Here is an interesting new article that highlights science continuing to evolve as to cancer risks. The conclusion is that the risk of contracting lung cancer is much, much higher for smokers with certain specific genetic variations. The following is the full text of the article:
"Researchers Cough Up New Evidence for Genetic Basis of Lung Cancer Risk in Smokers
GEN News Highlights
Scientists have uncovered new evidence supporting the hypothesis that the genetic background plays a role in determining how likely it is that a smoker will develop lung cancer and what type of cancer it will be. Genome-wide association studies by Cancer Research UK-funded scientists at the Institute of Cancer Research implicated DNA variants within regions on chromosomes 5, 6, and 15.
The work is published in Cancer Research in a paper titled “Deciphering the impact of common genetic variation on lung cancer risk.”
The latest ICR work suggests there are two independent sites on chromosome 15 involved in determining lung cancer risk. They calculated that current or former smokers carrying one copy of each of the chromosome 15 variant were at a 28% higher risk of developing lung cancer than smokers without the variants. The relative risk jumped to 80% for either former or current smokers who were homozygous for both chromosome 15 variants. The increased risk of lung cancer was not evident in carriers of the polymorphisms who had never smoked.
Additionally, the sequences on chromosomes 5 and 6 were found to influence the type of lung cancer smokers developed. Individuals who carried the chromosome 5 variation were more likely to develop adenocarcinoma, a type of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that represents the most common form of the disease, the ICR researchers point out. The chromosome 6 variant also appeared to influence whether the carrier developed the adenocarcinoma or the squamous cell carcinoma form of NSCLC."
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Illegality and In Pari Delicto Defense to Fraud Claims
Barlow Lyde & Gilbert issued this October 7 paper on the "illegality" and "in pari delicto" defenses that auditors and bankers are using to defend themselves against suits by corporate entities that lost monies because of frauds that included the involvement of some personnel of the corporate entities. The paper briefly covers the recent opinion by Judge Kaplan in some of the Parmalat cases and a recent decision from the UK House of Lords.
The outcomes are rather stunning because the result is that an auditor's involvement in massive fraud does not produce an adverse financial outcome for the auditor.
The outcomes are rather stunning because the result is that an auditor's involvement in massive fraud does not produce an adverse financial outcome for the auditor.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
New Litigation Investment Fund Expected to Complete IPO in October - Burford Capital, Ltd.
The previously-mentioned London asbestos conference included a presentation regarding a new £200 million litigation investment fund that is to come online this fall through an IPO on AIM. The fund seeks to invest in litigation in the US and elsewhere. The presentation seemed to very much surprise some insurance industry personnel attending the conference. Others said they were not surprised,perhaps because the reality is that some insurers have in the past invested in litigation.
The IPO also was covered briefly by the WSJ in its September 29, 2009 edition. The article is here. It states:
By MARGOT PATRICK LONDON -- Burford Capital Ltd., a closed-end investment company, said it wants to raise up to £200 million ($319 million) in a share placing on London's junior market to mark its place in a small but growing sector of funds that help finance companies' legal costs in commercial disputes.By providing cash to help companies foot their legal costs, Burford said it hopes to pick up a share of any awards or settlements and then pay out money to its shareholders in the form of dividends.
The Guernsey-based company said it will start out by investing in disputes between companies in the U.S., as well as in those going to international arbitration. Later on, it might expand into to other jurisdictions, it said. A typical investment is expected to be for more than $3 million and as high as $15 million.It didn't say what percentage of proceeds it would ask for, but similar funds take between 20% and 45%.
The company's investment adviser is Burford Group Ltd., set up by U.S. lawyers Christoper Bogart and Selvyn Seidel."Third-party commercial-dispute finance is a high-growth market, helping plaintiffs or defendants get civil justice," Mr. Bogart said in a statement. He said these kinds of investment can generate highly attractive returns that aren't tied to the performance of stock markets.
Mr. Bogart's previous jobs include serving as executive vice president and general counsel of Time Warner Inc., and as chief executive of Time Warner Cable Ventures. Mr. Seidel most recently was a senior partner at law firm Latham & Watkins, where he co-founded the New York office and was chairman of the firm's international practice.
Fox-Pitt, Kelton Ltd. is handling the share placement on the Alternative Investment Market and will be the company's nominated adviser and broker. Execution Ltd. is acting as co-lead manager on the placement. The shares are expected to start trading around Oct. 16.
