‘Our Work In the News’ Section

Weyerhaeuser to appeal decision in class action lawsuit

Weyerhaeuser to appeal jury decision in class action lawsuit claiming unlawful monopoly

CNNMoney.com

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - Weyerhaeuser Co. said late Monday it plans to appeal a jury decision in a class action lawsuit claiming that the forest products company unlawfully monopolized a market for finished alder lumber.

Weyerhaeuser said a jury in Portland, Ore., awarded the plaintiffs about $28 million.

"We are very disappointed with the verdict," said Sandy D. McDade, senior vice president and general counsel in a statement. "Our business conduct has been and remains within the spirit and letter of the law, and we will continue to vigorously defend this case."

Weyerhaeuser shares fell $1.20 to $64.97 in morning trading.

Forest firm fined for alder log monopoly

Lumber - Weyerhaeuser will appeal the $84 million award, the biggest antitrust verdict ever in Oregon or Washington
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
AMY HSUAN

The Oregonian Staff

A Portland federal jury has ordered Weyerhaeuser to pay almost $28 million for unlawfully monopolizing the market for finished alder lumber in a case filed four years ago by a Bend wood products company.

Under federal antitrust law, the award will be tripled to $84 million, making it the biggest-ever antitrust verdict in Oregon or Washington.

The company, based in Federal Way, Wash., said after the Monday award that it would appeal.

"We are confident it will be reversed on appeal because last year the U.S. Supreme Court decided in our favor a case presenting virtually identical issues," said Sandy D. McDade, Weyerhaeuser senior vice president and general counsel. "We fully expect that the Court of Appeals will apply that precedent."

Morelock Enterprises Inc. of Bend filed the suit four years ago and it was later granted class-action status, representing 400 to 500 businesses that use alder logs to produce finished goods.

Morelock alleged that by controlling alder logs, Weyerhaeuser was able to monopolize the market for finished alder, driving up prices and eliminating the competition.

Weyerhaeuser is one of the largest U.S. forest products companies, with $16.3 billion in sales in 2007 and more than 40,000 employees in 13 countries.

Stephen Crew of Portland-based firm O’Donnell, Clark and Crew, representing the plaintiffs, said the company cornered the market of alder logs and drove up prices by an average of 7.5 percent between 2000 and 2006.

In the case, Crew argued that alder lumber is its own market, distinct from other hardwoods, because of its use in specialty materials such as guitars and cabinets. In addition, red alders grow mainly in the Pacific Northwest.

"If you lock up the market for alder saw logs in the Pacific Northwest, you lock up the market for alder logs in the world," Crew said. "If you increase the prices for alder by 5 percent, companies are not going to switch to another hardwood. There is no substitute for alder, and that meets the definition of a market."

The damages awarded to the plaintiffs will be based on how much they overpaid Weyerhaeuser for materials between 2000 and 2006. According to the case, Weyerhaeuser earned $37 million more than it would have had the market been competitive.

The verdict follows on the heels of another case against Weyerhaeuser filed by a competitor, alleging that the company monopolized the alder market. However, the U.S. Supreme Court last year tossed out the $79 million judgment against Weyerhaeuser, saying that large firms could stockpile raw materials for legitimate reasons.

In that suit, a Longview, Wash., company, Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., claimed that Weyerhaeuser paid too much for alder logs it didn’t need to corner the market and with the goal of driving competitors out of business. Ross-Simmons went out of business in 2001.

Crew said that while the Ross-Simmons case and the Morelock case were based on similar facts, the two rest on distinctively different arguments. The Ross-Simmons case was brought on by a company competing for the logs. The Morelock case was brought on by companies using those logs for consumer products.

Weyerhaeuser bought up so many alder logs that consumers had no choice but to buy from the company, which then charged higher prices, Crew said.

"We feel pretty confident that it’s very different from the Ross-Simmons case." Crew said. "We weren’t representing competitors. We were representing consumers who were paying too much because there wasn’t competition." The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Amy Hsuan: 503-294-5137; amyhsuan@news.oregonian.com

Portland Archdiocese releases 20,000 documents on the priest sex abuse scandal

Portland Archbishop John Vlazny says the unscheduled release of the documents has nothing to do with Pope Benedict XVI’s U.S. visit
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
ASHBEL S. GREEN
The Oregonian Staff

In a surprise move Tuesday, Portland Archbishop John Vlazny released 2,000 pages of documents on priests accused of sexually abusing Oregon children.

Vlazny described the release in a statement as "part of the healing process and in the interest of transparency."

