Saturday, May 30, 2009

Letter to Alabama Gov. Riley

From: RDShatt
To: RDShatt
Sent: 5/29/2009 5:42:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: email sent to Gov. Riley using online form

The Honorable Bob Riley, Governor
State of Alabama
State Capitol
600 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Re: Piling on against weakened Alabama businesses

Dear Governor Riley,

There is an egregious piling on that is going on against weakened Alabama businesses that I think you should know about. You may be able to do something about it, and I hope you will. I have previously written Dr. Bronner about the matter, and he should be able to give you his views quickly. Also, I am in the process of contacting "experts" on the subject, and I will pass along to you whatever I learn from them. Further, I will try to publicize this matter by contacting the media.

Let me try to explain the "piling on" that is going on.

Let's say I am an Alabama corporation and that, beginning at a certain point in time, some corporate officers of mine engage in accounting fraud or make misrepresentations about my business condition. While this is going on, my stock price becomes artificially inflated compared to what it would be if the truth were known, and during the period that my stock price is artificially inflated, millions of my shares are bought and sold on the stock exchange by parties who do not know the stock price is artificially inflated. Sellers during this time (call them the "lucky" shareholders) get the benefit of an artificially inflated stock price and walk away with windfall gains totaling possibly hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The buyers during this period (call them "unlucky" shareholders) have overpaid for their shares by approximately the same total amount of the windfall gains the "lucky" shareholders obtained. At some point, the accounting fraud or the other misrepresentations made by corporate officers become publicly known, and the artificially inflated stock price falls back down to a non-artificially inflated level.

Now for the piling on.

I, as a corporation, have "unlucky" shareholders with real financial losses. I also have "lucky" shareholders who by chance sold my shares and have walked away with windfall gains corresponding to those "unlucky" shareholders' losses.

Who do the plaintiffs' lawyers sue? They sue me the corporation. I, however, don't have the windfall gains in my corporate coffers. In the end, the windfall gains remain in the hands of the "lucky" shareholders who are not before the court, and the lawsuit generates a circular payment that accomplishes a shuffling around of the losses among my shareholders who experienced the losses and also shifting a part of the losses to other of my shareholders who did not have losses (or windfall gain), and also shifts a part to some of the lucky shareholders who had windfall gains but who, by chance, are subject to a some partial reclamation of their windfall gains because they did not sell all their shares. 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 attorney fees I have to pay to the lawyers who I have to hire to defend me in the lawsuit.

Does the foregoing sound crazy? It is crazy.

And the plaintiffs' lawyers are doing it and getting away with it all over the country. They got nearly a half billion dollars in legal fees from Tyco (see this link about Tyco (http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/november-2007-tyco-class-action.html)), and I learned of two other cases involving Xerox and Monster, Inc. because I received class action notices. See this link about Xerox (http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/04/letter-to-judge-thompson.html) and this link about Monster Inc. (http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-arent-government-retirement-systems.html)

Moreover, these crazy lawsuits are continuing to go on currently, at a time when our economy is in a recession, and businesses and banks are in a weakened condition and struggling to turn things around. The last thing they need is huge class action lawsuits that do nothing more than arbitrarily shuffle around losses in random ways and that divert hundreds of millions of dollars of needed corporate assets in order to pay off plaintiffs' lawyers who purvey this nonsense and to pay defense lawyers to defend against the nonsense.

I am writing you this letter because I learned that in February the plaintiffs lawyers have recently filed one of these cookie cutter class action lawsuits against Colonial BancGroup. See this link about Colonial class action (http://securities.stanford.edu/1042/CNB_01/).

Besides the general concern you as Governor have for Alabama banks and businesses to regain their health and be able to hire Alabama workers, there are also Alabama governmental retirement plans which are very likely invested in corporations and banks, such as Colonial BancGroup, that are having their values reduced by these class action lawsuits.

I hope you will try to take action to stop this "piling on" by plaintiffs' lawyers, particularly at a time when Alabama businesses and banks are in a weakened state, and when assets in Alabama's governmental retirement plans are greatly suffering in value.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

Stanford Securities Class Action Clearingouse

From: RDShatt
To: grundfest@stanford.edu
Sent: 5/27/2009 5:13:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Colonial Bancgroup securities law class action lawsuit

Dear Professor Grundfest,

I have gotten agitated by securities law class action lawsuits in which there is an alleged artificially inflated stock price period by reason of alleged misrepresentations by the corporation and by officers, directors and others, such as accountants. In the class actions, the plaintiff class consists of persons who made stock purchases during the artificially inflated period, possibly from the corporation but more typically on the open market. I have gotten agitated because, if there has been such misrepresentation and an artificially inflated stock price, it seems that there was a windfall gain by the sellers on the open market that corresponds to the loss experienced by the purchasers, the windfall gain is in the pockets of the selling shareholders, and the class action lawsuit against the corporation in the end is only an arbitrary reallocation of losses among non-windfall gain shareholders.

I have tried to write blasting, or at least blistering, letters about these class action lawsuits, addressed to judges and others, dealing specifically with Tyco , Xerox and Monster, Inc.

I am from Alabama and I have learned from your Securities Class Action Clearinghouse website that another one of these class actions is in the works against Colonial Bancgroup, based in Alabama. I assume there are Alabama state and local government retirement plans that own Colonial stock. As an Alabama taxpayer who provides a source of funding for such plans, I intend to write strongly worded letters to Governor Riley, Alabama Attorney General King, and trustees of Alabama governmental retirement plans, to complain vociferously about what is going on in these cases and urging Alabama officials and governmental entities to intervene/object in the Colonial case and complain about the situation to Judge Thompson.

