[PEN-L:34276] Re: Re: law and economics redux

[knowknot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On 1/30/03, andie nachgeborenen
<andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> When I was clerking on the federal district
> court in Chicago, there was an insurance
> dispute . . . whether the insurer would pay
> under a director's and officer's liability
> policy for the defense of a firm that had
> pleaded guilty to a criminal antitrust
> violation and, as part of the settlement of
> a interstate transportation of stolen property
> (a custimer list) against two officers, paid a
> lot of money to the gov't.
>
> I drafted the opinion,  referring to the firm
> as a "beehive of criminal activity," talking about
> "the general atmosphere of criminal disregard
> of the law," and referring often to the criminal
> liability and criminal violations.

It may be interesting that you neglect to report
how/why this characterization was important (or,
indeed, even relevant) to the decision at hand compared
with whether the wrong at issue (even if: a crime)
was/wasn't a covered occurrence as the policy defined
that (or whatever was its like) term.

> It was a summary judgment motion, granted in
> part, denied in part, they settled, and then the
> firm asked the judge to _withdraw her published
> opinion_ (with this language). She said, "I don't
> issue advisory opinions."