Sunday, July 06, 2008
Lead Paint Cinch - WSJ.com
I've never liked these lawsuits, "except" in the cases where harmful effects were deliberately concealed.
To sue a company for something no one knew at the time only creates more damage. Employees, their families, shareholders, etc. all suffer for something they had no control of.
When you add in the treble damages that often occur, that collateral damage can be very severe...
To sue a company for something no one knew at the time only creates more damage. Employees, their families, shareholders, etc. all suffer for something they had no control of.
When you add in the treble damages that often occur, that collateral damage can be very severe...
The Wall Street Journal recently complimented the Rhode Island Supreme Court:
"The lead paint as 'nuisance' theory was ginned up by Motley Rice, the South Carolina firm famous for its tobacco shakedowns. The law firm found a partner in then-Rhode Island Attorney General (and now U.S. Democratic Senator) Sheldon Whitehouse, who brought the first lead nuisance suit in the country. The theory was picked up by current AG Patrick Lynch, who has worked hand-in-wallet with Motley Rice and others, dishing them a contingency contract worth 16.67% of any settlement.
Yesterday's decision should deny them that jackpot injustice. But the cost of fighting these suits over nearly a decade has still been steep for the three paint company defendants. Sherwin-Williams Co. saw its stock plummet after the 2006 verdict, erasing about $1.8 billion in market cap, a third of its value at the time. The British 'loser pays' rule is designed to deter precisely this kind of legal abuse by making the loser pay for bringing frivolous cases."