Before I write my letters, I would like to ask you whether you think I am wrong in objecting strongly as I have done and as I plan to do in the Colonial Bancgroup case.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

More emails on scholarship front

From: RDShatt
To: weaverg@lerner.udel.edu
CC: LTrevino@psu.edu
Sent: 5/27/2009 6:48:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Beyond Moral Reasoning: A Review of Moral Identity Research and Its Impl...

Dear Professor Weaver,

Thank you. Professor Boatright also mentioned Professor Hasnas' book, and I wrote Professor Hasnas the below email yesterday.

I know I can be accused of having an "agenda" and I have been strident in trying to advance the same. I have toned down my main article, and I may even try to convert it to something that qualifies as scholarship. If I do that, I will pass it on to you. Again, thank you.

Robert Shattuck

In a message dated 5/26/2009 6:50:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time, weaverg@lerner.udel.edu writes:
Robert -- I don't know that anything we have written directly addresses your issues. But you might want to look into this book, by John Hasnas of Georgetown U: "Trapped: When acting ethically is against the law".

________________________
Gary R. Weaver, Ph.D.


From: RDShatt
To: hasnasj@georgetown.edu
CC: jboatri@luc.edu
Sent: 5/26/2009 4:26:13 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Trapped: When Acting Ethically Is Against the Law

Dear Professor Hasnas,

Ethics professors have referred me to you in the past, and Professor Boatright has recently referred me to you.

I listened to the April 17, 2006 Cato Institute online book forum about your book.

You, as a business ethicist, are importantly concerned about the application of the criminal law to corporations and how it should be utilized to affect corporate behavior. In the book forum you discussed at length the interplay with employees.

In the book forum, you said some other things that were of particular interest to me.

Speaking from memory, I think you said you thought it was wrong to hold a corporation criminally liable because it results in punishment of innocent parties. Also, you said that the only way to prevent corporate crime is to prevent employees from committing corporate crime. (Subsequently in the book forum you indicated there were situations in which the totality of employees' knowledge and actions could constitute a corporate crime but no single employee committed a crime.) Further, you said there were studies that showed a "command and control" approach to employee behavior had only modest effect, and an approach of more autonomy and respect for the employee can produce better results, including less willingness of employees to tolerate deviance by other employees.

In the book forum Ms. Alice Fisher mentioned the adverse effect on business competitors when a corporation breaks the law and is not caught and punished.

The book forum gave me a greater appreciation of issues and concerns related to the application of the criminal law to corporations and how it should be utilized to affect corporate behavior.

For a couple of years I have been interested in issues and concerns about the application of the civil law to corporations. I believe the civil law greatly affects corporate behavior, and I think that how it does so is worthy of investigation and consideration by business ethicists. I think things you said in the forum that I mentioned above are relevant to my civil law issues. I would be interested in whether there are studies that have relevance to my civil law issues or whether there are studies that could be done. My civil law issues are complicated by the fact that the civil law, unlike the criminal law, has a compensation objective, as well as a deterrence objective.

I continue to look for scholarship that addresses my civil law issues.

I believe I have previously given you the link to my article that discusses my civil law issues. Here it is again: Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics?

Thank you for your attention to this email.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: lauferw@wharton.upenn.edu
CC: jboatri@luc.edu, Benedict.Sheehy@newcastle.edu.au
Sent: 5/25/2009 9:58:37 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For what is worth: Prof. Boatright's book review

Dear Professor Laufer,

I have also gotten hold of Prof. Boatright's review of your book Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds. For what it is worth to you, I append two emails I sent to Prof. Boatright related to his review.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


From: RDShatt
To: jboatri@luc.eduSent: 5/24/2009 5:55:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: I honed in on these statements

Dear Professor Boatright,

From my angle, I particularly noted three statements in your book review.

First, the statement:
In practice, the complexity of organizational behavior and the secrecy around it
make it very difficult for prosecutors to obtain evidence of wrongdoing and to
identify the individuals responsible.

I agree, and I consider it a very significant problem that needs addressing.

Second, the statement:
It has also been spurred by a tension in public policy between encouraging
risk-taking in business that advances the economy and regulating corporations to
prevent the inevitable abuses, . . ..
This statement is in reference to imposing vicarious liability on the corporation. I think the tension is relevant as well to holding employees liable.

Third, the statement:
For legislators, regulators, and prosecutors who have created the new
cooperative model of law enforcement, and also business ethicists who promote
this model, the book provides a sobering contrary assessment.
I think judges as well should read the book.

One statement from the Michael article caught my attention, to wit:
Third, despite references to promoting ethical conduct, the Sentencing
Guidelines actually define a "compliance and ethics program" as one "designed to
prevent and detect criminal conduct'""* and would seem narrowly satisfied by a
program limited to criminal activity rather than also to ethical or even civil
law issues.
I think the impact of the civil liability system on corporate behavior is as significant as the impact of the criminal law, and business ethicists should be scrutinizing the civil liability system as closely as they are scrutinizing the criminal law.

