellectuals want to be safe, they want to do well, they even rationalize and say they want to take care of their families. The fact is that they know criticism draws punishment, and they can’t think of a principle for which they are willing to suffer. The great ideas of humankind are only abstractions, after all; concrete flesh and feelings, on the other hand, can really hurt. They reason that if the truth is destined to triumph in the end, it certainly doesn’t need their measly contributions.
Pervasive misunderstandings of the function of scientists and writers lurk behind this avoidance of responsibility. Managers and the public at large think of intellectuals on an analogy with other producers of social goods, and those normally do not, and perhaps cannot, threaten the stability of the existing order. At a minimum, "knowledge industry" employees are expected to be team players, although they are always welcome to do what Marx claimed they were hired for and develop justifications of the status quo. Intellectuals themselves seem not to understand that their social role, like that of doctors, firefighters and the police, involves the potential for self-sacrifice: it requires that they value truth more highly than their private good. This is what renders being a writer or a scientist not just a wonderful privilege, but also a costly duty.
What makes thinkers and researchers different from other producers is that their job is to generate ideas. Nothing is potentially more destabilizing and revitalizing than a new idea. Many major advances and major collapses in the history of humankind were precipitated by ideas whose time had come. In spite of the known connection, however, we have not learned to deal with thoughts in a way sufficiently deliberate to capture their potential. This is particularly surprising and distressing today, when the availability of information and rapid reaction to it are essential for commercial, social, political and national success.
A society’s thoughts constitute its most striking and most precious possessions. Learning to view the studies and laboratories of intellectuals as factories for manufacturing ideas might help the leaders of nations to keep this in mind. If they could think this way, they would insist on finding out about everything writers and scientists turn up: they would demand into each new idea be made public for assessment and potential application. It goes without saying that some notions are too clever or abstract or impractical to be applicable, while others have no conceivable use. Public laughter might eliminate a few of them, and open debate would show the weaknesses of many others. But that would still leave some whose potential value could be learned only by small-scale social experiments.
Politicians have, from time to time, paid lip service to just such trials, calling them pilot projects and hoping to learn valuable lessons from their successes and failures. Unfortunately, however, no one seems to have the courage to let them fail. As egos and careers become invested in them, they begin to be viewed as potential solutions to problems rather than as experiments. Moreover, knowledge that any experiment, once started, is difficult to stop makes us reluctant to try anything: we do not want society saddled with a string of enduring failures.
Convincing national leaders and the managers of institutions that ideas constitute our most important resource is, unfortunately, not enough. To be sure, it would make these individuals revise their view of their own roles: they would begin to welcome, even to seek, criticism and to think of themselves as initiators of improvement through change. But the public also needs to be taught to expect intellectuals to speak their minds. The central problem here is to keep people listening, in spite of the fact that a good deal of what thinkers and scientists and writers are likely to say will be of little value. Yet we can treat food with respect even if we do not carry home everything we see in the store. Similarly, we can dismiss many ideas as worthless, even as we look with interest to future fruits of thought.
Most difficult of all, we must find ways to overcome the diffidence and fear that beset intellectuals. Institutional reforms to eliminate punishment of criticism promise some results. But in the nature of the case, it is impossible to safeguard against secret retaliation. So a more positive approach might work better: we must bestow the highest honors on those who undertake to assess our practices and to pronounce judgment on them. Support of the existing state of things is necessary only when it is under external attack; for the rest, it has enough power and momentum to sustain itself. We can expect far more good from constructive, well-aimed critique. Criticism must, of course, be viewed as serious business. Fortunately, if we place a high social value on it, even those who engage in it will tend to respect its dignity and refrain from making it cheap or capricious.
If encouraging intellectuals to engage in public debate does not work, we may have to make it mandatory. As part of the job description of thinkers, writers and scientists, such participation would become a matter of habit. To get things going, we might have to impose the obligation that each intellectual undertake two or three critical sallies a year. Mechanical as this sounds, it would tend to break the cycle of fear and withdrawal in which many of the most intelligent humans are now caught. In the long run, intellectuals have to understand that they are on the payroll of the community in order, among other things, to warn us about our ways, to help us see our practices in perspective, to present arguments against what we are bent on doing and, again and again, to present interesting alternatives. Their job is to shake up state and institutional orthodoxies, instead of working to preserve them.
In unstable societies, intellectuals have an even more pressing obligation to contribute to public dialogue. Economic problems, social upheaval and political turmoil prepare fertile soil for irrationality. In hard times, it is attractive to look for scapegoats, to resort to desperate measures, to substitute naked power for consensual policy. Under such circumstances, thinkers, writers and scientists must have the courage to act as the consciences of their communities, even if they are the only people who speak on behalf of sanity and good sense.
The spectacular failures of human history hold important lessons about what simply does not work or works only for a short, painful time. The American philosopher George Santayana once said that those who do not remember their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.1 Who but intellectuals are in a position to remind us of these errors, to warn us of impending folly and to present sensible alternatives to failed or suicidal policies? Who but thinkers and scientists have the knowledge and the trained calm to overcome panic and point the way out of our difficulties?
