…for helping rid us of the noxious Fairness Doctrine (Thomas W. Hazlett, “Dan Rather’s Good Deed”, Weekly Standard, Mar. 21, reprinted at Manhattan Institute site).
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Judge tosses “Fear Factor” suit
“A judge threw out a lawsuit in which a viewer sued NBC for $2.5 million, contending that he threw up because of a ‘Fear Factor’ episode in which contestants ate rats mixed in a blender. U.S. District Judge Lesley Wells called Austin Aitken’s lawsuit frivolous and warned him against appealing.” The handwritten suit (see Jan. 7) was pro se. (“Judge Nixes Viewer’s ‘Fear Factor’ Lawsuit”, AP/Fox News, Mar. 10).
Free speech prevails in “trash terrorists” case
In a case closely watched by free-speech advocates, a Missouri appeals court has dismissed as meritless a defamation suit brought by a trash company against a man who had successfully fought its plan to site a transfer station in his suburban St. Louis neighborhood. Leaflets opposing the facility had referred to the company, Fred Weber Inc., as “trash terrorists”, but the court found that “rhetorical hyperbole” of that sort, even if overheated, would not suggest to a reasonable audience that company officials engage in actual bombings or murders. Concern over the case has led to efforts in the Missouri legislature to broaden protections against being sued for taking part in public discussions. (Leisa Zigman, “County Resident Wins ‘SLAPP’ Suit Ruling Against Fred Weber, Inc.”, KSDK.com, Mar. 8; “Slapping down Weber” (editorial), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 9; Tim Jones, “Lawsuit trashed as threat to speech”, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 9). More: opinion is here.
Update: Judge OKs cosmetics class action settlement
“A federal judge yesterday approved a massive giveaway of free makeup and perfume at cosmetics counters across the country as part of the settlement of an antitrust lawsuit against cosmetics makers and department stores…. She also awarded $24 million in attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in the case.” (Josh Gerstein, “Judge Approves Cosmetics Settlement”, New York Sun, Mar. 9). For earlier coverage of the controversial settlement, see Jul. 21, 2003, Apr. 14, May 19, and Dec. 3, 2004, and Jan. 14, 2005.
Michael Zwebner gets a prior restraint injunction
Michael Zwebner regularly sues critics and people remotely related to critics of his penny-stock corporation, UCSY, which has a track record easy to criticize (Feb. 17). He claims in a press release to have persuaded a Florida state court to enter a constitutionally suspect order:
Defendants, Dembovich and Villasenor … are forever barred from making, stating, mentioning, posting on the Internet anything which included the words “UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.” and “Airwater Corp.” “UCSY” or “Michael Zwebner” or any derivations thereof.
The defendants are further ordered to remove and cause to be removed from all web sites and any all references caused to be posted by them under the above and any other alias all postings which reference either Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs’s President Michael Zwebner.
The purported order (which, in the press release, misspells “tortious”) also purports to bar third parties from “publishing” these posts (and arguably extends to linking to the posts) so it will probably be struck down as soon as Zwebner goes after a deep-pockets defendant (like, say, Google) that defends itself. (Universal Communications Sys. Inc. v. Dembovich, No. 2004-27383-CA-01 (Miami-Dade Cty., Fla.)). Where’s the SEC in all of this?
Amazingly, I see that the federal District of Oregon has agreed to enter a stipulated injunction barring another Internet poster from ever mentioning Zwebner in any context, true or otherwise. Related story: Polly Sprenger, “Dirty Laundry Airs on Stock Site”, Wired.com, Dec. 11, 1998.
In N.M. for now, no “Right To Eat Enchiladas”
By enacting “cheeseburger bills” (see Mar. 13, Mar. 17 and Dec. 3, 2004) state legislators can attempt to make clear (in case courts had any doubt about the matter) that there is no cause of action against food purveyors for causing obesity in those who partake of their wares. Such bills have been making progress around the country, with 12 state legislatures enacting them in 2004 and others likely to follow this year. New Mexico, however, will not be among those states: both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee have voted to shelve the idea on narrow party-line votes, with Democrats opposed to the legislation and Republicans in favor. “I don’t dispute the idea of personal responsibility, but I dispute the notion that any tort action is on its face frivolous,” said Rep. Gail Beam (D-Albuquerque), who chairs the House consumer committee. The bill had earlier passed the Senate Consumer and Public Affairs Committee. Its sponsors, Sen. Steve Komadina (R-Corrales) and Rep. Terry Marquardt (R-Alamogordo), had given it a locally adaptive title: the “Right To Eat Enchiladas Act”. (“Legislative roundup”, The New Mexican (Santa Fe), Feb. 23; Erin Madigan, “‘Cheeseburger’ bills fill state lawmakers’ plates”, Stateline.org, Feb. 15).