Thanks again for sending me the materials.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: jboatri@luc.edu
Sent: 5/23/2009 1:03:00 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: A question for you, and my answer to the same

Dear Professor Boatright,

Your book review says:


To explain further, ultimately the only actors that can be deterred are
individuals;organizations can be deterred only by influencing the behavior their
agents. The relevant difference between sanctioning organizations and individuals
is whetherindividuals will be deterred directly by the application of the
criminal law or indirectlyby creating incentives for shareholders to monitor
employees. In other words,is it better to have government prosecutors or the
shareholders' representatives bethe first line of defense in preventing
wrongdoing? The answer to this questionwould seem to be a matter for
cost-benefit analysis: which approach can producethe greatest amount of
deterrence at the lowest cost? Although there are largecosts in government
prosecution of individuals, the sanctions against risk-neutralshareholders would
have to be relatively high to induce them to impose, indirectly,the same level
of discipline against risk-averse employees that could be achieveddirectly by
criminal prosecution. If compliance programs cause a risk-shift from organizations to individuals, this effect may be desirable to the extent
that the greaterlegal liability of individuals achieves more deterrence at lower
cost than imposingthe preponderance of risk on organizations.

My question is: To try to deter employees, do you think it is a realistic and potentially fruitful to advocate a course of action of trying to impose "sanctions against risk-neutral shareholders . . . to induce them to impose, indirectly, the same level of discipline against risk-averse employees that could be achieved directly by criminal prosecution" ?

I think not.

First, I don't know what kind of high cost sanctions against shareholders you are talking about. A criminal conviction of a corporation can destroy a corporation and destroy shareholder value, and huge corporate fines can reduce shareholder value. Shareholders take that risk and have taken that risk, and there have been cases in which very significant financial risk of loss has been realized (e.g., Merck and Vioxx, which was admittedly in civil context but I don't see that making much of a difference for shareholders). I am not aware that financial loss or risk of financial loss has resulted in shareholders taking action to impose discipline on the corporation's employees. Are you aware of any examples of shareholders, as a result of actual financial loss or the risk of financial loss, taking action to impose discipline on a corporation's employees?

Second, I think that to acheive that level of discipline on the corporation's employees requires the same type of sanctions the criminal law imposes (jail, fines, etc.) or other drastic sanctions, such as employment termination.

For lower level employees, the corporate codes of ethics and the corporations' enforcement of them should be sufficient to provide the needed level of employee discipline, and shareholder action and involvement would seem unnecessary overkill and unncessarily cumbersome.

The crux of the problem is with respect to corporate wrongdoing that is effectuated with the involvement of higher level management. Let's take Merck and Vioxx. There has been a multi-billion dollar liability imposed on Merck to the detriment of the stockholders. What is it suggested that the stockholders do or be able to do to impose discipline on Merck officers and employees? It would seem that there would need to be investigations and tribunals to determine whether there were wrongdoing officers and employees who should be sanctioned. This will cost money. Do the shareholders need to vote on whether Merck will spend the money to conduct the investigations and have the tribunals? Should the shareholders be allowed to vote and summarily fire or fine officers and employees without investigations or tribunals? Won't there be a lot of sentiment that officers and employees are entitled to an opportunity to defend themselves against sanctions? What about the Merck shareholders acting to promulgate standards and guidelines for the future to try to prevent future wrongdoing? Again that takes money, time and effort.

In short, I don't think shareholders can impose employee discipline at a lesser cost than direct criminal prosecution or other regulatory controls on higher level employees, and further there would be much inefficiency and cumbersomeness, and perhaps ultimate unworkability, in shareholders trying to impose employee discipline.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Monday, May 18, 2009

More on Professor Laufer's book

From: RDShatt
To: jboatri@luc.edu
Sent: 5/18/2009 6:53:33 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Your book review of Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds

Dear Professor Boatright,

I am not a subscriber to Business Ethics Quarterly and cannot find a way to gain online access to your above book review in the July 2008 issue. I would be very appreciative if you would be in a position to send me an electronic copy of your review.

Also, I sent the below emails to Professor Laufer and Professor Sheehy, who also wrote a review of Professor Laufer's book.

I would like to ask you as well how your views fit in with my thinking and argumentation that I set forth in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

Thanks.
Robert Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: Benedict.Sheehy@newcastle.edu.au
Sent: 4/26/2009 10:54:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: CORPORATE BODIES AND GUILTY MINDS

Dear Professor Sheehy,

I have sent Professor Laufer the below email following my reading of your review of his book.

I am wondering how your own views fit in with my thinking and argumentation that I set forth in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I hope I hear back from you.

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Forwarded Message:
Subj:CORPORATE BODIES AND GUILTY MINDS
Date:4/26/2009 10:27:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From:RDShatt
To:lauferw@wharton.upenn.edu

Dear Professor Laufer,

I have emailed you before but I don't think you responded.

In researching, I have found the above book of yours and have read this review of it: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/laufer0107.htm

I am not sure I am able to tell from the review your exact stance and your exact advocacy derived from that stance. I hope to find out more about that.

