As anticipated by this prior post, a Brazoria County jury found that Merck & Co. was liable for $253 million in damages ($24 million in actual damages, plus $229 million in punitive damages) as a result of its negligence in the death of a 59-year-old Robert Ernst, who at the time of death was taking Merck’s prescription painkiller Vioxx that over 20 million Americans took regularly before it was pulled from the market last year over concern that it might cause increased risk of strokes and heart attacks. The prior posts on the Merck/Vioxx trial are here, here, and here.
Daily Archives: August 19, 2005
To file or not to file? That is the question.
The Wired GC — which is an excellent blog resource for any attorney who is, or advises, a general counsel of a company — has this interesting post today about the tough decisions that some currently troubled companies currently have regarding whether they should risk a delay in filing a reorganization case under chapter 11 until after the new Bankruptcy Code Amendments of 2005 go into effect on October 17. The Wired GC also points to this handy summary by Lorraine S. McGowen of the Orrick firm regarding the changes in chapter 11 practice that will result from the amendments.
My sense is that the October 17 effective date will generate a few more reorganizations than normal over the next couple of months, but not that many. Certainly, if a company knows that a chapter 11 filing is inevitable in the near future, then filing a case sooner rather than later makes sense in light of the impending changes to the Bankruptcy Code. However, management of even the most financially-challenged companies rarely believe that bankruptcy is inevitable, so most companies will take their chances with filing under the amended Bankruptcy Code, if necessary. Finally, the Wired GC speculates that the effect of the new amendments may be to increase the number of reorganizations that end up in liquidation, which — as we have seen in regard to the legacy airlines — may not be all that bad a thing.
But what about Jamie Olis?
Doug Berman points out that Thursday was a busy day in New Orleans as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued over 160 published and unpublished decisions that appear mostly to involve rejection of various Booker sentencing claims. It’s safe to say that the release of that many decisions sets a federal appellate record for the number of opinions issued by a court on one day.
Lost amidst all that activity, however, is the fact that the Fifth Circuit still has not ruled on the appeal in the sad case of Jamie Olis, even though oral argument in that appeal occurred on January 30 of this year. And while that appeal has been pending, Mr. Olis has been moved — due to the absurd length of his 24 year sentence — from a minimum-security prison in Bastrop, Texas to a medium-security prison at Oakdale, La., where prison gangs are common and many prisoners are serving multiple life sentences.
The Fifth Circuit’s reputation in business cases took a serious hit with its Arthur Andersen decision, which was resoundingly rejected by a unanimous Supreme Court earlier this year. The Fifth Circuit has an opportunity to begin redeeming its reputation in business cases in the Olis appeal, but justice delayed is often justice denied. Here’s hoping that a decision in the Olis appeal is forthcoming any day now.
Definitely not drinking buddies
Various PGA Tour officials are scrambling today to make sure that recently-crowned PGA Tournament Champion Phil Mickelson is not paired to play with Australian journeyman and PGA Tour player Paul Gow after Gow had this to say during an Austrailian radio interview earlier this week about his fellow Tour players’ opinion of Mickelson:
“They wouldn’t feed him. He ignores the other players. He’s an arrogant person. He’s the opposite – what you see on television is totally different to what he is around the clubhouse. And Tiger is the opposite – he will talk to you, he will sit down next to you at lunch and ask about your family and stuff. Phil is the opposite. He has done some great acting classes in Hollywood and they’ve worked out for him.”
Is the noose tightening in the investigation of the Brown Administration?
The Chronicle’s Dan Feldstein continues his solid coverage of the Cleveland, Ohio corruption trial of Cleveland entreprenuer Nate Gray, who is the person from whom two former Houston officials — Lee Brown Administration chief of staff Oliver Spellman and building services director Monique McGilbra — testified that they took cash and gifts. A previous trial of Mr. Gray ended in a mistrial, and the retrial that resulted in the conviction began earlier this month. Earlier posts on the trial and the related investigation of Brown Adminsitration officials are here, here, here and here.
Mr. Feldstein sums up what the result of this trial means to the Houston part of the ongoing criminal investigation:
In Houston, the question is this: What did it mean when a federal prosecutor asked FBI agent R. Michael Massie on the witness stand whether the investigation was finished in Houston and Massie testified, “No”?
McGilbra admitted she took favors from five companies. Mayor Brown’s brother, Earl, was a “subconsultant” to Gray on Houston matters. Gray paid him to talk to Mayor Brown on behalf of his company, which was seeking a shuttle bus subcontract at Bush Intercontinental Airport.
Although he was not a registered lobbyist as would be required, Earl Brown said he did [talk to Mayor Brown]. Former Mayor Lee Brown has denied it.
McGilbra and Spellman are scheduled to be sentenced here in Houston on their plea deals on September 2nd.
An economist’s marriage proposal
NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell is a part of one of Washington’s most formidable power couples through her marriage to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Asked during a Time magazine/CNN.com interview this past week as to whether Mr. Greenspan ever engaged at home in “Greenspeak” — i.e., the art of ambiguous economic pronouncements — Ms. Mitchell observed:
“Occasionally. In fact, he claims he proposed three times before I was able to understand. He was so oblique.”
The Banks and KPMG
Following on this post from last week regarding a plea deal of a former banker who had promoted KPMG’s tax shelters, this Wall Street Journal ($) article provides more information on the involvement of several banks — namely UBS AG, Deutsche Bank AG and HVB Group — in providing billions of dollars in credit lines to KPMG clients — and, in turn, earning substantial bank fees — in connection with KPMG’s promotions of tax shelters to its clients.
According to the WSJ article, Deutsche Bank, which happens to be a KPMG audit client, earned almost $80 million in bank fees from the Opis and Blips transactions that are at the heart of the questionable tax shelter vehicles. HVB, which is also a KPMG audit client, earned 5.5 million on Blips transactions in just three months during 1999 and millions more in 2000. UBS participated in 100 to 150 transactions in 1997-1998, but the amount of UBS’ fees are unclear.
Interestingly, the article points out that Deutsche Bank lawyers cautioned the company’s bankers that Blips transactions posed substantial risks for the bank’s reputation. Nevertheless, the CEO of Deutsche Bank’s U.S. unit at the time approved the bank’s participation in the transactions so long as “any customer found to be in litigation be excluded from the product . . . and that a low profile be kept on these transactions.”
I think it’s safe to say that the low profile has been blown.
Coudert Brothers kaput
Coudert Brothers LLP, one of the oldest big U.S. law firms, elected to disband yesterday in a vote of its partners. The firm will remain in business as its lawyers move on to new jobs.
The firm was established in New York in 1853 and has long had international offices and clients. It was one of the first U.S. law firms to open offices in Paris, London, Hong Kong and other foreign locales, and it still has 17 offices in Europe and Asia. Nevertheless, in recent years, Coudert had seen many of its top partners cherry-picked by competitors, and merger negotiations with several firms over the past two years had been difficult because of Coudert’s inferior profitability compared with the prospective merger partners. Thus, the partners apparently concluded that a liquidation held more value for owners than a bad merger.
Now, if only this process could occur with regard to a few legacy airlines . . .