When intellectuals take public positions, they may find themselves drawn into the political power struggles of their society. This is dangerous because once they are perceived as partisan, they lose their claim to speak on behalf of the good of the entire community and with that they forfeit the attention of all who disagree. For this reason, they must scrupulously retain their objectivity and remain above the fray. They do enough in providing ideas and nothing of value in trying to ride to power on their backs. They set a great example by showing that not everyone is out for selfish gain and that cool reason retains its hold on better minds.
Beyond that, they need to remind us that acting on even the best idea is not a solution, only an experiment. No one, therefore, has the right to claim possession of the answers to our social ills. As in science and in all constructive thought, we must try the hypothesis that looks most promising and continue with it if the results bear it out. Such experimental work has borne fruit in intellectual life. Although it denies us the comfort of certainty, it represents the only intelligent approach to the broader problems we face.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Email to CPA societies
Anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog
I very much doubt that I will hear from your CPA society, but I wanted to give you the above link anyway.
Thanks.
Robert Shattuck
Email to hospital associations
Anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog
I very much doubt that I will hear from your hospital association, but I wanted to give you the above link anyway.
Thanks.
Robert Shattuck
I very much doubt that I will hear from your hospital association, but I wanted to give you the above link anyway.
Thanks.
Robert Shattuck
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Email to medical associations
Anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog
I very much doubt that I will hear from your medical association, but I wanted to give you the above link anyway.
Thanks.
Robert Shattuck
I very much doubt that I will hear from your medical association, but I wanted to give you the above link anyway.
Thanks.
Robert Shattuck
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
To: Governmental Affairs Officers of State Chambers of Commerce
To: Governmental Affairs Officers of State Chambers of Commerce
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please go to my anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog.
I would like to work at and through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce level. I am not making headway there at the moment, and I will commence working at the state level in the meantime.
I would particularly call your attention to the approaches I have made to I. State legislatures and E. State attorney generals. Although I have not gotten started, I intend to activate myself on the issue at the state level, which I will most likely report on here: L. Our lawmakers and politicians- 2008.
Please contact me if I can do any of the above work in conjunction with your state Chamber of Commerce.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please go to my anti-plaintiffs' lawyers blog.
I would like to work at and through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce level. I am not making headway there at the moment, and I will commence working at the state level in the meantime.
I would particularly call your attention to the approaches I have made to I. State legislatures and E. State attorney generals. Although I have not gotten started, I intend to activate myself on the issue at the state level, which I will most likely report on here: L. Our lawmakers and politicians- 2008.
Please contact me if I can do any of the above work in conjunction with your state Chamber of Commerce.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Inquiry to National Chamber Litigation Center
Subj: Is NCLC working on this issue?
Date: 8/10/2008 1:06:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: RConrad@USChamber.com
Dear Ms. Conrad,
I recently tried to agitate the Xerox Board of Directors about their settlement of a securities class action lawsuit against Xerox. You may find out more about what I did here: Xerox
I find this type of securities class action lawsuit especially outrageous, and I wrote this Letter to Judge Thompson about about the Xerox case.
The materials on the Institute for Legal Reform website particularly mentioned Professor Coffee at Columbia regarding this kind of lawsuit, and I wrote Professor Coffee an email in which I asked the following questions: "Do you think there is any basis (e.g., due process, arbitrary loss shifting with no rational justification, other legal basis?) on which a judge could dismiss the lawsuit against Xerox? If there might such a basis, do you feel it has been adequately presented to a judge in a comparable lawsuit of which you are aware? Do you have any views about the propriety of Xerox directors approving Xerox entering into the proposed settlement agreement that gives net favorable treatment to some Xerox shareholders and bondholders and net unfavorable treatment to other Xerox shareholders and bondholders in an arguably arbitrary fashion? Is there a conflict for the plaintiffs' lawyers to represent both shareholders (and bondholders) who will have a net gain and also shareholders (and bondholders) who will have a net loss from the settlement? Do you believe there is a basis for Xerox requesting the court to include other Xerox shareholders and bondholders who are not in the plaintiff class who are also real parties in interest and who should be entitled to joined as parties in the lawsuit and be afforded legal representation?"
I got no reply from Professor Coffee and no reply from other law professors and lawyers on the ABA class action committee that I tried to ask similar questions of.
Is the NCLC working on this issue? Is it an issue the NCLC would like to work on?
Thank you for your attention to this email. I hope I hear from you in response.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Date: 8/10/2008 1:06:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: RConrad@USChamber.com
Dear Ms. Conrad,
I recently tried to agitate the Xerox Board of Directors about their settlement of a securities class action lawsuit against Xerox. You may find out more about what I did here: Xerox
I find this type of securities class action lawsuit especially outrageous, and I wrote this Letter to Judge Thompson about about the Xerox case.