In the meantime, finding your book and reading the review has renewed my interest in finding out the extent to which you agree with the argumentation and contentions I set forth here: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I hope very much that I will hear from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Amicus curiae letter to Judge Saris

From: RDShatt
To: robert_alba@mad.uscourts.gov, christine_patch@mad.uscourts.gov
Sent: 5/17/2009 9:55:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Amicus curiae : NE Carpenters Health Fund v. FDI and McKesson

[Mr. Alba and Ms. Patch: I would like to transmit the below letter electronically to Judge Saris. I am not sure how much I care whether the same is in the case record. If you are not in a position to forward my email to Judge Saris but you can supply me with an email address for her, I will pleased to use that to send to her. Thank you. Robert Shattuck]


Transmitted electronically to court clerk (robert_alba@mad.uscourts.gov)
and docket clerk (christine_patch@mad.uscourts.gov)

May 17, 2009

The Honorable Patti B. Saris
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
Boston, MA

Re: New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. First DataBank Inc. and McKesson
Corp.
Amicus curiae objection to settlement

Dear Judge Saris,

To my knowledge I am not a member of the plaintiff class. As a citizen who is affected by class action lawsuits such as this one, I am writing this as an amicus curiae letter to you.

There are many critics and much criticism of class action lawsuits, and thousands of plaintiff class members , including myself, file objections in class actions about proposed settlements and attorney fees.

I am currently trying to advance two contentions which I think are deserving of more attention than they have heretofore received, and I wish to advance them to you. The two contentions have a connection to each other I believe.

First, I contend that class action litigation such as this case does not promote an objective of the law to lessen corporate wrongdoing, and such litigation is in fact counterproductive to that end and it undermines the fostering and inculcation of ethical business conduct. My argumentation to this effect is set out at length in this article of mine: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

Second, I contend that this litigation is very questionable in serving the social utility of "doing justice." The main reason it is questionable is that I believe insufficient attention is paid to the extent to which this litigation at bottom is only about making transfers of amounts by and among parties in interest who are not culpable of any wrongdoing. It is possible there has been wrongdoing by corporate officers and employees or other individuals, and as a result some innocent parties have received a benefit from the wrongdoing and other innocent parties have had a loss or cost imposed on them. Whether or not there has been such wrongdoing, the case against the corporation should be considered as an unjust enrichment case, and nothing more. The facts and circumstances of all the persons who have been unjustly enriched and at whose expense they have been unjustly enriched are likely highly variable and somewhat indeterminate, and it is likely there has not been adequate investigation, or opportunity for argument, as to persons who are contended to have been unjustly enriched, the particular facts about whether or not he was unjustly enriched or, if he was unjustly enriched, about whether more is being taken from him in the litigation than the amount by which he was unjustly enriched.

The reason I believe insufficient attention is paid to viewing the case as being nothing more than an unjust enrichment case is a certain blindness that has arisen in the law because the plaintiffs' lawyers get their riches by and large out of the pockets of parties in interest who are innocent of wrongdoing. In order to do that, they want to bang the drum of corporate wrongdoing and do not want any reasonable and thoughtful consideration of factors such as who the wrongdoing individuals are, how much those individuals benefited from their wrongdoing, how much they being called on or not called on to compensate harmed parties, and to what extent is it fair and just in the situation to have innocent parties in interest pay for an alleged loss.

Having stated the foregoing reason of the explanation for my second contention, I think you will readily discern its connection to my first contention.

I hope you will reflect on my two contentions. If you think they have merit and they persuade you that litigation such as this class action has less social utility and does less to serve the ends of justice than you previously thought, I hope you will signify that by reducing the amount of attorneys fees you would otherwise approve.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223(205) 967-5586

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Possible expert on McKesson employee psychology

From: RDShatt
To: kray@haas.berkeley.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 7:40:51 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: McKesson Corp. and employee psychology

Dear Professor Kray,

I doubt that you will reply to this, but I want to try anyway.

I have sent this email http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-directors.html to the directors of McKesson Corporation, which is based in San Francisco.

In the email and its links, I make various statements about employee psychology and factors that affect their decision making and actions. I make the statements as a layperson and based on common knowledge about human nature.

I am contacting you because you are in the Bay Area and because your academic specialities combine business administration and psychology.

I would be interested in whether you, based on your academic learning, agree or disagree with the statements that I make in my article about employee psychology and factors that affect their decision making and actions.

I know that it will take more time to respond to this inquiry than you will want to give, but I thought I would ask anyway.

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

May McKesson, as well as Xerox, Board be appreciative

From: RDShatt
To: Don.Liu@xerox.com
CC: corporatesecretary@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/16/2009 8:04:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Xerox securities lawsuit: request to contact independent directors

Dear Mr. Liu,

Hopefully the McKesson Corporation Board of Directors will be equally appreciative of my thoughts and comments. See http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-directors.html

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

In a message dated 6/5/2008 4:03:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Don.Liu@xerox.com writes:

Dear Mr. Shattuck:
The Xerox Board of Directors has instructed me to respond to the concerns you expressed in your letter dated April 23, 2008.
I can assure you that our full Board of Directors reviewed the Carlson litigation and approved the settlement based on its determination that settling the case was in the best interest of both the Company and its shareholders. Moreover, without debating with you the equity of how and to whom the settlement proceeds should be distributed, because of the composition of the plaintiff class and the allegations made in the complaint, the settlement proceeds can be distributed only to those shareholders who purchased Xerox stock or bonds during the class period, as specified by the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement.
On behalf of our Board of Directors, I want to express our appreciation for your thoughts and comments.
Sincerely,
Don H. Liu
Senior Vice President,General Counsel and Secretary
Xerox Corporation
45 Glover Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06856

McKesson and Identity Thesis

From: RDShatt
To: dienharj@seattleu.edu
CC: weaverg@lerner.udel.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 7:54:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Identity Thesis and legal system

Dear Professor Dienhart,

I am not an ethics scholar. I am, however, exploring ethics scholarship, including your article "The Separation Thesis: Perhaps Nine Lives are Enough: A response to Joakim Sandberg" and other articles at this Business Ethics Quarterly link.

