Saturday, April 25, 2009

Email to Symantec CEO and Board

For CEO and Board re Symantec class action lawsuit

Dear Mr. Thompson, Mr. Salem and other Symantec Board members,

My son has received notice of the class action lawsuit against Symantec Corporation that is pending in the Superior Court in Santa Clara County (http://www.heverly-nortoncase.com/pdfs/ConsolidatedSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf).

I regret that corporations such as Symantec seem to feel powerless in resisting the predations of plaintiffs' lawyers and that Symantec, like so may other corporations, cannot justify fighting back and chooses to lie down and settle.

I have been notified of being in the plaintiff class in several class actions in the past few years, and I have filed these objections, but to no avail: Objection to attorney fees in Charter Cable class action (2004); Objection in credit card currency conversion class action (2007); Objection in Xerox securities law class action (2008); Objection in Nortwthwestern Mutual Life class action (2008).

My son may file an objection in the Symantec class action, but past experience indicates it unfortunately will be pointless, particularly when the corporation chooses to lie down and settle.

It would be nice to receive encouragement from the Symantec Board, but I suspect that will not happen.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Email to Pepperdine University business professors

Below is an email I sent to Pepperdine University business school professors whose area of specialty is behavioral science.

Subj: Behavioral science and Symantec class action lawsuit
Date: 4/20/2009 ____ A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To:


Dear Professor ___________,

This email has its genesis in behavior theory based on common human knowledge and experience. I don't know whether there is an imprimatur to be gained from a behavioral scientist, but I would like to throw the matter out to you as a Pepperdine business school faculty member specializing in behavioral science, and the matter having a context in a class action lawsuit against Symantec Corporation that is pending in the Superior Court in Santa Clara County (http://www.heverly-nortoncase.com/pdfs/ConsolidatedSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf).

I contend that corporate wrongdoing is conceived, designed and implemented by individual corporate officers, employees, agents, and others, and that ethical business conduct is fostered by holding those individuals accountable. I further contend that the country's civil liability system undermines business ethics because it distracts attention and diverts economic resources away from establishing clear guidelines governing actions on behalf of a corporation and holding officers, employees and others individually accountable under those guidelines. My contentions are set forth at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I think the Symantec class action lawsuit is a very good case in point.

The notice that my son received describes the gist of the case as follows:

This lawsuit against Symantec Corp. (“Symantec”) alleges that Symantec, the
company that sells Norton computer and Internet security products, has an
unlawful policy of terminating subscription time of certain customers who
purchased upgrades, without providing a credit or refund for unused subscription
time, and that Symantec fails to disclose this policy. The lawsuit asserts that
each class member purchased Norton computer security software which came with a
subscription for regular “content updates” which keep the security software up
to date. These updates are delivered by Symantec via online downloads through
the LiveUpdate feature of the Norton software. As the subscription expiration
date approaches, the Norton security software prompts the user to consider
renewing his/her/its subscription for another term and also presents an
opportunity to upgrade to a new product by making an online purchase. If the
user then chooses to purchase an upgrade, the new subscription begins when the
upgrade is installed, not when the existing subscription expires. Plaintiffs
allege that the new subscription should begin when the existing subscription
expires, and that Symantec unlawfully terminated subscription time without
providing a credit or refund and without disclosing this policy.

Symantec denies these allegations and asserts that, at all times, its actions
and business practices have been lawful and appropriate. The Court has not ruled
on the merits of the claims. This means that there has been no ruling as to who
wins and who loses.

Under the settlement agreement for which court approval is being sought, the offer to each member of the plaintiff class is a $15 voucher or $2.50 cash. The requested attorneys' fees are $2,275,000.

Would you care to comment, as a scientist or otherwise, on my above contentions about corporate wrongdoing and about whether the Symantec class action lawsuit contributes to or does not contribute to (and in fact undermines for the reasons set out in my article) the fostering of ethical behavior by corporations and its employees?

