By Levick's Larry Smith – Bulletproof Blog – December 2, 2009
The following is the original text from the Bulletproof Blog feature.
In this regular feature, Bulletproof interviews top plaintiffs' attorneys for their perspective on the crises likely to affect businesses in the near future. Today we talk to Thomas R. Ajamie, managing partner of Houston, Texas-based Ajamie LLP, a global litigation firm equally distinguished on the defense and plaintiffs’ sides of major cases. As plaintiffs’ counsel, the firm has, in the last four to five years, won a dozen multi-million dollar judgments and settlements on behalf of business clients.
We spoke to Mr. Ajamie about key trends in commercial and business-to-business litigation.
Is there one particular macro dynamic that you see as decisive for business plaintiffs in today’s environment?
Thomas Ajamie: I would say that commercial litigation is being significantly changed because even the biggest companies in the world are looking for economic opportunities. Historically, law departments have been cost centers. Now, at companies like DuPont and Ford, inside counsel are fully intent on seeing their in-house departments get into the black and stay there.
Such companies are much more vigilant about bringing claims, including but not limited to antitrust claims. I’d add that these are not all necessarily stratospheric claims in terms of dollar amount. To the contrary, corporate counsel are not ignoring cases with potential recoveries of a couple of million dollars each. Those recoveries add up.
How specifically are you tapping into this growing demand?
Thomas Ajamie: It is now standard practice for us to do feasibility studies for our clients, in which we review multiple specific areas for possible actions. For some companies, the first step is a kind of education process to accustom them to the idea of being plaintiffs on an ongoing basis. They already do patent prosecutions and they bring suits to collect outstanding debts. It’s not such a big jump from there to antitrust and more complex litigation.
We get very specific in our outreach: Does your business rely on gross shipping? Do you use freight forwarders? Are you paying fuel surcharges on rail freight? Do you buy plastic hose? How dependent are you on steel manufacturers? We inquire into their drug prescription programs as well, all with an eye to trade violations of which they may be victims.
It’s no accident that antitrust violations increase dramatically in a bad economy where downward pressure on prices inspires price fixing collaborations. It’s also no accident that we’ve focused on services directly related to manufacturing and shipping, which are particularly distressed in this economy.
In October, you won $36 million plus treble RICO damages on behalf of the Mexican subsidiary of a global corporation. Does the case have longer-term significance for corporate plaintiffs or is it sui generis, considering the defendants were outright criminals?
Thomas Ajamie: I believe it is significant both generally and specifically. Generally, it shows what kind of trial lawyers corporations need these days, whichever side they’re on. The case was won in both the U.S. – in Laredo, Webb County, Texas – and Mexico. As the volume of such cross-border cases increases, there will be a real need for lawyers who can actually show a record of successes in foreign jurisdictions, and whose comfort levels in foreign jurisdictions are beyond doubt.
Specifically, this case raises the rather fascinating issue of suing criminal groups. It is becoming more of an issue for companies as the children and grand-children of powerful mobsters get MBAs and become CFOs or take other important business leadership positions abroad.
In this case, we secured the second largest verdict (and the largest judgment award) in the county’s history, but companies often hesitate to pursue such actions because they worry if the money will be collectable.
My message to them is that such cases are often very worth pursuing because, as the plaintiff, you have a powerful bargaining chip: publicity. Often, the defendant simply cannot afford the public spotlight that a lawsuit will ensure. The worse they are, the more leverage you may have.
Larry Smith is Senior Vice President of Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm, and a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog.
Original source website no longer available.
View on Archive.org