About AEI My AEI Support AEI Contact AEI
Home Events Books Short Publications Research Areas Scholars & Fellows


Search


FindAdvanced Search

Browse all short publications by:
- Date
- Subject
- Author
- Type
- Title


LIABILITY PROJECT
About Us/Contact
Events
Books
Publications
Conference Papers
Past Work
Articles of Interest
Scholars and Staff
Links

Home >  Research Areas >  Liability Project >  No, It's a "Pro-Investor" Ruling
No, It's a "Pro-Investor" Ruling
Print Mail
Letter to the Editor
By Ted Frank
Posted: Monday, August 27, 2007
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Legal Times  
Publications Date: August 27, 2007

I appreciated the chance to speak with reporter Tony Mauro about Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, an upcoming Supreme Court case that will be discussed at an AEI panel on Oct. 5. Unfortunately, a sentence in his Aug. 20 article ["High Court Head Count at Issue," Page 1] incorrectly implied that I thought the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the case was an "anti-investor ruling," when that characterization is solely Mauro's.

On the contrary, as I have written in The Wall Street Journal and told Mauro, I believe that the 8th Circuit's dismissal of the case redounds to the benefit of investors in general and that the best result for investors (if not for trial lawyers) would be affirmance by the Supreme Court. And I say that even though I am a putative class member in Stoneridge.

Ted Frank is a resident fellow and director of the Liability Project at AEI.

Related Links
Related On the Issues on Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta by Frank
AEI Print Index No. 22119


Also by Ted Frank
Recent Articles
Did the Right Make America a Lawsuit Nation?
The Era of Big Punitive Damage Awards Is Not Over
How Bipartisan Is Obama?
Liability Outlook No. 3, 2007 - The Roberts Court and Liability Reform

In the the third Liability Outlook of 2007, Ted Frank analyzes the unexpected turns of the Supreme Court's October Term 2006.


Liability Outlook No. 2, 2007 - The Class Action Fairness Act Two Years Later
In the second Liability Outlook of 2007, Ted Frank gives an assessment of how CAFA has fared in its first two years and what challenges remain in the context of mass torts.

Liability Outlook No. 1, 2007 - Rollover Economics
In this first Liability Outlook of 2007, Ted Frank examines a nine-figure verdict against Ford for alleged "defective design" in its SUVs and analyzes the legal problems that led to it.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Debacle: What Have We Learned; How to Fix It

Henry N. Butler and Larry E. Ribstein detail the scant benefits and monumental costs of SOX.


The Vioxx Litigation

In this two-part working paper, Ted Frank examines the perils of over-deterrence created by the on-going Vioxx litigation.


Harm-Less Lawsuits

Michael Greve describes the origins of consumer class actions and analyzes their theoretical and practical problems. 


Competition Laws in Conflict

In this volume, edited by Richard A. Epstein and Michael S. Greve, leading experts explore routes to a new and better institutional design for global antitrust in the national and international contexts.

Books from the AEI Press


Two Cheers for Contingent Fees

Alexander Tabarrok and Eric Helland argue against capping contingency fees as an effective measure of tort reform.