Millberg Weiss's conduct was particularly blatant, but "Rankled," there's not a
"straw man" to be seen anywhere. A huge percentage of the plaintiff's bar
operates on substantially the same business plan, e.g. be prepared to sue on
behalf of shareholders the moment a stock price ticks downward.Essentially, the plaintiffs' bar operates on the assumption that stock prices
should always go up -- and if they go down, there must be corruption involved
(and thus an opportunity for class-action derivative suits, and huge legal
fees). While corporate corruption has grown to truly obscene levels, the
plaintiffs' bar's business model is the wrong remedy -- because it ignores
ordinary business cycles, and effectively treats defendants as guilty until
(expensively) proven innocent.Litigation (and associated insurance
requirements) imposes a huge burden on American business (and doctors, and
others). It's absolutely necessary to protect against misconduct -- but it
makes no sense to spend $1,000 to prevent $100 worth of fraud or other
misconduct. Efficiency shouldn't automatically take precedence over principle,
but efficiency and a sense of proportion shouldn't be entirely ignored, either.
Way to go George! Set up a straw man, make Edwards guilty by association, then
beat it down.
And, who foots the bill for all of this. We do, in the form of higher prices
for goods and insurance and the loss of jobs as bussiness relocates to other
countries to get away from these laywers.