Bud Bunce, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Portland, said the release had nothing to do with Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the United States or the pope’s apology for the priest sexual abuse scandal.

ortland attorneys who have filed sexual abuse suits against the archdiocese said they were baffled by the unscheduled release, which comes less than two weeks after one round of failed mediation and a day before another is set to start.

"I don’t know how the archdiocese thinks," said attorney Kelly Clark, who represents dozens of people who say they were sexually abused by priests. "I just don’t get it."

Erin Olson, another plaintiff’s attorney who is scheduled to begin mediation today, also said she has no idea what was in the new batch of documents. But Olson said she doubts the release includes documents that name priests who haven’t been identified and are still working in parishes.

In 2004, the Portland archdiocese became the first in the country to seek bankruptcy protection from priest sexual abuse litigation. A 2007 settlement plan set aside about $70 million for priest accusers. And Vlazny promised to release church personnel files involving abusive priests.

The archdiocese released a batch of documents a few months later, but lawyers for the church and plaintiffs’ attorneys have been fighting over what else to release ever since.

In his statement, Vlazny explained that he opposed releasing documents involving priests where the accusations were weak or uncorroborated.

"We have made what we believe is a fair decision on document disclosure based on sound guiding principles and will continue on this course," Vlazny wrote. "We hope that the continuing release of documents in the spirit of healing and reconciliation will bring peace to the lives of those who have been harmed."

To read the documents, go to www.archdiocesedocuments.org/Documents.html

You can reach Ashbel S. (Tony) Green at 503-221-8202 or by e-mail at tonygreen@news.oregonian.com.

Portland Archdiocese releases priest files

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. -- A year after the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland settled its bankruptcy case for about $50 million, it has released more of its files on priests accused of sex abuse -- including some confidential personnel records.

The documents were expected to be released shortly after the settlement. But negotiations over the release stalled, sending the church and lawyers for the victims back to federal bankruptcy court.

An attorney for some of the alleged abuse victims criticized the latest release as piecemeal and said the archdiocese failed to provide any explanation or tie the documents together in a meaningful way for victims or the public.

"This is not the way to do it," said Kelly Clark. "This is how you do it if you want to frustrate that purpose."

Clark also said that releasing the documents out of context makes it look like the church did not find out about the alleged abuse in many cases until much later than it actually received complaints.

Mediation sessions on the release have been continuing before both sides were scheduled to head to U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan to ask for a decision. Hogan was one of two judges who mediated the settlement.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris sealed most of the documents after the archdiocese became the first Catholic diocese in the nation to file for bankruptcy protection in July 2004.

She has scheduled hearings for arguments on lifting her order but is not expected to rule until October.

Archbishop John Vlazny says he authorized the release of about 2,000 pages of additional documents on Tuesday as "part of the healing process and in the interest of transparency."

Archdiocese Deal Breaking Down In Dispute Over Documents

By Pete Springer

OPB.com

Attorney Kelly Clark is representing more than a hundred abuse victims. He says nearly a year after reaching a legal settlement with the Archdiocese of Portland, very few documents have actually been released.

Clark says the release of the documents was key to settling the sex abuse lawsuits.

Kelly Clark: “We want the public to be able to learn what the archdiocese of Portland knew about sex abuse and when they knew it.  That’s all we’re saying, release the documents you said you’d release.”

However, there is no specific deadline for releasing these documents.

A spokesman for the archdiocese says they haven’t released everything because some of the documents are under a protective order and contain names and medical records of priests not involved in the lawsuit.

Clark withdrew from negotiations with the Archdiocese after it requested full names of abuse victims -- rather than just initials -- be used in court documents.  

The case heads back to court in March and will enter mediation in April.

Judge reverses ruling in Measure 37 case

Property rights - Measure 49 voids $750,000 in damages awarded to a couple
Saturday, January 26, 2008
ERIC MORTENSON
The Oregonian Staff

A Northwest Portland couple who won $750,000 in damages in the first trial of a Measure 37 property development claim saw it disappear Thursday when a judge dismissed the case.

The ruling may foreshadow the fate of several pending land-use lawsuits.

Judge Jerry Hodson of Multnomah County Circuit Court essentially reversed himself. He had ruled in November after a six-day trial that county and state land-use laws restricted the use of Larry and Laura Luethe’s property and reduced its value.

The couple filed a Measure 37 claim in 2005, seeking to build a nine-lot subdivision off Northwest Skyline Boulevard under rules that existed when they acquired the property in 1973. Multnomah County turned them down, so the couple filed suit in 2006.

The case went to trial in November 2007, and the judge initially ruled in their favor. But Hodson ruled Thursday that Measure 49, which rolled back development rights allowed under the earlier measure, could be applied retroactively and made the Luethe’s case moot.

