Speaking of Enron
My op-ed on the Supreme Court's denial of cert in the Enron class action is in today's New York Sun.
free hit counter
Wherein confident punditry is vindicated
That Ted Frank guy who told the Legal Times "The proper way to look at it, I think, is that the Enron case is dead after today," appears to have been right.
Separately, the New York Times extensively discusses my Vioxx panel of two weeks ago, but doesn't mention me, though the concluding sentence is quite similar to something I said there.
Separately, the New York Times extensively discusses my Vioxx panel of two weeks ago, but doesn't mention me, though the concluding sentence is quite similar to something I said there.
fifteen minutes dept.
Stoneridge came down earlier this week, and the press quoted me on it quite a bit: Legal Times/New York Law Journal; Human Events; A.M. Best Wire.
Still not quite the Boeing
Because two serious blogs and one unserious blog doesn't quite waste enough of my time, I've agreed to do some blogging for the Justice Talking website run by NPR and the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Check it out.
Note to self
ExpressO doesn't track dings, so next time you submit to law reviews, make up a spreadsheet so you don't have to search through a month of e-mails for the handful of rejections when your article gets accepted and you have to use ExpressO withdraw it from the law reviews who haven't accepted, and don't want to look like an idiot to the American U Law Review.
Well-wishers all around
Commenter on the WSJ Law Blog, where a puffy version of my mug is prominently displayed today: "with any luck at all the [Vioxx] suit WILL prevent Merck from inventing the drug that saves Ted."
C-SPAN taped the AEI event, and will likely broadcast it after the New Hampshire primaries. Good crowd, and the other panelists were great. My opening parable, which came to me at 1 in the morning, got a good laugh, fit in beautifully with the rest of my talk, and I got better than average feedback on my talk. Even the Legal Times blog seemed to like it (but contains spoilers if you're waiting for the tv broadcast).
(Update: broadcast at 4:33 AM Tuesday morning.)
(And another update: to be broadcast 11:07 AM on the main C-SPAN Eastern Tuesday morning.)
A podcast and webcast are also available on the AEI website.
C-SPAN taped the AEI event, and will likely broadcast it after the New Hampshire primaries. Good crowd, and the other panelists were great. My opening parable, which came to me at 1 in the morning, got a good laugh, fit in beautifully with the rest of my talk, and I got better than average feedback on my talk. Even the Legal Times blog seemed to like it (but contains spoilers if you're waiting for the tv broadcast).
(Update: broadcast at 4:33 AM Tuesday morning.)
(And another update: to be broadcast 11:07 AM on the main C-SPAN Eastern Tuesday morning.)
A podcast and webcast are also available on the AEI website.
January 7: Vioxx Settlement panel at AEI
Please register for this event online at http://www.aei.org/event1626.
The AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest and the Federalist Society present:
The Vioxx Settlement
Monday, January 7, 2008, 12:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m.
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
In 2004, Merck withdrew its pain reliever Vioxx from the market because of new studies showing increased cardiovascular risk. Merck announced that it would not settle any of the tens of thousands of Vioxx lawsuits filed, and set aside over a billion dollars to litigate cases without reserving a penny for damages. After a $254 million verdict in the first Vioxx trial in 2005, some observers predicted over $25 billion in liability for the company. Fifteen trials later, Merck and the plaintiffs’ attorneys announced a settlement of the outstanding personal injury litigation—for under $5 billion. Merck stock rose after the announcement, and is now higher than before it withdrew Vioxx from the market. But some law professors are arguing that a new and unusual provision in the settlement raises ethical concerns.
Why did Merck settle? And why was the settlement for so much less than originally anticipated? Is the Merck settlement different from the Wyeth fen-phen settlement, which was originally announced as a $3.75 billion settlement, but has so far cost more than $20 billion? Will the settlement stand up under legal challenge, and what will remain of the Vioxx litigation if it does?
At this event cosponsored by AEI and the Federalist Society, a panel of experts will explore these and other questions. Speakers include Vanderbilt law professor Richard Nagareda, author of Mass Torts in a World of Settlement; Virginia legal ethics professor George Cohen; author and leading pharmaceutical mass torts defense attorney Mark Herrmann; Andy Birchfield, a member of the Vioxx Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee; and Ted Frank, director of the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest. AEI resident scholar John E. Calfee will moderate.
11:45 a.m.
Registration and Lunch
12:00 p.m.
Panelists:
Andy Birchfield, Beasley Allen
George Cohen, University of Virginia School of Law
Ted Frank, AEI
Mark Herrmann, Jones Day
Richard Nagareda, Vanderbilt University Law School
Moderator:
John E. Calfee, AEI
2:00 p.m.
Adjournment
The AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest and the Federalist Society present:
The Vioxx Settlement
Monday, January 7, 2008, 12:00 p.m.–2:00 p.m.
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
In 2004, Merck withdrew its pain reliever Vioxx from the market because of new studies showing increased cardiovascular risk. Merck announced that it would not settle any of the tens of thousands of Vioxx lawsuits filed, and set aside over a billion dollars to litigate cases without reserving a penny for damages. After a $254 million verdict in the first Vioxx trial in 2005, some observers predicted over $25 billion in liability for the company. Fifteen trials later, Merck and the plaintiffs’ attorneys announced a settlement of the outstanding personal injury litigation—for under $5 billion. Merck stock rose after the announcement, and is now higher than before it withdrew Vioxx from the market. But some law professors are arguing that a new and unusual provision in the settlement raises ethical concerns.
Why did Merck settle? And why was the settlement for so much less than originally anticipated? Is the Merck settlement different from the Wyeth fen-phen settlement, which was originally announced as a $3.75 billion settlement, but has so far cost more than $20 billion? Will the settlement stand up under legal challenge, and what will remain of the Vioxx litigation if it does?
At this event cosponsored by AEI and the Federalist Society, a panel of experts will explore these and other questions. Speakers include Vanderbilt law professor Richard Nagareda, author of Mass Torts in a World of Settlement; Virginia legal ethics professor George Cohen; author and leading pharmaceutical mass torts defense attorney Mark Herrmann; Andy Birchfield, a member of the Vioxx Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee; and Ted Frank, director of the AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest. AEI resident scholar John E. Calfee will moderate.
11:45 a.m.
Registration and Lunch
12:00 p.m.
Panelists:
Andy Birchfield, Beasley Allen
George Cohen, University of Virginia School of Law
Ted Frank, AEI
Mark Herrmann, Jones Day
Richard Nagareda, Vanderbilt University Law School
Moderator:
John E. Calfee, AEI
2:00 p.m.
Adjournment