class action law suit

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Class Action Dilemmas
> Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
>

Spamming again, Johnny? Your beloved charter forbids that in this group.
Please cease immediately.

---

› See More: class action law suit

Scott wrote:

> Neither link was specific to the case, Skippy. I guess this was some of
> that information you gained from the Internet and not from any practical
> experience of your own.

Wouldn't matter, as Rand has no credibility--it's a corporate mouthpiece.

You can get an idea of the outcome of class actions by looking at the
Verizon V710 settlement. You got the choice of:

a) a $25 credit

b) terminate service with no ETF and return the phone and accessories
for a full refund.

c) keep your service, return the phone and accessories and apply the
cost to a new phone.

The important thing to realize is the Verizon couldn't say, "gee we
spent x millions of dollars on this lawsuit and on settlement costs,
lets add up our total costs and divide it by the number of customers,
and raise prices so we can get back that money. Anyone that thinks that
that's how pricing works has got a lot to learn about business. Setting
proper pricing is extremely complex, you don't want to leave money on
the table, nor do you want to lose profitable customers with pricing
that is too high. That's why in many industries, there are so many
different prices for the same product.

We had one customer at a semiconductor company that I worked for, that
wanted to set the price they would pay by adding up the number of gates
in an ASIC, and paying per gate. Uh, sorry, it doesn't work that way.
The same customer wanted a guarantee that they would always pay at least
5% less than any other customer was paying. That's the kind of customer
you tell to get lost, then they come back begging for product when
there's a shortage.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott wrote:
>
>> Neither link was specific to the case, Skippy. I guess this was some of
>> that information you gained from the Internet and not from any practical
>> experience of your own.
>
> Wouldn't matter, as Rand has no credibility--it's a corporate mouthpiece.
>
> You can get an idea of the outcome of class actions by looking at the
> Verizon V710 settlement. You got the choice of:
>
> a) a $25 credit
>
> b) terminate service with no ETF and return the phone and accessories for
> a full refund.
>
> c) keep your service, return the phone and accessories and apply the cost
> to a new phone.

What gets me is that the purpose of the class action was to correct an
implied issue and the options above all provide some form of remedy to that
issue- the latter two actually completely resolve the issue. Those that
complain about a settlement like this are the reason for the problem with
class actions- they expect to gain from the action and not simply be made
whole. The courts have become the next best thing to the lottery in many
peoples' eyes.

Scott wrote:

> What gets me is that the purpose of the class action was to correct an
> implied issue and the options above all provide some form of remedy to that
> issue- the latter two actually completely resolve the issue. Those that
> complain about a settlement like this are the reason for the problem with
> class actions- they expect to gain from the action and not simply be made
> whole. The courts have become the next best thing to the lottery in many
> peoples' eyes.

You may get an occasional instance where the plaintiff gains more than
being made whole, i.e. in the mass torts for pharmaceuticals, but in
those cases it's difficult to put a price on the permanent injury or death.

In most cases, as in the Verizon case, the subscriber is made whole, and
the corporation at least discloses what they are doing in advance, if
they don't plan to actually change the underlying action that
perpetuated the lawsuit.

You get an occasional award that seems all out of proportion, and people
latch onto these as examples of why tort reform is desperately needed.
In many cases it's the corporations that were affected by the lawsuit
that are behind the attempts to try to paint the result as excessive,
even when it isn't. How many people actually read the facts on the
McDonald's coffee case before forming judgement?

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The problem is that class action damages are so potentially huge that
> companies can't really risk litigating even when the case against them
> isn't strong. Class action lawyers know this of course, and that all
> they need is a case not so weak that it won't even get started to have a
> gun to the head of the company. It's a kind of legal (in both senses of
> the word) extortion. Capping damages to some reasonable level and
> requiring a higher showing before certifying a class would go a long way
> toward fixing this problem.
>

In short, it is "cutting their losses". It is costing all American consumers
dearly.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:45:08 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> If you read the lawsuit, you'll see that everything that was alleged is
>>> actually true, so Cingular is almost certain to settle out of court.
>>
>>Even when not true, they tend to settle ... because lawyers are expensive,
>>even when defending a frivolous suit [which I am not saying this is].
>
> The bigger problem is the risk of a huge damage award, which can
> severely hurt the financial value of a company while a case drags on.
>

Presenting appeal after appeal. Consider the sky rocketting cost of
malpractice insurance. St. Paul Companies, a once mega player in the
business, just got out of it because there are too many people out there
lawyering up with monetary drool on their muzzles ... attacking because they
see weakness rather than misdeed. Sounds like rabies to me.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

PC Medic <[email protected]> wrote:
> That kind of thinking is what big corporations hope for.
> Just sitting back and letting them rip you off is not the answer. and they
> should be held accountable. The desired result of the lawsuit should not be
> to get rich, it should be to put the company on track and make they provide
> what you are paying for.
>

Of course they should, if there really is misdeed. Damages however, have
grown over the years to feed the vulture like litigators ... and it is this
which makes even valid complaints a bit of a problem. There are too many
cases where greedy lawyers see an chance to develop a problem from nothing and
then to go looking for a class to match it -- a grand form of ambulance
chasing.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

In article <[email protected]>,
SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
> > What gets me is that the purpose of the class action was to correct an
> > implied issue and the options above all provide some form of remedy to that
> > issue- the latter two actually completely resolve the issue. Those that
> > complain about a settlement like this are the reason for the problem with
> > class actions- they expect to gain from the action and not simply be made
> > whole. The courts have become the next best thing to the lottery in many
> > peoples' eyes.
>
> You may get an occasional instance where the plaintiff gains more than
> being made whole, i.e. in the mass torts for pharmaceuticals, but in
> those cases it's difficult to put a price on the permanent injury or death.