In the scholarship appearing at that link, I am having a hard time discerning where individual accountability and sanctions get factored in.

It seems to me that corporate wrongdoing is conceived, designed and implemented by individual corporate officers, employees, agents, and others. It further seems that important components of obtaining ethical business conduct are, first, establishing standards and guidelines governing actions on behalf of a corporation and, second, holding officers, employees and others personally accountable under the same. To the extent either of these is not done, I think there will be material impairment of business ethics.

I believe such a failure occurred in the Vioxx case. After reading Mr. Tom Nesi's book Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Scandal, I contacted a number of persons who were mentioned in the book and inquired about what they thought. Only two of the persons replied to me, and they seemed to agree with me. You may review that correspondence here: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/K.%20Vioxx

Another developing story is a class action lawsuit regarding drug pricing by McKesson Corporation (http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/index.htm).The class action notice describes the tenor of the lawsuit as follows:

Prescription drugs often are priced using certain benchmarks. The most
commonpricing benchmark is called the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP"). AWP is
oftenused in determining how much insurance companies and other Third-Party
Payorswill reimburse for these prescription drugs and the co-payment price that
someconsumers pay for them. The lawsuit claims that two Defendants,
McKessonCorporation ("McKesson"), a large drug wholesaler, and First DataBank
("FDB"), apublisher of drug data, wrongfully inflated the mark-up factor used by
FDB todetermine the AWP for certain prescription drugs ("Subject Drugs"). The lawsuit claims that, as a result, many
drug purchasers overpaid for these drugs. Both FDB and McKesson deny any
wrongdoing.

With the settlement of this case by McKesson, I would ask the business ethics question of how in the world will any corporation or corporate officer or employee know what, if anything, anyone did wrong or unethical in McKesson's drug pricing. This is important in order to gain insight into what will be wrong or not wrong in other anaogous situations or contexts, so that business activities can be conducted ethically.

McKesson ostensibly denies there was any wrongdoing. Do the involved officers and employees at McKesson nonetheless believe they and McKesson nonetheless did wrong? Does the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer believe there was wrongdoing? Can he or she talk about any such wrongdoing at Ethics & Compliance Officer Association meetings to see whether ethics officers at other corporations agree that wrongdoing occurred at McKesson and to articulate standards and guidelines?

Do not the rest of society's members deserve to know whether or not there was wrongdoing, in order to inform their own business ethics guidelines about what is wrong and what is not wrong and to be able to better conduct their business activities ethically?

I believe there is a serious defect in the legal system here and a serious disconnect between the legal system and business ethics. I discuss this belief at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

At the above referenced Business Ethics Quarterly link, I see several articles discussing and debating the separation thesis and whether or not there is a separation between economic values and ethical values. Your article articulates an Identity Thesis and causes me to think that, in many situations, a number of alternative possible actions can be justified as ethical, and agreement may be hard to come by about a particular action in fact that has been or will be taken.

To me, there is a more practical and more immediately consequential separation question that business ethics scholars ought to be delving into, and that is whether or not there is a significant disconnect between the legal system and business ethics in the ways I contend. (This assumes that, in some situations, there can be agreement that a particular action that is in fact taken cannot be defended as being ethical and is wrong.)

What do you think?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

McKesson; scholars' separation thesis

From: RDShatt
To: harrisj@darden.virginia.edu, freemane@darden.virginia.edu
CC: weaverg@lerner.udel.edu
Sent: 5/16/2009 6:17:53 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Another separation thesis?

Dear Professors Harris and Freeman,

I am not an ethics scholar. I am, however, exploring ethics scholarship, including your article "The Impossibility of the Separation Thesis: A response to Joakim Sandberg" and other articles at this Business Ethics Quarterly link.

In the scholarship appearing at that link, I am having a hard time discerning where individual accountability and sanctions get factored in.

It seems to me that corporate wrongdoing is conceived, designed and implemented by individual corporate officers, employees, agents, and others. It further seems that important components of obtaining ethical business conduct are, first, establishing standards and guidelines governing actions on behalf of a corporation and, second, holding officers, employees and others personally accountable under the same. To the extent either of these is not done, I think there will be material impairment of business ethics.

I believe such a failure occurred in the Vioxx case. After reading Mr. Tom Nesi's book Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Scandal, I contacted a number of persons who were mentioned in the book and inquired about what they thought. Only two of the persons replied to me, and they seemed to agree with me. You may review that correspondence here: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/K.%20Vioxx

Another developing story is a class action lawsuit regarding drug pricing by McKesson Corporation (http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/index.htm).The class action notice describes the tenor of the lawsuit as follows:


Prescription drugs often are priced using certain benchmarks. The most
commonpricing benchmark is called the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP"). AWP is
oftenused in determining how much insurance companies and other Third-Party
Payorswill reimburse for these prescription drugs and the co-payment price that
someconsumers pay for them. The lawsuit claims that two Defendants,
McKessonCorporation ("McKesson"), a large drug wholesaler, and First DataBank
("FDB"), apublisher of drug data, wrongfully inflated the mark-up factor used by
FDB todetermine the AWP for certain prescription drugs ("Subject Drugs"). The lawsuit claims that, as a result, many
drug purchasers overpaid for these drugs. Both FDB and McKesson deny any
wrongdoing.

