Tail that Wags the Hog
Bratz dolls, it would appear, are material girls.
The September 10, 2008 Los Angeles Daily Journal leads with this story: "Doll Case Legal Services Costing a Pretty Penny." Jason W. Armstrong, the Daily Journal Staff Writer, reports, "[t]he combined legal fees of MGA Entertainment and rival Mattel Inc. in the ongoing Bratz doll case have risen to at least $93 million so far, making the litigation among the costliest in the state."
Lest one leap to an unsupported conclusion, Mr. Armstrong points out that this is far from the most expensive litigation ever. Earlier this week, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins in San Diego received court approval for $688 million in attorney’s fees for its work on the $7.2 billion settlement in the Enron litigation.
In a perfect world, $93,000,000 might go some way towards curing malaria in Africa, or providing school lunches in California. But Bratz dolls have needs that must not be overlooked, and evidently a hefty litigation budget must be included among those needs.
Interestingly, the fee amounts were not disclosed in the ordinary course of discovery in the Bratz doll case. Instead, the Daily Journal reports that MGA revealed the fee information when it filed suit against several of its insurance carriers for – you guessed it – failing to pay the company’s attorney’s fees. And Mattel’s fee costs were disclosed by a stock analyst taking part in a conference call with company executives. You can’t make this stuff up.
Mr. Armstrong quotes Frederick "Rick" L. McKnight of Jones Day’s LA office as saying the fees incurred thus far are "breathtaking."
"Breathsucking" might be more like it.