It's a freakin lottery with too many Judges allowing in junk science.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. The Vioxx litigation is an
example. Keep it up and all your new drugs will disappear.

Jack Zwick wrote:

> It's a freakin lottery with too many Judges allowing in junk science.
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. The Vioxx litigation is an
> example. Keep it up and all your new drugs will disappear.

In the case of VIOXX, it was the FDA's expedited review process that
allowed the drug on the market prior to the drug trials being completed.

You've got pressure from the drug companies for faster reviews, so they
can gain an advantage over competitors, but with this comes the risk
that side effects will not be fully understood before the drug is on the
market.

It was not junk science that was the cause of VIOXX being withdrawn,
Merck withdrew it because of the results of one of the drug trials that
was still being conducted after the drug was approved.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:28:28 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Jack Zwick wrote:
>
>> It's a freakin lottery with too many Judges allowing in junk science.
>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. The Vioxx litigation is an
>> example. Keep it up and all your new drugs will disappear.
>
>In the case of VIOXX, it was the FDA's expedited review process that
>allowed the drug on the market prior to the drug trials being completed.
>
>You've got pressure from the drug companies for faster reviews, so they
>can gain an advantage over competitors, but with this comes the risk
>that side effects will not be fully understood before the drug is on the
>market.
>
>It was not junk science that was the cause of VIOXX being withdrawn,
>Merck withdrew it because of the results of one of the drug trials that
>was still being conducted after the drug was approved.

The real problem is that Merck dismissed early warnings of problems (the
VIGOR study) with Vioxx (Rofecoxib) in its haste for fast profits.
Outside scientists had warned Merck about this even before VIGOR was
published. In addition, it appears that adverse data was withheld from
the VIGOR results.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The real problem is that Merck dismissed early warnings of problems (the
> VIGOR study) with Vioxx (Rofecoxib) in its haste for fast profits.
> Outside scientists had warned Merck about this even before VIGOR was
> published. In addition, it appears that adverse data was withheld from
> the VIGOR results.
>

Sounds like the Big Dig and their funky bolts. Damn Mafia.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:59:47 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The real problem is that Merck dismissed early warnings of problems (the
>> VIGOR study) with Vioxx (Rofecoxib) in its haste for fast profits.
>> Outside scientists had warned Merck about this even before VIGOR was
>> published. In addition, it appears that adverse data was withheld from
>> the VIGOR results.
>
>Sounds like the Big Dig and their funky bolts. Damn Mafia.

Damn Boston politics, which is incredibly corrupt. When I was at MIT we
had the big Boston Commons Garage scandal, among others, so the Big Dig
problems are no great surprise.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:09:42 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>PC Medic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> That kind of thinking is what big corporations hope for.
>> Just sitting back and letting them rip you off is not the answer. and they
>> should be held accountable. The desired result of the lawsuit should not be
>> to get rich, it should be to put the company on track and make they provide
>> what you are paying for.
>
>Of course they should, if there really is misdeed. Damages however, have
>grown over the years to feed the vulture like litigators ... and it is this
>which makes even valid complaints a bit of a problem. There are too many
>cases where greedy lawyers see an chance to develop a problem from nothing and
>then to go looking for a class to match it -- a grand form of ambulance
>chasing.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5223330.stm>

Google click-fraud deal approved

...

Under the terms of the settlement, Google will give advertising
credits worth $4.50 for every $1,000 spent on advertising at its
website.

Miller County Circuit Judge Joe Griffin called the settlement "fair,
reasonable and adequate".

According to the Press Association, the only people who will get
money from the settlement are the lawyers, who are due to split $30m
in fees.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:09:42 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>PC Medic <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> That kind of thinking is what big corporations hope for.
>>> Just sitting back and letting them rip you off is not the answer. and
>>> they
>>> should be held accountable. The desired result of the lawsuit should not
>>> be
>>> to get rich, it should be to put the company on track and make they
>>> provide
>>> what you are paying for.
>>
>>Of course they should, if there really is misdeed. Damages however, have
>>grown over the years to feed the vulture like litigators ... and it is
>>this
>>which makes even valid complaints a bit of a problem. There are too many
>>cases where greedy lawyers see an chance to develop a problem from nothing
>>and
>>then to go looking for a class to match it -- a grand form of ambulance
>>chasing.
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5223330.stm>
>
> Google click-fraud deal approved
>
> ...
>
> Under the terms of the settlement, Google will give advertising
> credits worth $4.50 for every $1,000 spent on advertising at its
> website.
>
> Miller County Circuit Judge Joe Griffin called the settlement "fair,
> reasonable and adequate".
>

And it probably is as a majority of the clicks were legit.


> According to the Press Association, the only people who will get
> money from the settlement are the lawyers, who are due to split $30m
> in fees.
>

Well maybe some of the people that can afford good lawyers should get off
their a$$ and hire them before things reach the 'class-action buzzards then.

PC Medic wrote:

> Well maybe some of the people that can afford good lawyers should get off
> their a$$ and hire them before things reach the 'class-action buzzards then.

It just isn't practical to do this when there's several million people
that have each experienced a loss of only a few hundred dollars.

The "greedy lawyer" mantra is trotted out on a regular basis, but in
fact a class-action is the only solution when the per person loss is too
small to make it worthwhile to sue on an individual basis. The fact that
say 10 million people each get $25, while three law firms split $10
million in fees, is really moot, yet there are fools that try to spin it
like "you get $25 while the lawyers each get $3 million dollars." If
there were no payback for the lawyers, the people that experienced the
loss would have no way to made whole again.