Thank you.

Corporate governance and Symantec class action

Email letter I sent to a Santa Clara law school professor

Subj: Corporate governance and Symantec class action lawsuit

Dear Professor _______,

I contend that corporate wrongdoing is conceived, designed and implemented by individual corporate officers, employees, agents, and others, and that ethical business conduct is fostered by holding those individuals accountable. I further contend that the country's civil liability system undermines business ethics because it distracts attention and diverts economic resources away from establishing clear guidelines governing actions on behalf of a corporation and holding officers, employees and others individually accountable under those guidelines. My contentions are set forth at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I think a class action lawsuit against Symantec Corporation that is pending in the Superior Court in Santa Clara County (http://www.heverly-nortoncase.com/pdfs/ConsolidatedSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf) is a very good case in point.

The notice that my son received describes the gist of the case as follows:

This lawsuit against Symantec Corp. (“Symantec”) alleges that Symantec, the
company that sells Norton computer and Internet security products, has an
unlawful policy of terminating subscription time of certain customers who
purchased upgrades, without providing a credit or refund for unused subscription
time, and that Symantec fails to disclose this policy. The lawsuit asserts that
each class member purchased Norton computer security software which came with a
subscription for regular “content updates” which keep the security software up
to date. These updates are delivered by Symantec via online downloads through
the LiveUpdate feature of the Norton software. As the subscription expiration
date approaches, the Norton security software prompts the user to consider
renewing his/her/its subscription for another term and also presents an
opportunity to upgrade to a new product by making an online purchase. If the
user then chooses to purchase an upgrade, the new subscription begins when the
upgrade is installed, not when the existing subscription expires. Plaintiffs
allege that the new subscription should begin when the existing subscription
expires, and that Symantec unlawfully terminated subscription time without
providing a credit or refund and without disclosing this policy.

Symantec denies these allegations and asserts that, at all times, its actions
and business practices have been lawful and appropriate. The Court has not ruled
on the merits of the claims. This means that there has been no ruling as to who
wins and who loses.

Under the settlement agreement for which court approval is being sought, the offer to each member of the plaintiff class is a $15 voucher or $2.50 cash. The requested attorneys' fees are $2,275,000.

I am writing this email to you because I see that you are teaching a corporate governance class this spring at Santa Clara Law.

Would you care to comment on my above contentions about corporate wrongdoing and about whether the Symantec class action lawsuit contributes to or does not contribute to (and in fact undermines for the reasons set out in my article) the fostering of ethical behavior by corporations and its employees?

Thank you.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Citizen's letter dissemination

I have sent about eighty emails of my "citizen's letter to judges" to judges and others, including directors, trustees, and academic advisors of the American Judges Association, the Conference of Chief Judges, the National Conference of Appellate Judges, the National Judicial College, the National Association of State Judicial Educators, and the American Bar Association Justice Center and its Standing Committee on Federal Judicial Improvements.

Two responses to Vioxx email

Below are two responses I received to my Vioxx email:

From: ________________
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 3/21/2009 9:32:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Vioxx case and business ethics

Dear Mr. Shattuck:

I agree with you that the treatment of corporations as individuals undermines business ethics. Most of the big drug companies have agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to settle criminal and civil charges of fraud, and it is just a cost of doing business. Even the $1.4 billion Eli Lilly will pay for marketing Zyprexa for off-label uses is small compared with the sales income from Zyprexa. Like you, I believe the individuals within the drug companies who were responsible for unethical or illegal decisions should be held accountable, and until that happens, nothing much will change.

Thanks for writing.

_____________


From: _____________
To: rdshatt@aol.com
Sent: 4/7/2009 12:05:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Vioxx case and business ethics

Couldn't agree more! Given the evidence that the top-end management of Merck knew about the problems with this drug, and actively tried to hide it from the regulatory agencies and thepublic, I still can't believe that none of them were charged with criminal negligence causing death!

_______________