3/10/2009
3/09/2009
Anna Nicole Smith is an Estate Lawyer's Dream
My goodness. Let's go slow.
There's the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith who is in a big fight for money from the Estate of her dead husband (Howard Marshall) with the Estate of the dead husband's dead son (Pierce Marshall).
Three Estates, maybe four.
Three Estates. I guess we could throw in the Estate of Daniel, Anna's son, for good measure, as a beneficiary of Anna's Estate. Okay. Make that four Estates, really.
The latest fight: to lift the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Stay, back to the US Supreme Court.
Now, we're talking about these cases going up to the United States Supreme Court here -- is the fight to lift the stay placed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon the $88.5 million dollar award granted to Anna Nicole by a lower federal court.
Attorneys go their whole lives without an argument before a circuit court of appeals, much less the U. S. Supreme Court. How many times has Anna's case been up there?
Anna's Estate Wants to Lift the Stay to Stop Pierce's Estate
That $88.5 million has grown over time to around $125 million. But here's the problem: before his death, Pierce Marshall moved a lot of assets around, and Estate of Anna attorneys are arguing that if that stay isn't vacated, the IRS may end up with all the money left in Estate of Pierce's accounts.
IRS versus all those attorneys' fees. C'mon. We know what those fee statements are like.
You know, I can't help but think -- and this is so NOT a legal analysis -- that old Howard Marshall would kinda like cute little Dannilynn to have that cash. Maybe that's just me.
There's the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith who is in a big fight for money from the Estate of her dead husband (Howard Marshall) with the Estate of the dead husband's dead son (Pierce Marshall).
Three Estates, maybe four.
Three Estates. I guess we could throw in the Estate of Daniel, Anna's son, for good measure, as a beneficiary of Anna's Estate. Okay. Make that four Estates, really.
The latest fight: to lift the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Stay, back to the US Supreme Court.
Now, we're talking about these cases going up to the United States Supreme Court here -- is the fight to lift the stay placed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon the $88.5 million dollar award granted to Anna Nicole by a lower federal court.
Attorneys go their whole lives without an argument before a circuit court of appeals, much less the U. S. Supreme Court. How many times has Anna's case been up there?
Anna's Estate Wants to Lift the Stay to Stop Pierce's Estate
That $88.5 million has grown over time to around $125 million. But here's the problem: before his death, Pierce Marshall moved a lot of assets around, and Estate of Anna attorneys are arguing that if that stay isn't vacated, the IRS may end up with all the money left in Estate of Pierce's accounts.
IRS versus all those attorneys' fees. C'mon. We know what those fee statements are like.
You know, I can't help but think -- and this is so NOT a legal analysis -- that old Howard Marshall would kinda like cute little Dannilynn to have that cash. Maybe that's just me.
3/05/2009
Coyotes on the Border: $1500 a head is good money
You work Children's Court - like I do - and you hear things. Especially when you're representing kids in CPS cases that are within a day's drive of the US-Mexico border.
And, this week, I learned some thought-provoking info about running Mexican nationals across the border. Each immigrant pays $1500 to the smuggler (here, we call them coyotes) to get him safely to his US destination.
At $1500/head, that's really good money. And it is apparently a booming business in a bad economy.
Sure, Border Patrol knows about this. They're trying. But think about it. You are a Mexican American, or I suppose you could be anyone as long as you have contacts in Mexico.
You aren't educated, and you've got kids to raise. Times are tough.
So, you make some arrangements and you drive your car down near the border. Maybe you stop at the Dairy Queen outside of Laredo. Maybe you just pull up next to a certain mile marker not far from Brownsville.
And, suddenly, 7 people rush to your car, or minivan, or SUV, and jump in. You speed off, and within an hour or two, you've dropped them off at their cousin's house. In San Antonio, or Austin, or San Marcos or somewhere.
And, in one afternoon, you've made $10,500.00.
Sure, that's gross revenue. You'll have to pay the Mexican contact some of it. You'll maybe have to pay the drug cartels a portion, if they know you're operating. But even if those costs run 50%, you've still made $5250 in one afternoon.
And $5250 net for one afternoon's driving is very good money indeed.
For more, read this discussion of women becoming coyotes.
And, this week, I learned some thought-provoking info about running Mexican nationals across the border. Each immigrant pays $1500 to the smuggler (here, we call them coyotes) to get him safely to his US destination.
At $1500/head, that's really good money. And it is apparently a booming business in a bad economy.
Sure, Border Patrol knows about this. They're trying. But think about it. You are a Mexican American, or I suppose you could be anyone as long as you have contacts in Mexico.
You aren't educated, and you've got kids to raise. Times are tough.
So, you make some arrangements and you drive your car down near the border. Maybe you stop at the Dairy Queen outside of Laredo. Maybe you just pull up next to a certain mile marker not far from Brownsville.
And, suddenly, 7 people rush to your car, or minivan, or SUV, and jump in. You speed off, and within an hour or two, you've dropped them off at their cousin's house. In San Antonio, or Austin, or San Marcos or somewhere.
And, in one afternoon, you've made $10,500.00.
Sure, that's gross revenue. You'll have to pay the Mexican contact some of it. You'll maybe have to pay the drug cartels a portion, if they know you're operating. But even if those costs run 50%, you've still made $5250 in one afternoon.
And $5250 net for one afternoon's driving is very good money indeed.
For more, read this discussion of women becoming coyotes.
3/04/2009
US Supreme Court approves drug lawsuits in state court -- FDA approval isn't synonimous with immunity. Good.
Okay, first things first -- here's the link to the actual US Supreme Court slip opinion, issued today in Cause No. 06-1249, styled Wyeth v. Levine, certiorari to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
It's a pre-emption case. 6-3 decision.