Voters approved Measure 49 in November, and it took effect Dec. 6.

"I recognize the seeming unfairness of applying a new law to a party who has relied upon existing law in a pending action," Hodson wrote. Nonetheless, the ballot language of Measure 49 clearly intended it to be applied retroactively to Measure 37 cases, he said.

The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled in other cases that the Legislature may retroactively amend state statute, the judge said.

The law firm representing the Luethes called the ruling a disappointment. The judge’s opinion was based on Supreme Court rulings that don’t apply to the Luethes’ "unique circumstances," attorney Mark O’Donnell said in a news release. He said the decision is ripe for appeal.

Larry Luethe said he didn’t know what to make of the judge’s decision. "He was in our favor all along, then all of a sudden -- bingo -- he rules against us."

Attorneys for the state and county filed motions asking Hodson to dismiss the Luethe case after Measure 49 took effect. He sided with them.

Similar rulings might await several other pending Measure 37 lawsuits, said Ralph Bloemers, an attorney with CRAG law center in Portland. Measure 37 claimants are "being encouraged to throw good money after bad" in pursuing their claims, he said.

They should proceed under the development standards allowed under Measure 49, he said.

Judge rules against Portland couple in Measure 37 case

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A Multnomah County judge has ruled against a Portland couple in a land-use case that could be a taste of things to come in Oregon’s long-running struggle with the issue.

Judge Jerry Hodson says he recognizes that it may seem unfair, but he ruled against Larry and Laura Luethe in the suit they brought in hopes of developing a nine-lot subdivision.

They had filed a claim to develop the land under the 2004 initiated Measure 11.

And last year, Hodson sided with them after a trial.

But state and local officials asked him to dismiss the case after the new initiated Measure 49 passed in November.

The couple’s lawyer says they will appeal.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Couple prevail in property claim

Land use - The case falls in the murky ground separating Measure 37 and its revision, Measure 49
Friday, November 16, 2007
ERIC MORTENSON
The Oregonian Staff

In a rare decision that may be one of the last salvos of the Measure 37 property-rights battle, a Multnomah County judge ruled Wednesday that county and state land-use laws had restricted the use of a couple’s rural Northwest Portland property and reduced its value by $750,000.

Attorneys representing Larry and Laura Luethe, who sought to build a nine-lot subdivision off Northwest Skyline Boulevard, said the county and state must either pay the damage amount or waive the zoning that kept the Luethes from developing the property. The state and county must pay the couple’s attorney fees and court costs in either case, attorneys Stephen Crew and Kristian Roggendorf said.

Larry Luethe, 63, a retired excavator, said battling the land- use system for the past couple of years has been extremely frustrating. He and his wife, who had not spent time in a courtroom before the weeklong trial, welcomed the decision by Judge Jerry Hodson.

(more…)

Judge rules for landowners in Measure 37 lawsuit

Posted by The Oregonian

November 15, 2007

In a rare decision that may be one of the last salvos of the Measure 37 property rights battle, a Multnomah County judge ruled Wednesday that county and state land use laws restricted a couple’s use of their rural Northwest Portland property and reduced its value by $750,000.

Attorneys representing Larry and Laura Luethe, who wanted to build a nine-lot subdivision off Northwest Skyline Boulevard, said the county and state must pay the damage amount or waive the zoning regulation that kept the Luethes from developing the property.

The case is significant because it emerged from the murky legal ground separating Measure 37, the 2004 property rights measure, and Measure 49, the revision approved by voters in the Nov. 6 election. Measure 49 drastically rolled back development rights, prohibiting the large subdivisions and industrial and commercial development that many property owners had sought to build under Measure 37.

Under Measure 49, claimants will be limited to three homesites, or four to 10 if they can prove by appraisal that land use laws sufficiently devalued their property.
-- Eric Mortenson
ericmortenson@news.oregonian.com

Adding to ‘this great darkness’

The Oregonian

Sunday, October 28, 2007

The Portland Archdiocese has lost its mind.

As if determined to prove it has learned nothing from past sins, and those of its priests, the archdiocese is demanding that a new group claiming to be victims of clergy abuse should be compelled to abandon their pseudonyms and go public with their identities.

Only last June, Catholic Archbishop John Vlazny apologized for the burdens carried by "the victims of sexual abuse" and conceded, "By our reluctance to bring light to this great darkness, we as a people have sinned."

The time for penance and reconciliation, apparently, has ended. This legal maneuver is an exasperating move to bully these plaintiffs and intimidate future ones.

(more…)