Sen. Stevens: let’s censor cable
“Short version of this column: If the Republicans wish to lose their majority, they can expend great amounts of energy to outlaw soft-core skin flicks on cable TV.” (James Lileks, “Don’t These People Have Better Things to Do?”, syndicated/Newhouse, Mar. 9).
Blockbuster late fees
The Washington Monthly’s Amy Sullivan really admires the lawsuit filed against the movie rental chain over its new “no more late fees” pricing structure, but blogger Mad Anthony doesn’t. See Jessica Seid, “Blockbuster sued over late fees”, CNN/Money, Feb. 18. Update Apr. 23: Blockbuster settles with AGs of 47 states.
Florida asks jury to cherry-pick
Alliance Capital Management fund manager Al Harrison was a contrarian. He invested in troubled companies whose stock value is depressed; the companies he picks rebound often enough that he gets a good return. Florida liked this strategy, and gave Harrison $344 million of public pension funds to invest in 1984; by 2001, he had turned it into $3.57 billion, an above-market 15% rate of return, albeit a volatile one that included some huge losses in technology stocks. Alas, this record of high-risk, high-return strategy includes one particular stock, Enron, that did particularly poorly, and there was a $281 million loss on that series of transactions–about a third of a percent of the $100 billion pension fund. (Pension participants aren’t affected by these fluctuations because Florida has a defined-benefit plan; if, however, the fund becomes insolvent, taxpayers would be on the hook to the extent federal law provides pension fund insurance.)
Now, with the benefit of hindsight, Florida is cherry-picking. Florida had access to data about what Harrison was trading throughout the term of Alliance’s contract with the state; Harrison’s trades were consistent with that contract; indeed, Alliance met the contract’s performance goal. But Florida is dissatisfied. Florida complains that Harrison’s portfolio construction wasn’t completely consistent with a description of strategy in an Alliance brochure issued in March 2000. And, with the benefit of hindsight, Florida has decided that it prefers the terms of that particular brochure to the terms of the contract, and is asking a jury to retroactively balance the portfolio and award the state a billion dollars in damages.
Florida also complains that there was an Alliance board member, Frank Savage, who coincidentally served as a board member for Enron. Alliance notes that Savage couldn’t have influenced trading without violating insider trading laws. (And, indeed, a Florida state attorney general investigation turned up nothing nefarious; Alliance had strict rules prohibiting board members from discussing investments in their associated corporations.)
Finally, Florida complans that Harrison overruled one of his analysts, Annie Tsao, who didn’t like Enron stock, without informing the state of Tsao’s opinion. Florida hasn’t indicated, however, that it will give back money for the profitable stock purchases where Harrison disagreed with one of his twenty analysts. (And apparently Tsao’s objective analysis had merely downgraded Enron from a top-rated 1 to a 2 while reaffirming her earnings outlook, though she subjectively expressed skepticism in at least some communications.) The idea that the investor should be notified every time there’s an internal disagreement between the fund manager and an analyst about a potential investment strategy seems questionable at best, but the state is inviting a jury to impose that rule retroactively. (David Royse, “Trial opens in retirement fund Enron loss case”, AP, Mar. 8; Joni James, “Who pays when a money manager makes a bad call?”, St. Petersburg Times, Mar. 6; Harriet Johnson Brackey, “Enron among various targets”, Miami Herald, Mar. 9; David Barboza, “Analyst Dropped Enron, but Her Firm Loaded Up”, NY Times, Oct. 15, 2002; James L. Rosica, “Trial centers on manager”, Tallahassee Democrat, Mar. 9; Joni James and Alfonso Chardy, “State’s losses get scrutiny”, Miami Herald, Feb. 27, 2002).
My firm represents Alliance in other matters. As with all of my posts, I speak for neither my firm nor any of its clients.
Update: Mohr v. DaimlerChrysler $53 million verdict
DaimlerChrysler statement on the suit after the jump; it’s almost scandalous what the press accounts (Feb. 26)left out, but not as scandalous as the verdict. The unbelted Vickie Mohr was killed from blunt force trauma to the back of the head–caused when she was hit by the 245-pound unbelted passenger in the backseat. (The jury found that passenger, Carolyn Jones, responsible for only a small percentage.) Brett McAfee, the 17-year-old driver who killed the two plaintiffs when he fell asleep at the wheel going 45 mph, but was found slightly less than half-responsible by the civil jury, pleaded no contest to vehicular homicide criminal charges. (via Dodgeforum, which has an impressive array of photos of the totalled Durango Caravan).