|
|
Enron Mail |
FYI.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:45:10 -0500 From: "Carrin Patman" <cpatman@bracepatt.com< To: <nmanne@susmangodfrey.com< Subject: Re: Charlie Silver Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline I would hope he would at least want to read the Supreme Court briefs on the merits, since without reading those, he has no way of knowing whether he can be of any help to us, since unless they try another failsafe class, the "no brainer" issue is already behind us. To be helpful, he needs to feel comfortable opining, in part, that: (i) a common issue, as that term is used in Rule 42, must be one that advances resolution of liability or damages in the litigation; (ii) there is no common issue at all here if we are right that answering whether the Dow Waiver Agreements were sales does not lead to resolution of the ultimate issue; (iii) the predominance requirement has teeth -- certification is only appropriate where the common issue(s) will consume most of the time and energy of the parties in the litigation; (iv) adverse interests between the parties defeat commonality; (v) the type of adversity that defeats commonality arises here, for the reasons described in our brief; (vi) there is serious doubt that a class should be certified where there is no viable claim to begin with (why put the parties through it?). Is he at UT Law? If so, I'll just fed ex the stuff there. <<< <nmanne@susmangodfrey.com< 04/07/00 11:15AM <<< Silver will meet with me when I am in Austin on April 28 at 2:00. CFP and I are to call him on the morning of the 17th before 10:00 a.m., to see if he can work us in that day instead. 512-471-4153. He has not read the S Ct opinion, but described it as a "no brainer" based on his discussions with others (classic law school professor: an opinion on a case he hasn't read!). I will send him what he wants to read before our meeting, which is not much.
|