Preparing the Used Vehicle Fraud Case from the Plaintiff's Prespective
How many times has a prospective client walked into your office and informed you that he just discovered that the used vehicle he purchased had previously been wrecked? He informs you that he specifically remembers asking the sales person if the vehicle had ever been wrecked, and the sales person had responded that it had not.
Proper Use of Focus Groups in Civil Litigation
Focus groups are more important to civil litigation than you may think. Dr. Richard A. Krueger, describes focus groups as: “(1) people, (2) assembled in a series of groups, (3) possessing certain characteristics …, (4) providing data, (5) of a qualitative nature, (6) in a focused discussion. “ Focus groups were designed for attorneys to test their case theories and strategies on a sample “jury.”
Preparing Yourself to take an Experts Deposition
Many times, the most dominant witness in a modern-day trial is the opposition’s expert. A trial lawyer cannot do justice to his clients until he has mastered the ability to take an effective deposition of the opposition’s expert. Effective cross-examination of opposition’s expert at trial depends a great deal on an effective deposition. The lawyer must have a working knowledge of an unfamiliar subject matter on many occasions. Anything short of gaining this working knowledge, puts the case and client at a great risk. There are no shortcuts in the preparation necessary for a thorough effective deposition of an expert.
Recent Business Scandals and Their Effect on Jurors
Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, Adelphia. It is almost impossible to turn on the television or open the newspaper without being confronted with yet another corporate scandal. Reports of financially troubled companies and their accountants deceiving the public are commonplace. In the wake of these scandals, Americans are faced not only with losing their jobs, but also with the demise of their stock portfolios and retirement savings. As the media exposes these corporate wrongdoings, prospective jurors everywhere are forming their opinions. A recent juror attitude study conducted by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association, in partnership with Bowne DecisionQuest, has revealed some alarming conclusions. Out of over 1,000 jury eligible subjects polled nationwide,
Recent Corporate Scandals and Their Effect on Jurors
Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, ImClone, Tyco, Adelphia, Global Crossing, Martha Stewart, Merril Lynch, AOL Time Warner, and a local addition, HealthSouth. It is almost impossible to turn on the television or open the newspaper without being confronted with yet another corporate scandal. Reports of financially troubled companies and their questionable accountants are commonplace. Accusations of insider trading by high profile shareholders are routine.1 In the wake of these scandals, Americans are faced not only with losing their jobs, but also with the demise of their stock portfolios and retirement savings.
Recent Developments in Agent Orange Litigation
A recent decision by the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, could harm future Agent Orange litigation. In a “tentative” ruling, the MDL Court entered a summary judgment in favor of the manufacturers of Agent Orange, a chemical used to defoliate the forests of Vietnam.3 The summary judgment was based upon the manufacturer’s claim that they are immune from liability by virtue of the government contractor defense – the manufacturers say that the government made them do it.
Recent Developments in Alabama Commerical Business Tort Law
A. Ex parte Life Insurance Co. of Georgia, No. 1990932, 2001 WL 499313 (Ala. May 11, 2001), reversed the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals’ holding that the plaintiff, MIS, a general agent/marketer of CHAMPUS health insurance policies, had presented substantial evidence that particular circumstances existed to impose a duty upon the defendant, Life of Georgia, to disclose information that it was planning to sell or dissolve its health insurance division. The Court acknowledged the fact that Life of Georgia had superior knowledge of the information pertaining to its intent to sell the division. However, the Court concluded that superior knowledge of a fact, without more, does not impose upon a party a legal duty to disclose such information in the context of a fraudulent suppression claim.
Recognizing a Tort that Allows a Fraud Claim to Survive the Death of the Defrauded
In March of 1997, Ms. C was 89 years old, extremely sick, and in very poor mental condition. In fact, at her worse, Ms. C could barely speak and was unable to recognize her four children when they would come to visit. Over time, it became obvious to her children that Ms. C would not live much longer, suffering as she was. In view of that, the four children agreed to read their mother’s Last Will and Testament together to see how their mother wanted her property devised.
Recovering from Brokerage Firms for Bogus Stock Recommendations
On May 21, 2002, Merrill Lynch, one of the world’s biggest brokerage firms, agreed to pay $100 million to settle a case brought by the New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, alleging that Merrill defrauded retail brokerage customers by issuing misleading “buy” recommendations on over two dozen stocks followed by Merrill’s internet analyst group.1 According to Spitzer, Merrill issued and maintained “buy” recommendations on certain stocks in order to curry favor with the issuers of those stocks in hopes of securing lucrative investment banking business from those companies in the future.
Settling Fraud Cases under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
Even more so than with individual cases, most class actions settle. This is due in part to the fact that the risks of proceeding to judgment post-certification are very significant to all parties. However, many settlements are often negotiated prior to certification. In those cases, the settlement is contingent on the court certifying a class for settlement purposes only.