A similar company called Juridica Investments Ltd. listed its shares on AIM in December 2007, raising £80 million.
Write to Margot Patrick at margot.patrick@dowjones.com
Caveat/Disclosure: As a result of this prior post on May 24, 2009, I ended up receiving a call from Mr. Seidel to talk about the topic of litigation funding. As indicated in the prior post, it seems plain to me that litigation funding will become a dominant agent for change in litigation over the next decade. So, I invested the time to meet with Mr. Seidel a couple of times. The plans of Mr. Seidel and his colleagues make great sense to me, and I hope to work with them some day if the situation is right.
The IPO also was covered briefly by the WSJ in its September 29, 2009 edition. The article is here. It states:
By MARGOT PATRICK LONDON -- Burford Capital Ltd., a closed-end investment company, said it wants to raise up to £200 million ($319 million) in a share placing on London's junior market to mark its place in a small but growing sector of funds that help finance companies' legal costs in commercial disputes.By providing cash to help companies foot their legal costs, Burford said it hopes to pick up a share of any awards or settlements and then pay out money to its shareholders in the form of dividends.
The Guernsey-based company said it will start out by investing in disputes between companies in the U.S., as well as in those going to international arbitration. Later on, it might expand into to other jurisdictions, it said. A typical investment is expected to be for more than $3 million and as high as $15 million.It didn't say what percentage of proceeds it would ask for, but similar funds take between 20% and 45%.
The company's investment adviser is Burford Group Ltd., set up by U.S. lawyers Christoper Bogart and Selvyn Seidel."Third-party commercial-dispute finance is a high-growth market, helping plaintiffs or defendants get civil justice," Mr. Bogart said in a statement. He said these kinds of investment can generate highly attractive returns that aren't tied to the performance of stock markets.
Mr. Bogart's previous jobs include serving as executive vice president and general counsel of Time Warner Inc., and as chief executive of Time Warner Cable Ventures. Mr. Seidel most recently was a senior partner at law firm Latham & Watkins, where he co-founded the New York office and was chairman of the firm's international practice.
Fox-Pitt, Kelton Ltd. is handling the share placement on the Alternative Investment Market and will be the company's nominated adviser and broker. Execution Ltd. is acting as co-lead manager on the placement. The shares are expected to start trading around Oct. 16.
A similar company called Juridica Investments Ltd. listed its shares on AIM in December 2007, raising £80 million.
Write to Margot Patrick at margot.patrick@dowjones.com
Caveat/Disclosure: As a result of this prior post on May 24, 2009, I ended up receiving a call from Mr. Seidel to talk about the topic of litigation funding. As indicated in the prior post, it seems plain to me that litigation funding will become a dominant agent for change in litigation over the next decade. So, I invested the time to meet with Mr. Seidel a couple of times. The plans of Mr. Seidel and his colleagues make great sense to me, and I hope to work with them some day if the situation is right.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Green House Gas Ruling and More Regulations Ahead
The focus on greenhouse gases continues to increase. As I prepared to leave the country, the 2d Circuit issued its opinion allowing a greenhouse gas claim based on nuisance. The opinion is here.
In addition, environmental regulation of greenhouse gas reporting also is increasing. The Marten Group's always helpful website describes two new sets of proposed GHG regulations; one set from the U.S. EPA and one set from the State of Washington. The firm and Environ also are offering a free seminar on the topics - look for information in the upper right hand corner of the home page.
In addition, environmental regulation of greenhouse gas reporting also is increasing. The Marten Group's always helpful website describes two new sets of proposed GHG regulations; one set from the U.S. EPA and one set from the State of Washington. The firm and Environ also are offering a free seminar on the topics - look for information in the upper right hand corner of the home page.
Contingency Fees in Europe - Spain's Supreme Court Allows Contingency Fees and Thus Increases the Pressures on Other Nations
I'm back to work after enjoying about 10 days of travel in Europe. Each day of the trip revolved around law in one way or the other and provided some great opportinuties for learning It was great to meet new people and exchange ideas and information about legal systems and law around the world. On and off over the next couple of weeks, some posts here will provide brief comments on some of the exchanges relevant to tort litigation. If interested, read after the line below for more specifics on reasons for the trip and the resulting learning opportunities.
