Jeffrey Pollock was quoted in the New Jersey Law Journal article "Suit Alleging Cahill Gordon Hid Asbestos Evidence Revived." While the full text can be found in the September 3, 2014, issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, a synopsis is noted below.
Cahill Gordon & Reindel faces a putative class action that alleges it conspired with a client to destroy and conceal evidence in an effort to subvert asbestos suits brought in state courts throughout the U.S.
A precedential ruling by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Williams v. BASF Catalyst partly overturned a lower court decision that had thrown out the case in its entirety.
Pollock, who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, applauded the court's "morally correct" position in refusing to apply the privilege but said, "I respectfully disagree that New Jersey [RICO] law is not broad enough to recognize a chosen action as a property right."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.