As noted earlier here, the occasional bad day that Merck experienced recently in regard to a couple of its Vioxx cases is inevitable when defending tens of thousands of such cases.
However, it’s also inevitable that Merck will experience some good days during the Vioxx trial marathon. One of those occurred yesterday as the federal judge in the recent New Orleans trial that concluded with a $51 million jury verdict against Merck threw out the verdict on the basis that the jury’s award was clearly excessive.
Meanwhile, according to this Heather Won Tesoriero/WSJ ($) article, a juror involved in awarding a plaintiff a $32 million verdict against Merck in a Vioxx trial that took place earlier this year in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley had borrowed money from the plaintiff prior to the trial, a small detail that the juror did not disclose during pre-trial questioning. As noted in this prior post, the Rio Grande Valley was rated by the American Tort Reform Association as the number one “judicial hell-hole” for 2005. The ATRA describes a judicial hell-hole as a venue of “disproportionately harmful impact on civil litigation. Litigation tourists, guided by their personal injury lawyers, seek out these places because they know they will produce a positive outcome – an excessive verdict or settlement, a favorable precedent, or both.”
Looks to me as if Merck needs to compare notes with Ford Motor Company over this one.
Daily Archives: August 31, 2006
Amazing arrogance
Virginia Republican Senator George Allen is in a fight for his political life, which is not what one would normally expect from a candidate who was recently mentioned as Presidential timber. Senator Allen has been hammered in the media for some apparently patronizing remarks that he made to a minority student, but my sense is that the attitude reflected in this Washington Post article is a far bigger problem for Allen with voters than his impolite remarks to a student.
The article reports that last week ìthe Secret Service asked Virginia officials if they would be kind enough to shut down all of the HOV lanes on I-395 from 1 to 7 p.m. the next day so President Bush could get where he needed to be,î which was a fundraiser for Senator Allen. State traffic experts explained the likely results of closing the HOV lane to accomodate President Bush and Senator Allen:
There will be approximately 8,600 cars using the HOV lanes over a three hour period (4 to 7 pm). This equates to approximately 20,000 to 22,000 people. If the HOV lanes are closed, according to the Districtís estimate the back up of traffic in the general purpose lanes will not be cleared until 10 p.m.
Despite that effect, local officials apparently had quite a time talking the Secret Service out of the plan.
When a couple of politicians expose an attitude that they could not care less about how much they inconvenience 20,000 of their citizens so long as one of the politicians can get to a rubber-chicken fundraiser for the other one on time, that’s a pretty good signal that it’s time for a change.
Hat tip to Gene Healy for the link to the WaPo article.
Understanding contango in the oil markets
As noted in this earlier post, the recent run-up in energy prices and the lingering “contango” in the crude oil trading markets — that is, futures contracts for a given product priced substantially higher than that same product for near-term delivery — has prompted the usual conspiracy claims from demagogues who seek more power through damaging regulation of the beneficial trading markets. As if on cue, the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations recently issued a report asserting that traditional supply and demand conditions cannot adequately explain current high oil prices and contending that evil capitalist roaders in the trading markets are to blame for a substantial portion of the lingering high prices.
Thankfully, the blogosphere provides a counterbalance to such demagogic appeals. In this post, University of Houston business professor Craig Pirrong disassembles the Senate report, observing at the outset:
Where to begin? The report is a farrago of facts, factoids, and falsehoods stitched together to arrive at a conclusion that is miles beyond what the evidence actually supports. Moreover, although I concur that manipulation is a potential problem in energy marketsñas it is in all commodity and even financial marketsñthe report does not even make the effort to show that current price levels are the effect of manipulation. Nonetheless, it sternly recommends a variety of new regulatory initiatives to combat manipulation, suggesting (by implication) that manipulation is the cause of high oil prices. This is a flagrant example of bait-and-switch of a variety that I imagine that the Subcommittee members would vigorously condemn if committed by your local used car salesman.
The report (and most of the other criticisms of speculation) fails on only two points: logic and evidence. Other than these shortcomings, itís great.
Read the entire post.