With the settlement of this case by McKesson, I would ask the business ethics question of how in the world will any corporation or corporate officer or employee know what, if anything, anyone did wrong or unethical in McKesson's drug pricing. This is important in order to gain insight into what will be wrong or not wrong in other anaogous situations or contexts, so that business activities can be conducted ethically.

McKesson ostensibly denies there was any wrongdoing. Do the involved officers and employees at McKesson nonetheless believe they and McKesson nonetheless did wrong? Does the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer believe there was wrongdoing? Can he or she talk about any such wrongdoing at Ethics & Compliance Officer Association meetings to see whether ethics officers at other corporations agree that wrongdoing occurred at McKesson and to articulate standards and guidelines?

Do not the rest of society's members deserve to know whether or not there was wrongdoing, in order to inform their own business ethics guidelines about what is wrong and what is not wrong and to be able to better conduct their business activities ethically?

I believe there is a serious defect in the legal system here and a serious disconnect between the legal system and business ethics. I discuss this belief at length in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

At the above referenced Business Ethics Quarterly link, I see several articles discussing and debating the separation thesis and whether or not there is a separation between economic values and ethical values. Your article argues there is not and cannot be such as a separation.

To me, there is a more practical and more immediately consequential separation question that business ethics scholars ought to be delving into, and that is whether or not there is a significant disconnect between the legal system and business ethics in the ways I contend.

What do you think?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Friday, May 15, 2009

McKesson; Institute for Legal Reform

From: RDShatt
To: LRickard@USChamber.com
CC: RLundberg@USChamber.com, RConrad@USChamber.com, presidingdirector@mckesson.com, nonmanagementdirectors@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/15/2009 7:46:04 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?

Dear Ms. Rickard,

I believe that the Institute for Legal Reform ought to have as part of its anti-plaintiffs' lawyers arsenal argumentation to the effect that plaintiffs' lawyers undermine business ethics.

Yesterday I sent the below email to the McKesson Corporation directors related to a class action lawsuit that is pending against McKesson. In the email, I urge the directors to reflect on whether their settlement unnecessarily abets the plaintiffs' lawyers in their undermining of business ethics.

If you have any thoughts about this, I would be interested in hearing from you.

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: presidingdirector@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/14/2009 6:26:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?

To McKesson Corporation Directors:

I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. Part of the reason for this is that I believe class action lawsuits undermine business ethics. My argumentation about this is set forth at length in this article : Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I have seen publicized the settlement that McKesson Corporation has entered into in the class action against it related to drug pricing, the website for which is here: McKessonAWPSettlement.

I hope that the McKesson Board will reflect on whether, by its actions related to the drug pricing class action, the Board is unnecessarily complicit in undermining business ethics.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley CircleBirmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Email to McKesson directors

From: RDShatt
To: presidingdirector@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/14/2009 6:26:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Is McKesson Board Complicit in Undermining Business Ethics?

To McKesson Corporation Directors:

I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. Part of the reason for this is that I believe class action lawsuits undermine business ethics. My argumentation about this is set forth at length in this article : Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I have seen publicized the settlement that McKesson Corporation has entered into in the class action against it related to drug pricing, the website for which is here: McKessonAWPSettlement.

I hope that the McKesson Board will reflect on whether, by its actions related to the drug pricing class action, the Board is unnecessarily complicit in undermining business ethics.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
(205) 967-5586

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Association of Corporate Counsel; McKesson

From: RDShatt
To: krebs@acc.com
CC: robert.roach@nyu.edu, eslavitt@avxus.com
Sent: 5/12/2009 12:05:32 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: For ACC Compliance & Ethics Committee

Dear Mr. Krebs,

Last May I corresponded with Mr. Roach and Mr. Slavitt of the Compliance & Ethics Committee. You may find some of the correspondence at this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/search/label/G2.%20Assoc.%20of%20Corporate%20Counsel. The current status of Mr. Roach and Mr. Slavitt in the Compliance & Ethics Committee appears unclear to me from the ACC website.

A class action lawsuit against McKesson Corporation prompted me to send this email yesterday to the McKesson General Counsel: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/email-to-mckesson-general-counsel.html

I continue to be interested in engaging with the leadership of the ACC Compliance & Ethics Committee about this subject.

Would you please forward this email to the leadership of the Compliance & Ethics Committee and also to ACC director N. Cornell Boggs III (who is identified as Chief Responsibility & Ethics Officer at Miller Coors)?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Monday, May 11, 2009

Email to McKesson General Counsel

From: RDShatt
To: corporatesecretary@mckesson.com
Sent: 5/11/2009 8:45:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Dear Ms. Seeger,

I am quite sure you will not reply to me, but what the heck.

I am a non-professional objector in class action lawsuits. To my knowledge I am not a member of the plaintiff class in this class action against McKesson that McKesson has settled : McKessonAWPSettlement.

I am, however, going to attempt to be as vociferous as I can in objecting as a member of the public, as you may infer from this link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/mckesson-drug-pricing-settlement.html

I think what most agitates me about the McKesson class action is how illustrative it is of the validity of the argumentation that I set forth in this article of mine: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I'd love to get in a discussion with you or the McKesson Chief Ethics Officer about the matter, but I suspect you will not accommodate me.

