Checking again on Ford Motor Company’s troubles in Crystal City, this Chronicle article reports on the hearing in regard to Ford’s motion to set aside the $28 million jury verdict that a jury rendered against Ford in a wrongful death lawsuit earlier this year. Ford’s motion is based on a variety of grounds, including the following information that was confirmed during the hearing about the original jury foreman in the trial:

[The original jury foreman] acknowledged on the stand she and [the plaintiff’s lawyer] were romantically involved, that she had helped him sign up clients for this case and had worked for him as a jury consultant in other cases.
But, she said, those factors did not affect her ability to be fair as a juror in the case.

Yeah, right. And if you believe that, I’ve got some swamp property near Beaumont that will be a nice weekend getaway spot for you and your family.
Incredibly, the girlfriend’s relationship with the plaintiff’s lawyer was not her only connection with the case:

In addition to her relationship with [the plaintiff’s lawyer], [the girlfriend’s] sons from a previous marriage were first cousins to one of the deceased victims.

What has not been reported is how the girlfriend was able to hide her relationship with the plaintiff’s lawyer from Ford’s attorneys during the voir dire (i.e., questioning) of the jurors before trial. Likewise, there has been no report yet on the rationalization of the plaintiff’s attorney as to why he did not disclose his relationship with the girlfriend before she was placed on the jury. Depending on the answers to those questions, both the girlfriend and the plaintiff’s lawyer may have much bigger legal problems than having a $28 million verdict set aside.
Crystal City is about 90 miles southwest of San Antonio near the Texas-Mexico border. Here is a KSAT.com story on the proceedings.

Based on the developments related in this previous post, it’s not particularly surprising that a Florida jury awarded billionaire financier and Revlon, Inc. chairman Ronald Perelman $604.3 million against Morgan Stanley on his claims that Morgan defrauded him when he sold about an 80% stake in camping-gear maker Coleman Inc. to Sunbeam Corp. in 1998. Shortly thereafter, Sunbeam went into chapter 11, undercutting the value of much of the $1.5 billion consideration that Mr. Perelman received under the deal.
To make matters worse, the $604 million award is for compensatory damages only. Inasmuch as Mr. Perelman is also claiming entitlement to punitive damages, Morgan’s damages in the case could rise to almost $2.5 billion. Finally, all of this carnage comes after Morgan Stanley had rejected a $20 million settlement offer from Mr. Perelman during early stages of the case.
As noted in the earlier post, Mr. Perelman’s case was helped by the earlier default judgment that the state court judge approved as a sanction for Morgan Stanley’s discovery abuse in failing to turn over documents (mostly emails) to Mr. Perelman’s legal team. Accordingly, the judge instructed the jury during the trial that it must accept as fact that Morgan Stanley helped Sunbeam defraud investors. As a result, Mr. Perelman only had to persuade the jury that he relied on representations made by Morgan Stanley or Sunbeam and that he lost money.
The judgment comes during a troubled time for Morgan Stanley, which is currently undergoing a management revolt in which former executives are attempting to persuade the Morgan board to replace Morgan CEO Philip Purcell over how he is running the company. Morgan is in the “trust” business and, at some point, troubles such as those Morgan is experiencing can undermine customers’ trust in Morgan’s financial integrity. That lack of trust is what brought Enron down, and Morgan’s board needs to be concerned with that same dynamic.