Bloomberg's -- And Tony Mauro's -- Takes On The "Kentucky Windage" From The Supremes

we said yesterday I'd post it, when accessible -- here it is, as reprinted in The Boston Globe online. we think this story appeared upon Bloomberg about twenty minutes after we detailed a potential for a majority line-up bearing a plaintiffs (on an additional board) -- based solely upon what we saw as a doubt evinced in a Justices' lines of questioning. In any event, a snippet:
. . . .Most of a nine justices referred to they are prepared to let shareholders sue Merck for purported dishonesty about a risks posed by Vioxx, which a association pulled from a market in 2004 because of links to heart attacks and strokes. . . .
In addition, Tony Mauro, essay for The National Law Journal, as posted over during law.com, ran a story last night, regulating a rather off-beat turn of phrase to describe tools of a fit (which turn of pharase appeared word for word in mine), about three hours after we ran cave (phrase bolded, below):
. . . .Merck. . . argued which there was sufficient justification of possible rascal in his client's statements about a anti-inflammatory drug in a public domain by September 2001. . . .

[Ed. Note: Tony went upon to comply thus:]

. . . .Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noting which Merck initially insisted there were other explanations for a increasing risk, said, "How would a most committed plaintiffs have gone about finding out whether Merck really had no good-faith belief" in those alternate theories. . . .

Justice Antonin Scalia additionally referred to which in a early stages there was "simply substantial justification of inaccuracy," not of a kind of rascal needed to trigger a bonds suit. . . .
My take? Ex-CEO Fred Hassan is starting to need which refurbished Newark-branch Warburg Pincus office/janitors' closet to be fully-operational by Christmas. Heh.