But it doesn't hurt to ask.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Sunday, May 10, 2009

McKesson drug pricing settlement

There has been a settlement in a drug pricing class action against McKesson Corporation and other defendants that has been pending in the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts. (http://www.mckessonawpsettlement.com/index.htm)

The notice describes the tenor of the class action as follows:

Prescription drugs often are priced using certain benchmarks. The most common
pricing benchmark is called the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP"). AWP is often
used in determining how much insurance companies and other Third-Party Payors
will reimburse for these prescription drugs and the co-payment price that some
consumers pay for them. The lawsuit claims that two Defendants, McKesson
Corporation ("McKesson"), a large drug wholesaler, and First DataBank ("FDB"), a
publisher of drug data, wrongfully inflated the mark-up factor used by FDB to
determine the AWP for certain prescription drugs ("Subject Drugs"). The lawsuit claims that, as a result, many drug purchasers overpaid for these drugs. Both FDB and McKesson deny any wrongdoing.
Under the Settlement Agreement, it appears that McKesson will pay into the Settlement Fund $350,000,000 and McKesson will not object to attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' lawyers to the extent they do not exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund.

Objections must be filed with the Court by June 8, 2009.

I don't believe I am a member of the plaintiff class. This type of class action litigation that goes on significantly affects the public as a whole, and I propose to attact it as a member of the public.

Watchdog Blog/Public Citizen

http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/

Below comment has been submitted to the Watchdog Blog and is awaiting moderation.

Would you care to comment on the argumentation I set out at the following link: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-thought-this-would-be-effective-email.html
Thanks.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Tort Burger- Hold the Reform

Some of the websites appear to be purveyed by trial lawyers, such as this one: http://tortburger.wordpress.com/category/tort-reform/

I left this comment, which is awaiting moderation for posting.

May 10, 2009 at 2:53 am
Jeff, I would be interested in engaging in discussion and debate with you if you would be willing. Thanks. Robert Shattuck

Tortdeform

I have discovered some anti-tort reform websites. I am trying to engage in discussion and debate with their purveyors. The first one I have done is Tortdeform.

I left the below comments at this link on Tortdeform: http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/05/work_it_wednesday_1.html#comments

Comments

Kia, would you kindly comment on this article of mine: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-thought-this-would-be-effective-email.html.
Thank you.
Posted by: Robert Shattuck May 7, 2009 03:51 AM

I am sorry. The link in the first comment does not work because a period got stuck at the end. Try this: http://robertshattuck.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-thought-this-would-be-effective-email.html

Posted by: Robert Shattuck May 7, 2009 03:59 AM

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Interchange with Beyond Moral Reasoning author

From: RDShatt
To: ruodan.shao@sauder.ubc.ca
Sent: 5/5/2009 10:11:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Beyond Moral Reasoning: A Review of Moral Identity Research and Its Impli...

Thank you for writing back to me, Ruodan. I cannot tell for sure whether it was incorrect to address you as "Professor." For your information, I am not a professor.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

In a message dated 5/4/2009 1:42:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time, ruodan.shao@sauder.ubc.ca writes:

Dear Professor Shattuck,

Thank you for your email and for reading our paper.

Actually, we have attempted to address the importance of examining the interaction of both situational factors and individuals' moral identity on people's (un)ethical behaviours and decisions in the following paragraph.

I agree that people usually hold corporate officers accountable for their misconducts. However, sometimes we ignore the social pressure or any other situational factors that might impact people's behaviours and decisions.

I'd like to clarify that I am a PhD student that has been working on this paper with Professor Aquino and Professor Freeman. Professor Aquino is an expert in business ethics and he is well accomplished in this field. Professor Freeman is also specialized in this area and has been collaborating with Professor Aquino on many research projects in this area. Therefore, I think they two will have better and deeper thoughts on your proposed questions.

I am not sure about the civil liability system's impacts on business ethics. I guess Karl and Dan might have some insightful comments on this issue.

Thank you again for your email.

All the best,
Ruodan

IMAGINING THE MORALITY OF MANAGEMENT

From: RDShatt
To: geoff.moore@durham.ac.uk
CC: weaverg@lerner.udel.eduSent: 5/3/2009 1:33:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE-IMAGINING THE MORALITY OF MANAGEMENT: A MODERN VIRTUE ETHICS APPROACH

Dear Professor Moore,

I read your article with great interest and think I generally understand it.

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 US 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?

Do you think my above contentions about corporate wrongdoing and about the US civil liability system undermining business ethics possess any material validity? (I hope your being in the UK does not undermine asking you the foregoing question.) Are you aware of any scholarship that discusses this idea?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley Circle
Birmingham, AL 35223
USA(205) 967-5586

Business Ethics Quarterly

From: RDShatt
To: weaverg@lerner.udel.edu
Sent: 5/3/2009 11:53:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: BEQ: Fwd: Beyond Moral Reasoning: A Review of Moral Identity Research and

Dear Professor Weaver,

I am continuing trying to propagate my contentions set out in my article Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics? I am reviewing current articles in the Business Ethics Quarterly to try to find scholarship where my ideas may have a place, and I am sending emails to authors (such as below). I am interested in any help I can get. I hope you don't mind my contacting your authors and advising you whom I am contacting.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

From: RDShatt
To: karl.aquino@sauder.ubc.ca, Ruodan. Shao@sauder.ubc.ca
Sent: 5/3/2009 11:36:38 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Beyond Moral Reasoning: A Review of Moral Identity Research and Its Implications