The materials on the Institute for Legal Reform website particularly mentioned Professor Coffee at Columbia regarding this kind of lawsuit, and I wrote Professor Coffee an email in which I asked the following questions: "Do you think there is any basis (e.g., due process, arbitrary loss shifting with no rational justification, other legal basis?) on which a judge could dismiss the lawsuit against Xerox? If there might such a basis, do you feel it has been adequately presented to a judge in a comparable lawsuit of which you are aware? Do you have any views about the propriety of Xerox directors approving Xerox entering into the proposed settlement agreement that gives net favorable treatment to some Xerox shareholders and bondholders and net unfavorable treatment to other Xerox shareholders and bondholders in an arguably arbitrary fashion? Is there a conflict for the plaintiffs' lawyers to represent both shareholders (and bondholders) who will have a net gain and also shareholders (and bondholders) who will have a net loss from the settlement? Do you believe there is a basis for Xerox requesting the court to include other Xerox shareholders and bondholders who are not in the plaintiff class who are also real parties in interest and who should be entitled to joined as parties in the lawsuit and be afforded legal representation?"
I got no reply from Professor Coffee and no reply from other law professors and lawyers on the ABA class action committee that I tried to ask similar questions of.
Is the NCLC working on this issue? Is it an issue the NCLC would like to work on?
Thank you for your attention to this email. I hope I hear from you in response.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Asking US Chamber whom I might target
MY FIRST EMAIL:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date:8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com
Dear Mr. Eskelsen,
I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.
Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
MY SECOND EMAIL:
Subj: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/9/2008 6:10:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
Dear Ms. Rickard,
I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.
I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.
I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Forwarded Message:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com
Dear Mr. Eskelsen,
I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.
Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
MY THIRD EMAIL:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers about class action lawsuits
Date: 8/9/2008 6:21:35 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: RLundberg@USChamber.com
Dear Mr. Lundberg,
I have been communicating with the Institute For Legal Reform about class action lawsuits. As the below email indicates I wish to complain to our lawmakers, and I solicited from the Institute names of appropriate lawmakers and/or staffers. Because of a possible separation of Institute activities from Chamber lobbying activities, it occurred to me that my request for contact information should be directed to the Chamber itself. Hence I am sending you this email.
I hope the Chamber can provide me with the information I request.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/9/2008 6:10:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
Dear Ms. Rickard,
I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.
I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.
I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Forwarded Message:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShat
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com
Dear Mr. Eskelsen,
I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.
Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
REPLY OF MS. RICKARD:
Subj: Re: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/11/2008 6:38:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: LRickard@USChamber.com
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Mr Eskelson is no longer with ILR. I am sorry, but this is not the type of work we do. The names and addresses of Members of Congress are readily available on their website.
----- Original Message -----
From: RDShatt@aol.com RDShatt@aol.com
To: Rickard, Lisa
Sent: Sat Aug 09 07:10:53 2008
Subject: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Dear Ms. Rickard,
I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date:8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com
Dear Mr. Eskelsen,
I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.
Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
MY SECOND EMAIL:
Subj: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/9/2008 6:10:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
Dear Ms. Rickard,
I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.
I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.
I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Forwarded Message:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com
Dear Mr. Eskelsen,
I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.
Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
MY THIRD EMAIL:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers about class action lawsuits
Date: 8/9/2008 6:21:35 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: RLundberg@USChamber.com
Dear Mr. Lundberg,
I have been communicating with the Institute For Legal Reform about class action lawsuits. As the below email indicates I wish to complain to our lawmakers, and I solicited from the Institute names of appropriate lawmakers and/or staffers. Because of a possible separation of Institute activities from Chamber lobbying activities, it occurred to me that my request for contact information should be directed to the Chamber itself. Hence I am sending you this email.
I hope the Chamber can provide me with the information I request.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/9/2008 6:10:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
Dear Ms. Rickard,
I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.
I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.
I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Forwarded Message:
Subj: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/7/2008 8:29:05 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShat
To: JEskelsen@USChamber.com
Dear Mr. Eskelsen,
I wish, as a private citizen, to complain to our lawmakers about what is going on in cases like the Xerox class action lawsuit I previously wrote to you about.
Would the Institute for Legal Reform be in a position to give me names of Senators and Representatives, and/ or staffers, whom the Institute thinks would be appropriate people on Capitol Hill to whom I should direct my complaints? Should I direct such a request for contact names to someone in the Chamber itself if there is a separation between the Institute's activities and Chamber lobbying activities?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
REPLY OF MS. RICKARD:
Subj: Re: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Date: 8/11/2008 6:38:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: LRickard@USChamber.com
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Mr Eskelson is no longer with ILR. I am sorry, but this is not the type of work we do. The names and addresses of Members of Congress are readily available on their website.
----- Original Message -----
From: RDShatt@aol.com RDShatt@aol.com
To: Rickard, Lisa
Sent: Sat Aug 09 07:10:53 2008
Subject: Fwd: I want to complain to our lawmakers
Dear Ms. Rickard,
I have no reason to think that Mr. Eskelsen will not reply to me on behalf of the Institute, but I thought I would send my email to you directly as well.I will add that, while I am a lowly citizen of little or no regard in the eyes of our lawmakers, I have the advantage possibly of not carrying the baggage of bias that the Chamber or the Institute may have.I hope the Institute or the Chamber will be able to provide me with contact names and email addresses.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)