One new piece of knowledge gained is that Spain's Supreme Court ruled last November that contingency fees can not be prohibited and so are now legal in Spain. This news was provided by Albert Azagra Malo, a Spanish law school instructor who has written extensively on mass tort issues and this year was in Chicago to obtain an LLM from the University of Chicago. Albert is a great person and quite learned - you can find him here on LinkedIn.
Overall, the ruling in Spain makes the point that it's time to forget the old bromide that Europe will never allow contingent fees. UK countries and others already allow "uplift" fees that provide a modest fee through a fee multiplier, and the countries are are under increasing pressures to embrace pure contingency fees. Indeed, I spoke with an excellent UK defense lawyer who said he expects to see contngency fees adopted in the UK within the next few years. The ruling in Spain adds to the pressures because the gist of the ruling is that prohibiting contingency fees unduly restricts competition and imposes a minimum fee requirement. Here is a paper - in Spanish - that provides more specifics on the opinion. The SSRN abstract for the paper calls the ruling a revolutionary decision and explains the ruling as follows:
"Contingent fees have been traditionally prohibited in the Spanish legal system. However, on November 4th, 2008, the Spanish Supreme Court rendered a revolutionary decision on the issue. Under Competition Law, the Court quashed the prohibition under the reasoning that it affected competition by restricting the attorney and its client to freely set the price of the legal assistance and, therefore, imposing indirectly a minimum fee."
___________________________________________________________________
Among other things, two organized events provided opportunities for learning. One event was an asbestos litigation conference I chaired in London on asbestos claiming around the globe. The conference was attended by lawyers from Australia, UK, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Spain and France. We made the conference quite interactive and so everyone learned even more.
The second opportunity for learning was a meeting of 99 lawyers from 49 countries for the annual meeting of international law group known as the International Business Law Consortium. The IBLC provides global contacts and resources for medium and small law firms around the world. My law firm has been a member for about 4 years and the meetings, calls and emails offer a great way to meet excellent lawyers and learn more about what's happening in the real world. We also seek to refer work to each other, and thus last month I spent some time working with a lawyer in the Netherlands on trademark issues.
One new piece of knowledge gained is that Spain's Supreme Court ruled last November that contingency fees can not be prohibited and so are now legal in Spain. This news was provided by Albert Azagra Malo, a Spanish law school instructor who has written extensively on mass tort issues and this year was in Chicago to obtain an LLM from the University of Chicago. Albert is a great person and quite learned - you can find him here on LinkedIn.
Overall, the ruling in Spain makes the point that it's time to forget the old bromide that Europe will never allow contingent fees. UK countries and others already allow "uplift" fees that provide a modest fee through a fee multiplier, and the countries are are under increasing pressures to embrace pure contingency fees. Indeed, I spoke with an excellent UK defense lawyer who said he expects to see contngency fees adopted in the UK within the next few years. The ruling in Spain adds to the pressures because the gist of the ruling is that prohibiting contingency fees unduly restricts competition and imposes a minimum fee requirement. Here is a paper - in Spanish - that provides more specifics on the opinion. The SSRN abstract for the paper calls the ruling a revolutionary decision and explains the ruling as follows:
"Contingent fees have been traditionally prohibited in the Spanish legal system. However, on November 4th, 2008, the Spanish Supreme Court rendered a revolutionary decision on the issue. Under Competition Law, the Court quashed the prohibition under the reasoning that it affected competition by restricting the attorney and its client to freely set the price of the legal assistance and, therefore, imposing indirectly a minimum fee."
___________________________________________________________________
Among other things, two organized events provided opportunities for learning. One event was an asbestos litigation conference I chaired in London on asbestos claiming around the globe. The conference was attended by lawyers from Australia, UK, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Spain and France. We made the conference quite interactive and so everyone learned even more.
The second opportunity for learning was a meeting of 99 lawyers from 49 countries for the annual meeting of international law group known as the International Business Law Consortium. The IBLC provides global contacts and resources for medium and small law firms around the world. My law firm has been a member for about 4 years and the meetings, calls and emails offer a great way to meet excellent lawyers and learn more about what's happening in the real world. We also seek to refer work to each other, and thus last month I spent some time working with a lawyer in the Netherlands on trademark issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