The high court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt the claims made by the plaintiff, Diana Levine, that the defendant, Wyeth Laboratories, did not provide adequate warnings concerning the use of the IV-push method of administering its drug Pherangan. In other words, FDA approval doesn't shield the drug manufacturer from responsibility for monetary damages as defined by state personal injury law.
As a result, Wyeth is facing paying big money liability under Vermont state law for the improper administration to Levine of its drug, which entered her artery and not her vein as it should have, causing immediate gangrene and the ultimate amputation of her arm. (In her initial trial, the Vermont jury awarded Diana Levine $6.7 million - and I don't know what she's going to get now, what with all that interest covering all these years.)
Her job? Professional musician (pianist and guitarist). Did I mention big money yet?
Today, there's lot of coverage (like this article in USA TODAY and this one in USNews & World Report) about the US Supreme Court's decision.
As well there should be.
First, the high court could have written this opinion narrowly. It didn't. If you take the time to read it, it's quite broad. Don't think this wasn't intentional.
Second, there are lots of personal injury attorneys out there who know the costs involved in pursuing these type of drug injury cases, and today's decision sure does give them a comfortable level when they're analyzing risk in taking future drug injury cases to trial in state court.
FDA approval, schmoval. You can just hear the plaintiffs' bar tee-heeing with glee.
Third, and best from my perspective, people who have been injured or killed by a lot of sloppy FDA decisions aren't going to have to worry about that FDA pre-emption issue now. Who really trusts FDA approval now, like say folk did in 1980?
There have been too many recalls -- and those "oops" were in a big way. Kids and pets and all sort of innocent folk got hurt and killed by products that initially got the FDA okey-dokey.
My vote? Levine v. Wyeth was a good decision, even if you can already hear the cries of "lawsuit abuse" in the wings.
It's a pre-emption case. 6-3 decision.
The high court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt the claims made by the plaintiff, Diana Levine, that the defendant, Wyeth Laboratories, did not provide adequate warnings concerning the use of the IV-push method of administering its drug Pherangan. In other words, FDA approval doesn't shield the drug manufacturer from responsibility for monetary damages as defined by state personal injury law.
As a result, Wyeth is facing paying big money liability under Vermont state law for the improper administration to Levine of its drug, which entered her artery and not her vein as it should have, causing immediate gangrene and the ultimate amputation of her arm. (In her initial trial, the Vermont jury awarded Diana Levine $6.7 million - and I don't know what she's going to get now, what with all that interest covering all these years.)
Her job? Professional musician (pianist and guitarist). Did I mention big money yet?
Today, there's lot of coverage (like this article in USA TODAY and this one in USNews & World Report) about the US Supreme Court's decision.
As well there should be.
First, the high court could have written this opinion narrowly. It didn't. If you take the time to read it, it's quite broad. Don't think this wasn't intentional.
Second, there are lots of personal injury attorneys out there who know the costs involved in pursuing these type of drug injury cases, and today's decision sure does give them a comfortable level when they're analyzing risk in taking future drug injury cases to trial in state court.
FDA approval, schmoval. You can just hear the plaintiffs' bar tee-heeing with glee.
Third, and best from my perspective, people who have been injured or killed by a lot of sloppy FDA decisions aren't going to have to worry about that FDA pre-emption issue now. Who really trusts FDA approval now, like say folk did in 1980?
There have been too many recalls -- and those "oops" were in a big way. Kids and pets and all sort of innocent folk got hurt and killed by products that initially got the FDA okey-dokey.
My vote? Levine v. Wyeth was a good decision, even if you can already hear the cries of "lawsuit abuse" in the wings.
2/18/2009
Alan Greenspan to the Economic Club: It's Almost as Bad as the 1930s
Well, he talks about fear being a big problem, and then sandwiches that bit of ham with all sorts of skeery talk.
If you'd like to read what former Federal Reserve King Alan Greenspan said to the Economic Club of New York today, Yahoo News has most of his speech here.
Here are the tidbits that everyone is going with (IHT, Bloomberg, Financial Times):
... the current worldwide recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s ...(I read this to mean that it's going to be as bad or worse as that of the Great Depression)
"[t]o stabilise the American banking system and restore normal lending, additional TARP funds will be required ..." (how many trillions is he thinking about? Does no one remember the German printing presses?)
the plummet "cannot persist indefinitely...." (this too shall pass?)
the housing market must recover for this horror to end, and "the prospect of stable home prices remains many months in the future...." (wasn't this the guy that everyone's blaming for the housing bubble mess?)
The stock market is being impacted by "a degree of fear not experienced since the early 20th century .... Certainly by any historical measure, world stock prices are cheap. But as history also counsels, they could get a lot cheaper before they turn."(I read this as please, people, keep buying cuz that's all that's keeping this thing afloat.))
If you'd like to read what former Federal Reserve King Alan Greenspan said to the Economic Club of New York today, Yahoo News has most of his speech here.
Here are the tidbits that everyone is going with (IHT, Bloomberg, Financial Times):
... the current worldwide recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s ...(I read this to mean that it's going to be as bad or worse as that of the Great Depression)
"[t]o stabilise the American banking system and restore normal lending, additional TARP funds will be required ..." (how many trillions is he thinking about? Does no one remember the German printing presses?)
the plummet "cannot persist indefinitely...." (this too shall pass?)
the housing market must recover for this horror to end, and "the prospect of stable home prices remains many months in the future...." (wasn't this the guy that everyone's blaming for the housing bubble mess?)
The stock market is being impacted by "a degree of fear not experienced since the early 20th century .... Certainly by any historical measure, world stock prices are cheap. But as history also counsels, they could get a lot cheaper before they turn."(I read this as please, people, keep buying cuz that's all that's keeping this thing afloat.))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)