Plaintiff’s lawyers were attending “Baycol
school” to prepare for the actively solicited by mass little to reduce the pools cerivastatin claimants who
of plaintiffs’ attorneys, the number were aware of the availability of
compensation nor the number agreements provide any edge
future suits. the litigation
Nor would confidentiality by obscuring non-obvious
legal theories of liability or causation. Since cerivastatin were known and appreciated by all, of reducing liability exposure substantially by
the problems with there was little chance insisting on
In contrast, other pharmaceutical defendants confidentiality agreements in lower-profile cases.
have sought Pfizer used
Feldene litigation and McNeil used Zomax litigation (Weiser, 1988) (Walsh,
1988). Similarly, that resulted from
Xerox used confidentiality agreements to settle the leakage of trichloroethylene, a suspected
carcinogen, into ground water near Webster, NY (Weiser, 1989). these instances, defendants sought to reduce their liability by minimizing publicity. 38
because it had “predatory intent”.)
37 The combination of structured interviews and informal economic modeling was methodologically interesting because I could see if the defendant’s reasoning actually resembled the logic of the economic
In other words, did Bayer’s general counsel eschew
schedule of payments or did it do so for some
other reason wholly this case, the assumption
of economic rationality seemed logic of the decisionmakers at model.
generally warranted: I found that the Bayer generally followed that of the
38 In that instance, the secrecy provision prevented cooperation with public health authorities.