In the ongoing wrongful death civil trial against Merck involving its pain reliever drug Vioxx, the mainstream media tends to focus on seemingly important expert testimony such as that described in this article.
Being more a student of the courtroom, however, I tend to focus in such trials on jury dynamics, such as those described in this Fortune Magazine article:

Speaking in state court in Angleton, Texas, without notes and in gloriously plain English, and accompanying nearly every point with imaginative, easily understood (if often hokey) slides and overhead projections, (plaintiff’s lawyer Mark) Lanier, a part-time Baptist preacher, took on Merck and its former CEO Ray Gilmartin with merciless, spellbinding savagery . . .
But in contrast to Lanier . . . (Merck defense lawyer David Kiernan) seemed to read much of his presentation and illustrated it only with stodgy, corporate headshots of Merck officials or hard-to-read excerpts from documents whose meaning was shrouded in medical jargon . . .
The trial offers jurors a stark choice between accepting Lanier’s invitation to believe simple, alluring and emotionally cathartic stories versus Merck’s appeals to colorless, heavy-going, soporific Reason.

H’mm. On one hand, an interesting story told through a lively presentation given without notes using colorful images. On the other hand, a bland recitation of prepared remarks given with boring images of hard-to-read text in documents.
Translated: This is not looking good for Merck.

Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. In this Wall Street Journal ($) op-ed on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, Professor Epstein makes a good point regarding the simplistic and often misleading criticism of “judicial activism”:

From the get-go, I would insist that we view with suspicion the oft-hurled epithet of “judicial activism.” Judicial review, which allows the Court to strike down federal and state legislation, is an indisputable part of the Constitution. The structural and substantive prohibitions the Constitution contains are large. One can be a “strict constructionist” and still believe that major legislative initiatives, executive orders, and administrative rules are unconstitutional. By the same token, the government should be accorded a wider degree of discretion in running its own affairs — the military, courts, schools, etc. — a view that is largely permissive of government affirmative action programs that parallel those which comparable private institutions adopt on a voluntary basis. In these cases, the private benchmark offers a useful measuring rod for state discretion.

Continue reading →

After this, you just knew this was coming.
The Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP lawsuit against Morgan Stanley’s board of directors, former executives and lawyers alleges that directors breached their fiduciary duty and abused their control of Morgan Stanley by mismanaging the firm for several years, but particularly by handing out large severance payments to former Morgan CEO Philip Purcell and his former right hand man, Stephen Crawford. The lawsuit also asserts claims against the firm’s departing general counsel and outside law firm Kirkland & Ellis for legal malpractice and professional negligence in their handling of the Ron Perelman fraud case in Florida that recently resulted in a $1.57 billion judgment against Morgan.
Interestingly, the lawsuit even took a swipe at new Morgan CEO John Mack, who the lawsuit claims approved the payoffs to Messrs. Purcell and Crawford “to secure his return to power.” Mr. Mack has publicly stated that he did not know about the awards before he was hired, but that he is not going to “second-guess” Morgan board decisions that were made prior to his taking over as CEO. Mr. Mack did waive his own pay guarantee when the awards to Messrs. Purcell and Crawford became public.

Following on its decision last year on the popular estate planning tool of family limited partnerships, the Fifth Circuit recently issued this decision in the case of deceased Texas millionaire Albert Strangi and, in so doing, provided a guide for what not to do in utilizing a family LP. Here is a NY Times article on the decision.
Family LP’s allow parents to transfer assets to their children at a lower tax rate than is assessed on estates and gifts. Under the typical family LP, the parents retain a few shares of ownership while their children hold most of the shares. Moreover, family LP’s are often set up in an effort to shield assets from the parent’s creditors, so decisions on the vehicle are closely followed by lawyers who specialize in either estate planning or creditors rights.

Continue reading →