Dear Professors Shao, Aquino and Freeman (please note I cannot find an email address for Professor Freeman),

In your article you say:


At a time when many social institutions are failing due to corruption and
unethicalbehavior, it is often easy to blame a few “bad apples” for these
problems (cf. Felps, Mitchell, &Byington, 2006). Yet common experience and a
large body of research in social psychology(Ross & Nisbett, 1991) tell us
that many people can be led to violate even their most deeply heldmoral
standards in the presence of sufficient social pressures. Consequently, if we
want to minimize unethical behavior in business organizations, we must first
remove or weaken theinfluences that motivate employees to act unethically. Or,
as some of the research we havereviewed suggests, we may need to find ways to
activate or reinforce those aspects of the selfaround which moral concerns and
virtues are organized. It is under these conditions that the vastmajority of us
who are neither saintly nor irredeemably sinful might most effectively regulate
ourethical behavior. Conversely, this same tendency to ignore the interaction
between the person andsituation may cause leaders and policy makers to neglect
opportunities to make moral issuessalient, which can have the unintended result
of deactivating that part of peoples’ self-definitionthat motivates them to
follow their moral code.

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?

Do you think my above contentions about corporate wrongdoing and about the civil liability system undermining business ethics possess any material validity? Are you aware of any scholarship that discusses this idea?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck
3812 Spring Valley CircleBirmingham, AL 35223(205) 967-5586

Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds

From: RDShatt
To: Benedict.Sheehy@newcastle.edu.au
Sent: 4/26/2009 10:54:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: CORPORATE BODIES AND GUILTY MINDS

Dear Professor Sheehy,

I have sent Professor Laufer the below email following my reading of your review of his book.

I am wondering how your own views fit in with my thinking and argumentation that I set forth in this article: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I hope I hear back from you.

Thanks.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck


Subj: CORPORATE BODIES AND GUILTY MINDS
Date: 4/26/2009 10:27:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time
From: RDShatt
To: lauferw@wharton.upenn.edu

Dear Professor Laufer,

I have emailed you before but I don't think you responded.

In researching, I have found the above book of yours and have read this review of it: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/laufer0107.htm

I am not sure I am able to tell from the review your exact stance and your exact advocacy derived from that stance. I hope to find out more about that.

In the meantime, finding your book and reading the review has renewed my interest in finding out the extent to which you agree with the argumentation and contentions I set forth here: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

I hope very much that I will hear from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Saturday, May 2, 2009

ABA Justice Center

From: RDShatt
To: skrzekua@staff.abanet.org
Sent: 5/1/2009 7:32:32 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: ABA Justice Center- request to become involved

Dear Ms. Skrzekut,

I have not heard from you in response to the below email.

If I may, I would be interested in establishing contact with other "involved citizens" who are involved with the Justice Center. Are there any names or email addresses you can furnish me? If you don't wish to give out that information, can you at least send an email to other "involved citizens" that provides my name and email address and indicates I would like to communicate with them and that they should email me if they are receptive to communication with me.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck




From: RDShatt
To: skrzekua@staff.abanet.org
Sent: 4/4/2009 9:18:52 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: ABA Justice Center- request to become involved

Dear Ms. Skrzekut,

Your website says the Justice Center seeks to accomplish justice system reform by "encouraging bench/bar/public collaboration" and that it "draws on the expertise of judges, bar leaders, law professors and deans, involved citizens, and others . . .."

I would like to participate as a member of the public. As to my qualifications as a citizen who wants to be involved and who is involved, I refer you to this "citizen's letter to judges" I am endeavoring to disseminate and other material that may be found at that link.

I look forward to hearing from you in response to this request.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Public Justice Foundation

From: RDShatt
To: gerson@texasinjurylaw.com
Sent: 4/30/2009 4:25:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Public Justice and business ethics

Dear Mr. Gerson,

I am writing this email to you in your capacity as President of Public Justice Foundation.

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?

Would you care to comment on my above contentions about corporate wrongdoing and the civil liability system undermining business ethics and whether, as a result, there may be a failure of deterrence in lessening harm and damages to consumers and other victims (which deterrence I would think is important in the mission of Public Justice)?

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Symantec Chief Ethics Officer

From: RDShatt
To: ethics@symantec.com
Sent: 4/30/2009 8:25:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Does the Law Undermine Business Ethics?

Dear Symantec Chief Ethics Officer,

I am writing this email to you as a result of 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).

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 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 doubt that you will be in a position to comment on my above contentions about corporate wrongdoing or 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 their employees. I do hope, however, that you will at least think about what I say.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robert Shattuck

Email exchange with Pepperdine professor

From:
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 4/26/2009 5:35:10 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Behavioral science and Symantec class action lawsuit

Dear Mr. Shattuck,

An interesting proposition. Unfortunantely, I must decline your invitation.good luck in your efforts. [professor's name]


From: RDShatt
To:
Sent: 4/30/2009 8:36:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Behavioral science and Symantec class action lawsuit ...

Thank you for at least replying to me, Professor ______. Needless to say, I think I raise a significant question that is meritorious of consideration by ethics professionals and academics, and it is frustrating not to receive comment. But c'est la vie.

Robert Shattuck


From:
To: RDShatt@aol.com
Sent: 4/30/2009 11:16:59 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: Behavioral science and Symantec class action lawsuit ...

welcome!